• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

DNA Code...Proof of a Divine Creator?

SweatyYeti

Master Poster
SweatyYeti
Joined
Dec 1, 2006
Messages
2,919
The subject of this thread is whether the DNA molecules, in a living cell, function as a Code....in the same way that the Binary Code in a computer functions....(or any code, for that matter)....carrying intelligently encoded information....or, if DNA functions purely as a simple, straight-forward chemical reaction.


Any Code requires a Code-Maker....a Designer, for it to be able to function, and transfer meaningful information.

Here are samples of DNA Code and Binary Code sequences...looking quite similar...


DNABinaryCode1.jpg




Now...looking first at Binary Code...

This chart shows how Binary Code is set-up....the two digits (1 and 0) are assigned...(by the Code-Maker)...certain numerical values...(i.e...given meaning)...


binarycodechart2.jpg




An important aspect of the Code is that...in order for the digits to have any meaning (carry/transfer information), they must be read in certain...and precise....groupings.


Individually.....the digits carry no meaning, at all.


This graphic shows the digits in groupings of 4...(I highlighted 2 voltage levels on the analog signal)....and how an analog signal is converted into a digital signal...


AnalogDigital1.jpg



If the string of 1's and 0's were to be read in any other way than in the precise grouping shown, the information encoded would be 'lost'...the string of digits would have no meaning.


As an everyday example....if a music cd...(which contains analog music, en-coded within a long string of binary digits)...were to be read by sampling the binary digits in random groupings...all that would be heard would be random noises...no meaningful information/music.



Now...looking at DNA Code...

Here is a chart showing the nucleotide bases (A,G,T,C) in groupings of three...or, 'triplets'.....known as 'Codons'...


DNACodeChart2.jpg


Link to the webpage it came from...

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/Codons.html


These groupings are another similarity between DNA Code, and Binary Code.



Here is a link to an article, written by a computer programmer, in which he explains the similarities he sees, between the two Codes...

http://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/


Here's just one excerpt from it, for now....(another similarity)...


Position Independent Code...

Dynamically linked libraries (.so under Unix, .dll on Microsoft) code cannot use static addresses internally because the code may appear in different places in memory in different situations.
DNA has this too, where it is called 'transposing code':
Nearly half of the human genome is composed of transposable elements or jumping DNA. First recognized in the 1940s by Dr. Barbara McClintock in studies of peculiar inheritance patterns found in the colors of Indian corn, jumping DNA refers to the idea that some stretches of DNA are unstable and "transposable," ie., they can move around -- on and between chromosomes.

http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis/resource/people.html
Click to expand...


More to come...:)...
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
The subject of this thread is whether the DNA molecules, in a living cell, function as a Code....in the same way that the Binary Code in a computer functions....(or any code, for that matter)....carrying intelligently encoded information....or, if DNA functions purely as a simple, straight-forward chemical reaction.


Any Code requires a Code-Maker....a Designer, for it to be able to function, and transfer meaningful information.
Click to expand...

I think we can stop right there. Forget the "transfer meaningful information"; all biochemical processes do that if they are functional; if not, they disappear. DNA surely functions like a code, but what is a code? It is just an example of a procedure, a method of getting from here to there. The idea is to create proteins, made up of strings of amino acids, of which twenty or so are actually used by Earth life (out of the many more that are chemically possible). Given that, it is possible that life may have done it with DNA that is fashioned out of ten base pairs rather than two. It might have used a base four encoding rather than base three, and if I knew more about biochemistry I'm sure I could have come up with many other schemes. That it happened on this scheme does not have to be explained by magic.

How does a protein work? How does insulin do it's job? are there other possibilities than the insulin we use in our bodies (I know the answer to that one is yes)? Why did it choose the one it actually uses? How come cows can use a different one, and yet theirs works in us as well?

I know the analogy: "Codes" are only produced by intelligence. If we can then prove that DNA is a "code", then it has to be intelligently designed. If you call it a sequence instead, then it doesn't have the cache a code has. But if it is non-unique (there are other ways of performing the task), what makes it a code? Will this argument, bent on the semantics of that word, even work in a different language? Now, there's a question.

The mechanism that DNA uses was developed over some 2 billion years of time through the standard methods of evolution. Eventually one eukaryote got it right, and DNA was so useful, with the right amount of ability to mutate without mutating too much that it out-competed all it's rivals world wide and became THE way to prosper. What is so hard to understand about that? No need for an intelligence to drive it; it's just another biochemical procedure honed to good, though not perfect, function.
 
SweatyYeti said:
The subject of this thread is whether the DNA molecules, in a living cell, function as a Code....in the same way that the Binary Code in a computer functions....(or any code, for that matter)....carrying intelligently encoded information....or, if DNA functions purely as a simple, straight-forward chemical reaction.
Click to expand...

Firstly, it's not my intention to dissuade you from studying human DNA, or as you refer to it, 'the DNA Code'. Studying is always good.

However, I should point out that most of your post was quite unnecessary. It has a lot of images, a lot of links, but most of it doesn't actually address the topic - whether or not DNA is proof of a 'divine creator'. It's unnecessary for you to include explanations of what DNA or binary code consist of - that information is available elsewhere, and since you're not an expert in either field, you're likely to make some mistakes in your presentation.

The actual arguments you're making are more or less contained in your first few paragraphs:

Any Code requires a Code-Maker....a Designer, for it to be able to function, and transfer meaningful information.
Click to expand...

This is your main assertion. It, however, makes several assumptions:

1) DNA is a 'code' - how do you define a 'code', here?
2) A code requires a designer - what's your basis for claiming this?
3) A code 'functions' somehow - one could argue that a code, itself, does nothing, although it is often 'read' by something else
4) There's such a thing as 'meaningful' (and presumably non-meaningful) information. How does one tell the difference?

Before posting more high school science on DNA, you should try and provide basis for these assumptions. Otherwise, you won't be able to satisfactorily prove anything.

Here are samples of DNA Code and Binary Code sequences...looking quite similar...
Click to expand...

And this is another problem in your argumentation. It's not that DNA and a computer hard drive looks similar. Their representations, both made by humans, look similar. There's a big difference that you appear to be missing.

The words 'phone' and 'bone' look quite similar. Do you consider this evidence that there must be some fundamental similarity between bones and phones? Your 'similarity' between DNA and binary is no different.

<snip>
Click to expand...


More to come...:)...
Click to expand...

Great. However, I strongly recommend you address the points I mentioned before moving into new areas.
 
DNA Code...Proof of a Divine Creator?
Click to expand...

Wow. Superman may be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, but that's nothing compared to the leap you're making there.

Anyone else notice that all these god arguments always seem to come down to the whole "god of the gaps" thing? That and lots and lots of strawmans.
 
Last edited:
The problem with the comparison revolves around meaning. A pattern that is read 'out of order' isn't random at all. But it doesn't capture the meaning intended by the original programmer (or designer). Without knowing ahead of time, I cannot say whether a sequence of binary digits has 'meaning' or not. It may be some sequence that I just do not understand, but in some context is quite important and consequential.

Without imputing meaning into DNA sequences, we are left with the same type of guesswork. It is no good to say that what DNA seems to be doing is what is intended, no more than you could know whether this next sequence is random and only appears meaningful or is actually meaningful: 3,6,9, 12
Is that some mathematical sequence? The start of my phone number? The number of Ts that happen to fall between Gs in some codon? You can't tell without knowing quite a bit about context.

Meaning cannot be derived by simple observation alone. You have to know something about how the process works in practice and why. I have seen clouds that look like rabbits (and dolphins!) but I know how clouds form, so I am not fooled into thinking they are other than random groups that happen to appear non-random. Without knowing how clouds form, I could not make this statement at all.

It's a good question though, worth considering. But like many good questions, the easy answer is probably the wrong one. You have to look deeper.
 
Even if DNA suggested it had been created by an intelligent being (it doesn't), what suggests that being is a god?
 
SweatyYeti said:
Any Code requires a Code-Maker....a Designer, for it to be able to function, and transfer meaningful information.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you'll need to provide evidence for that.

All man-made codes may require a creator but if DNA is a code and is not man-made there is no requirement for a code-maker or designer as far as I can see.

This is just 'all things require a creator' dressed up in some nonsense.
 
Humans desribe DNA in this form because it is easier to understand how the system works.

To be exact DNA is not a code, it is a molecule. The basic elements of this molecule form extremely readily under the right conditions. If anything, the existence of DNA and the ease of it's production are strong arguments against a divine creator.
 
Please, DNA is not even slightly comparable to a binary code. The genetic code is 4 bases, grouped in clusters of 3 to translate DNA to protein.
And this code is nowhere near as static as you seem to think. The codon usage between eukaryotes, prokaryotes and archae differs, and even within eukaryotes there is a difference in the codon usage between the main genome and the genomes of mitochondria and chlorplasts. The rest of the DNA functions without directly 'coding' for anything.

Furthermore, there is a very good line of evidence for DNA and proteins being a later graft on a simpler RNA based organism, with the current complexity the result of billions of years of evolution, which also explains why its such an jumbled mess rather than a streamlined code.
The more we learn about genetics, the less it indicates design.
 
SweatyYeti said:
The subject of this thread is whether the DNA molecules, in a living cell, function as a Code....in the same way that the Binary Code in a computer functions....(or any code, for that matter)....carrying intelligently encoded information....or, if DNA functions purely as a simple, straight-forward chemical reaction.


...

More to come...:)...
Click to expand...

Not really, or at least you have made an analogy, a similie a metaphor.

No evidence of intelligence behind DnA
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
Position Independent Code...

Dynamically linked libraries (.so under Unix, .dll on Microsoft) code cannot use static addresses internally because the code may appear in different places in memory in different situations.
DNA has this too, where it is called 'transposing code':
Nearly half of the human genome is composed of transposable elements or jumping DNA. First recognized in the 1940s by Dr. Barbara McClintock in studies of peculiar inheritance patterns found in the colors of Indian corn, jumping DNA refers to the idea that some stretches of DNA are unstable and "transposable," ie., they can move around -- on and between chromosomes.

http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis/resource/people.html
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Um in short, no.

TransposonWP
Transposons are sequences of DNA that can move around to different positions within the genome of a single cell, a process called transposition. In the process, they can cause mutations and change the amount of DNA in the genome. Transposons were also once called jumping genes, and are examples of mobile genetic elements. They were discovered by Barbara McClintock early in her career[1], for which she was awarded a Nobel prize in 1983.
Click to expand...

.dll
A dynamic-link library (DLL) is a module that contains functions and data that can be used by another module (application or DLL).

A DLL can define two kinds of functions: exported and internal. The exported functions are intended to be called by other modules, as well as from within the DLL where they are defined. Internal functions are typically intended to be called only from within the DLL where they are defined. Although a DLL can export data, its data is generally used only by its functions. However, there is nothing to prevent another module from reading or writing that address.
Click to expand...
 
Also, if you replace a single bit in a binary code the code falls apart (ask any programmer)
If you replace a bit of DNA odds are nothing truly bad will happen
 
I printed up the sequence from above and taped it to a Ouija board. It worked just as well as a Ouija board, but you have to limit your questions to:
What was my favorite childhood game? TAG
What was Ethan Hawke"s best film? GATTACA
 
Wolrab said:
I printed up the sequence from above and taped it to a Ouija board. It worked just as well as a Ouija board, but you have to limit your questions to:
What was my favorite childhood game? TAG
What was Ethan Hawke"s best film? GATTACA
Click to expand...


More versatile than you might think, actually:


SweatyYeti said:
The subject of this thread is whether the DNA molecules, in a living cell, function as a Code....in the same way that the Binary Code in a computer functions....
Click to expand...


GAGA


SweatyYeti said:
Here are samples of DNA Code and Binary Code sequences...looking quite similar...
Click to expand...


CACA




TATA​
 
SweatyYeti said:
Any Code requires a Code-Maker....a Designer
Click to expand...

Why?

SweatyYeti said:
for it to be able to function, and transfer meaningful information.
Click to expand...

What is "meaningful information", and how can DNA be said to transfer it?

SweatyYeti said:
Here is a link to an article, written by a computer programmer, in which he explains the similarities he sees, between the two Codes...

http://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/
Click to expand...

I'm a computer scientist and programmer, and most of the comparisons this guy makes are meaningless and paper thin.
 
marplots said:
The problem with the comparison revolves around meaning.

A pattern that is read 'out of order' isn't random at all.

But it doesn't capture the meaning intended by the original programmer (or designer).
Click to expand...


Thanks for the thoughtful response, marplots.

But, I disagree with this statement of yours...

A pattern that is read 'out of order' isn't random at all.
Click to expand...


Relating the point to Binary Code, in a computer....the 'meaning (pattern) you intended'....(and your computer en-coded)...when you typed your post was re-produced precisely on the 'other end', only because a computer de-coded it in the same 'order'...or, in the proper groupings.

If my computer read the 'string of binary digits' that your computer produced 'out of order'...(in improper groups)....the result would be random light-and-dark spots on my computer screen.
There would be NO 'Order' and 'Meaning' to the resultant "pattern"....it would have, in fact, no 'ordered pattern' to it at all....it would be nothing more than video noise.
(Similar to what a tv screen shows, when tuned to an inactive channel.)


This point comes down to 'Intelligent, Directed, Ordered Processes' vs. 'Non-Directed, Random Processes'.

That is the key difference between a 'Living System' and a 'Non-Living System'.


And that's what the book "What Is Life" deals with...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Life?


One quote from the Wikipedia article...

The main principle involved with "order-from-disorder" is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, according to which entropy (disorder)only increases.
Schrödinger explains that living matter evades the decay (increasing disorder) to thermodynamical equilibrium by feeding on negative entropy.
Click to expand...


And, from another article about the book...

http://www.human-nature.com/nibbs/04/erwin.html


The research lead that Crick got by doing so was how a small set of repeating elements (like 2, or 4) could give rise to a large number of combinatorial products (almost unlimited), a mathematical relationship that Schrödinger illustrated using the Morse Code,
Click to expand...



From another book....covering a related topic...(quantum physics)...

http://www.icpress.co.uk/physics/p581.html


The living cell is an information replicating and processing system that is replete with naturally-evolved nanomachines, which at some level require a quantum mechanical description.
Click to expand...





marplots wrote:

Without knowing ahead of time, I cannot say whether a sequence of binary digits has 'meaning' or not.
Click to expand...


It's not simply a question of some subjective Meaning....it's also a question of a non-subjective 'Order'.
These two concepts are closely related.....'Order' and 'Meaning' follow each other, very closely.....with regards to Living Systems/Beings.

Living Beings tend to have a high-degree of Order to their forms.


It is no good to say that what DNA seems to be doing is what is intended, no more than you could know whether this next sequence is random and only appears meaningful or is actually meaningful: 3,6,9, 12
Is that some mathematical sequence?

The start of my phone number?
Click to expand...


I agree with what you're saying....that 'Meaning' is a subjective thing...a living being attaches/applies meaning to a set of numbers.

But again....it's analagous to the computer...'Meaningful Order' vs. 'Random Disorder'.

As an example of how those two concepts are linked...(in Living Beings)....if we were to type messages back-and-forth to each other, but instead of doing so with intentional meaning, we typed blindfolded...and, to boot, using keyboards with an unknown layout of keys....we would be typing a completely random sequence of letters, in our posts.....(would we not?)

That being the case....our posts would then have NO MEANING....(a subjective concept)....and, in addition to that....the posts would also have decidely LESS 'ORDER'...(a non-subjective concept)...to them.
There wouldn't be the same amount of repeating letter combinations...(non-subjective Order)...since we wouldn't be able to copy-and-paste a previous post, and neither would the same 'words' be constantly reappearing, every so often.

A quick example.....of Order following Intentional Meaning...

Order following Intentional Meaning...
Order following Intentional Meaning...
Order following Intentional Meaning...
Order following Intentional Meaning...
Order following Intentional Meaning...
Order following Intentional Meaning...


See the connection between the two? :)

What were the odds that those letters would have repeated themselves in such a precise Order...and Pattern....without any intentional meaning behind the typing of those letters. If I was typing blindfolded...and randomly...the odds would have been astronomically against it occuring.


Likewise.....if DNA wasn't doing something 'meaningful'...as in something a Creator 'intended'....there would likely not be this high degree of 'Order', in it's form...


Bird2.jpg



....as there isn't...in 'non-living' systems...such as a rocks...


Boulderfield1.jpg




It's a good question though, worth considering. But like many good questions, the easy answer is probably the wrong one. You have to look deeper.
Click to expand...


It sure is! :)
 
DNA isn't a code, it isn't an abstraction for something, it is the something. There isn't a 1:1 relationship between the DNA and the organism it expresses (i.e. you can't look at a banana and derive the DNA). DNA doesn't say "build an arm", it says "make this chemical now", and the elaborate manufacturing of different chemicals by various cells ends up as a living organism.

DNA is designed, it's designed by natural selection. To some that may appear to be intelligent, in the same way that someone who doesn't understand physics may think a snowflake appears designed by an intelligent agent.
 
Last edited:
Strangely, this bit of your post just leapt off the page at me.


SweatyYeti said:
<snip>

As an example of how those two concepts are linked...(in Living Beings)....if we were to type messages back-and-forth to each other, but instead of doing so with intentional meaning, we typed blindfolded...and, to boot, using keyboards with an unknown layout of keys....we would be typing a completely random sequence of letters, in our posts.....(would we not?)

That being the case....our posts would then have NO MEANING....

<snip>
Click to expand...


What are the chances of that?
 
I have a lot to say on this, but I need to get a few clarifications out of the way:

1. Please define "code"
2. Tell me what you mean by "order", without using a definition that requires purpose, and can be analyzed objectively.
 
I'm no scientist but my impression of life is that it came via a process of trial and error from non living organic matter. It started as simple self replicating molecules and progressed over a period of billions of years into what we see today. If Goddidit the biological lifeforms we see today would be better designed life would be longer and more comfortable..
 
Relating the point to Binary Code, in a computer....the 'meaning (pattern) you intended'....(and your computer en-coded)...when you typed your post was re-produced precisely on the 'other end', only because a computer de-coded it in the same 'order'...or, in the proper groupings.
Click to expand...

That applies to DNA how exactly? No proof by repeated assertion, please.
 
What were the odds that those letters would have repeated themselves in such a precise Order...and Pattern....without any intentional meaning behind the typing of those letters. If I was typing blindfolded...and randomly...the odds would have been astronomically against it occuring.
Click to expand...

That argument is a non-starter. Order emerges from disorder all the time from known chemical and physical processes.
 
Actually, if you randomly attach the 'letters' of RNA (the generally accepted precursor of both DNA and proteins) you end up with functional structures on a surprisingly regular basis.
In fact, this property of RNA molecules has started a whole new industry where people take something, make random RNA and select for function. Given the ease with which we can do this in the lab I'd say the 'blind typing' analog is a perfect example of 'did not do the research'
 
SweatyYeti said:
Order following Intentional Meaning...
Order following Intentional Meaning...
Order following Intentional Meaning...
Order following Intentional Meaning...
Order following Intentional Meaning...
Order following Intentional Meaning...


See the connection between the two? :)

What were the odds that those letters would have repeated themselves in such a precise Order...and Pattern....without any intentional meaning behind the typing of those letters. If I was typing blindfolded...and randomly...the odds would have been astronomically against it occuring.


Likewise.....if DNA wasn't doing something 'meaningful'...as in something a Creator 'intended'....there would likely not be this high degree of 'Order', in it's form...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/MiscStuff/Bird2.jpg[/qimg]


....as there isn't...in 'non-living' systems...such as a rocks...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/MiscStuff/Boulderfield1.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

This is a bad comparison. Organisms with DNA evolve. Posts on an internet forum do not.

Imagine an algorithm which takes in a post, creates mutated versions by adding characters, deleting characters, or changing one character to another, and then keeps only the post that is the most similar to the "precise Order...and Pattern" you gave above. An algorithm like this would easily be capable of generating the 'Order' you requested, no creator with intention required.
 
Snowflakes look created, therefore there must be a creator. Would you agree Sweati Yeti?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom