The code that is DNA

[Yukon_Jack]

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.

[brewer]

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.

Exactly how does this require/relate to a supernatural intelligent being?

[Rhizomorph13]

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.

I accept that DNA is code. I'll give you that one. I understand that it is complex and there isn't anything like it in nature.
Snowflakes are complex and unique unto themselves but they, like DNA, are created through emergent properties of physics.

Now define your God and explain the mechanism by which you understand it to exist.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why do code gotta follow dumb limber jack rulez?

[Gwaithmir]

Aren’t you curious that NOWHERE in nature does a code just create itself ?
Especially one that has a translation system and error correction system.
This at the very least is problematic to your foundations.
DNA works just like computer code, not an analogy but gets processed from a symbolic sequence into a working end product.
Again the order of nucleotides is NOT a product of the laws of chemistry, so then how did the sequence manifest?

Read my previous post.

[The Valkyrie]

And don’t tell me, everything needs a designer except, conveniently, the designer?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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:

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

[LastPoet]

I doubt @Yukon_Jack can explain the desoxiribonucleic acid molecule by his own words, that he has the knowledge to posit his ideas.

But you know, we are aproaching Xmas and its normal for theists to come pester us with their drivel around this time.

[no one]

Maybe potato brain comes from the same farm as the Cdfster.

[Little lunch]

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

If I can prove that Buddha did it, will you become a Buddhist?
Was it rationality that brought you to your current belief system?
You know it wasn't and rationality won't make you an atheist either.

Anyway, I'd rather you use science to prove some of the things out of the bible.
Like how cutting hair robs a person of most of their strength.
Perhaps how a different climate allowed people to live for a thousand years.
How rain can drown a whole planet for forty days.
Prove that shit and I will become a xtian. :-)