Originally posted by melatonin
What is the encoding/decoding mechanism in DNA? It is a template for proteins. If I take a strand of it and put it in a test-tube, it will do nothing. It is a part of a dynamic process or just a long string of amino acids. DNA itself 'codes' nowt.

It contains no symbols, it does not represent another thing by association. Language is essential totally arbitrary and abstract, DNA is only partly arbitrary and not abstract.

You are completely ignoring the research that shows DNA does not exhibit the characteristics of a language. DNA and the proteins it produces are physical objects who functionality is based in their chemical properties.

Is DNA “kind of like” a language? Or it truly a language?
DNA is not just a molecule or collection of proteins. DNA is an encoding / decoding mechanism in which instructions for the assembly of a complete organism are symbolically represented by a four-letter alphabet (A, T, C, G). In the same way that English has a 26-letter alphabet and computer languages have a two letter alphabet (1, 0), DNA has four symbols.
And just like a human language or a computer language, DNA symbolically represents very precise instructions. A very useful analogy can be drawn between human language and DNA. A single base pair represents something less than a letter; it’s more like a 1 or 0 in computer languages. (It takes seven ones and zeros to represent one ASCII character, for example.)
A small group of base pairs form a nucleotide, which is the DNA equivalent of a character.

Are you in effect saying that if I can prove to you DNA is a code then you will believe in ID? (better not have a look at this link)
www.cosmicfingerprints.com...

Originally posted by melatonin
Water contains the 'instructions' of how to create a snowflake.

Originally posted by melatonin
And even if I did accept that DNA is a true code, it is still a further challenge for you to show that only intelligence can produce a true code/language.

Originally posted by melatonin
As I said, who designed english? I think it sort of emerged. I still don't see Bees sitting around designing a waggle-dance. Do you?

Originally posted by melatonin
DNA is not involved in any message, it does not contain arbitrary symbols..

Originally posted by melatonin
You are equivocating here between a true code (symbols and arbitrary associations, a message between a sender and receiver), and the metaphorical code of DNA. DNA is not communicating at all, it is just blindly involved in the production of proteins. It is pure chemistry, just like Benzene.
Where is the encoding process?

[Perry Marshall] describes the DNA-mRNA-proteome communication system to show its isomorphism with the standard communication system of the communication engineer. The genome, or the ensemble of genetic messages, is generated by a stationary Markov process and recorded in the DNA sequence, which is isomorphic with the tape in a tape-recording machine (Turing, 1936).

“The decoding of the genetic message from the DNA alphabet to the mRNA alphabet is called transcription in molecular biology. mRNA plays the role of the channel, which communicates the genetic message to the ribosomes, which serve as the decoder. The genetic message is decoded by the ribosomes from the 64 letter mRNA alphabet to the 20 letter alphabet of the proteome. This decoding process is called translation in molecular biology… (Ribosomes) act like the reading head on a tape machine (Turing, 1936). The protein molecule, which is the destination, is also a tape. Thus, the one-dimensional genetic message is recorded in a sequence of amino acids, which folds up to become a 3-dimensional active protein molecule. One is reminded of the linear signals that fold up to show a 2-dimensional picture on the television screen.”

(From Hubert Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

Originally posted by melatonin
And, TBH Amenti, I'd rather have your thoughts than those of Perry Marshall, who even fails to realise that evolution is not a random process. And I'm quite sure that Herbert Yockey does not conclude there is an intelligent designer.

Briefly, it looks like ancient Germanic peoples did.
en.wikipedia.org...

no it doesn't. It acts according to the laws inherent in nature.
are you just buying time, or do you truly not see the difference between water and DNA, Language, sheet music. etc.

Even if English was built by a large group it was still built. Modern Chinese was more a one man job. This argument is silly. Bees don’t have to have an intellectual discourse to produce the bee dance code. They are intelligent and as intelligent beings are part of the only known causes for code. Its quite beautiful really and Im sad their all dying.

You seem awfully confident for someone that has (like me) absolutely no clue where DNA came from or how it could have initially appeared without itself.

I will repost this because it answers your questions if you just let it.

As a matter of personal opinion I think its you who fails to realize that it is NOT a random process, and therein lies the problem, and its the reason we are having this conversation in the first place.

Yockey didn’t have to, his work speaks for itself

I think you have forgotten my original definition of coded information, from the very beginning of this thread: I define "Coded information" as a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message that is independent of the communication medium. In Earth’s magnetic field (or rhodopsin, or layers of ice on the South Pole, or whatever), there is no decoding mechanism. Framing it within Shannon’s model, you arguably have a transmitter but you still do not have a receiver. With DNA you have both.

This does not constitute a decoding mechanism, because no meaning is assigned to the particle orientation by a decoder within the system. To you and I, perhaps these things have meaning, maybe even a great deal of meaning. But within the system, no. This is no different than ice / water. Does ice in cold temperature and water in warm temperature constitute an encoding / decoding system? No, because there is no decoder. Same with the orientation of these magnetic particles – there is no decoding system there either.

1. Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.
2. DNA's definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960's.
3. DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages
4. DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon's 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins.
5. Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code.

You have an a priori philosophical commitment that there is no God, which informs even your rejection of the term “genetic code�? as literal and that is your choice. Nevertheless an intelligent designer is the only available explanation for coded information and the origin of life. The implications of that are yours to deal with as you choose.

Friday, 14 September 2007
Russian Human Genome Project discovers Extraterrestrial abilities to modify DNA through a 'biological internet'

'Some recent Russian DNA discoveries documented by Grazyna Fosar and Franz Bludorf in their book Vernetzte Intelligenz have been summarised by Baerbel. ‘The human DNA is a biological Internet’ with evidence that DNA can be ‘influenced and reprogrammed by words and frequencies.’

This suggests that ‘our DNA is not only responsible for the construction of our body, but also serves as data storage and communication.’ The Russian scientists and linguists have found that the genetic code ‘follows the same rules as all our human languages.’ In effect, human language did not appear coincidentally but is a reflection of our DNA.'

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by chickeneater

---

you're right, all spiritual explanations are equally nonsensical.