(December 3, 2019 at 1:14 pm)Yukon_Jack Wrote: You must denounce dna as being a code or else your foundation is severely shaken
Here’s some logic for you:
Code is defined as the rules of communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.
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.
DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages
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.
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.
Stop moving those goalposts, it's going to be hard on your back.
You said earlier:
Quote:Just give one other example of nature being able to produce a code at all. Never mind one with a translation mechanism and error correction, I don’t want to burden you with that part. Just one and I’ll become an atheist
Brewer gave you exactly what you asked for (more actually, since you were given two). And now this isn't good enough. You want DNA denounced as a code.
You want DNA to be a code. Fine, let's call it a code. TWO other codes produced by nature have been presented to you. You are now an atheist.
Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson