'Seeking' God

[Mister Agenda]

There are multiple overlapping codes in DNA. These codes can translate DNA into many different types of critical functions and instructions using the same series of letters. So these letters have different meanings according to the rules used to translate them I would say this sufficiently qualifies for a level of abstraction to the overall code, not that this is actually a requirement to identify DNA as a langauge.

A language is a system of arbitrary signals used to communicate thoughts and feelings. DNA is not just instructions, it is like a robotic assembly line that makes the tools to build other tools and make other robots like itself as well as robots that do different things, including building even more robots to do even more things, and together they all build and maintain a collective mechanism aimed at getting another collective going. If you want to call all that a language in order to bring it down to a level you can understand, I can sympathize...but even if there is a designer, DNA is not a language because it doesn't speak to anyone one, it just assembles molecules.

The point about the transfer of DNA is, it can be copied and copied back with no loss of information.

DNA is not a perfect mechanism for storing information, each of us carries, on average, dozens of mutations. It's a tiny percentage, but it's not perfection.

It doesn't matter if I can get an organism from the DNA code on a computer disk. If this post was found by a civilization that had no record of the english language, would it cease to be english because no one could translate it?

That isn't relevant. DNA is both the blueprint and the factory and that is not what a language is.

I'll say it this way. There isn't a natural process to create that information, and all the information we have ever observed comes only from minds. Further, the information in DNA fits into categories of things which contain information, such as codes and languages. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude the information in DNA came from a mind.

You assert there isn't a natural process to create that information, although it is well-understood by biologists. The information in DNA came from the environment of the organism it is contained in, and again, the process by which this happens is well-understood (it's currently called the Modern Synthesis). Not wanting them to be true has no effect on the facts.

I don't believe in theistic evolution. I take a literal view on Genesis.

Fair enough, but you can't supplant the theory of evolution with something that explains less, assumes more, doesn't lead to further discoveries, and doesn't fit the physical evidence as well.

Also excellent evidence for a common designer.

Actually, a variety of novel patterns and mediums would be evidence for an omnisicent and omnipotent designer. This evidence, at best, indicates that if there is a designer, its work is about what we would expect from a team of mortal designers with more advanced technology than we have (maybe 100 years in advance of us should suffice), and varying goals and degrees of competency.

It's easy to say that because we can toy around with the design and make things happen, but that's quite a bit different from getting to the design in the first place. It would be like expecting C++ to emerge from a calculus. Spontaneous generation of life has never once been observed happening anywhere, and the sophistication of the cell, and the DNA molecule cannot be accounted for by darwinian processes.

---

It's easy to say that given millions of times more time and the right conditions, a self-replicating molecule could form. We've already had RNA form in the lab merely by setting up the right initial conditions. Darwinian processes act on anything that self-replicates, including a non-living molecule, which provides the bridge from the first self-replicator to cells, given hundreds of millions of years. Again, you're asserting that these processes can't account for the thing that's exactly what they account for. And why even bring it up? It's not as though if researchers concocted a soup that led to life forming spontaneously that you would start thinking that's what actually happened.