This whole discussion about language is pointless.
You are asserting that language has qualities a, b, and c.
Then you are recognizing qualities a and b within DNA, and assuming that c must follow.
You are moving in and out of using a formal system of definitions and an informal one of examples, and because you keep moving between the two you are never recognizing that DNA does not demonstrably fit every quality of the word language you have given it.
You are asserting that language has qualities a, b, and c.
Then you are recognizing qualities a and b within DNA, and assuming that c must follow.
You are moving in and out of using a formal system of definitions and an informal one of examples, and because you keep moving between the two you are never recognizing that DNA does not demonstrably fit every quality of the word language you have given it.