Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

DNA is digital code

joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 2:20:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have encountered several people on DDO who dispute this straightforward truth. This forum, connected to the other three forums I have recently created here, is simply a courtesy to such people. Dispute this truth if you wish
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 5:06:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 2:20:51 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
I have encountered several people on DDO who dispute this straightforward truth. This forum, connected to the other three forums I have recently created here, is simply a courtesy to such people. Dispute this truth if you wish

Define 'code'.
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 6:38:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
DNA isn't digital code. One thing that irritates me about believers is their level of dishonesty. I've lost all respect for believers on this front. No biologist is standing around going, look DNA is a digital code. If your religion cannot even offer honesty, frankly I don't know of what value it is.
"DNA is a nucleic acid; alongside proteins and carbohydrates, nucleic acid compose the three major macromolecules essential for all know forms of life. Most DNA molecules consist of two biopolymer strands coiled around each other to form a double helix." DNA isn't a digital code. Believer, how about we be honest. You believe a god exist. There is no evidence. Why don't you just be honest about that? Just say I believe a god exist, and leave it there. Instead you lie and call DNA a digital code. This only causes me to lose respect for you as a believer and to lose respect for your religion and the so call morality it provides. Once upon a time, I thought the religious were honest people. Now, I believe religion makes people more dishonest. This form topic is an example of why I believe that today.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 7:57:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 5:06:42 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:20:51 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
I have encountered several people on DDO who dispute this straightforward truth. This forum, connected to the other three forums I have recently created here, is simply a courtesy to such people. Dispute this truth if you wish

Define 'code'.

a system of signals or symbols for communication (from merriam webster online)
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 8:02:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 6:38:04 PM, NoMagic wrote:
DNA isn't digital code. One thing that irritates me about believers is their level of dishonesty. I've lost all respect for believers on this front. No biologist is standing around going, look DNA is a digital code. If your religion cannot even offer honesty, frankly I don't know of what value it is.
"DNA is a nucleic acid; alongside proteins and carbohydrates, nucleic acid compose the three major macromolecules essential for all know forms of life. Most DNA molecules consist of two biopolymer strands coiled around each other to form a double helix." DNA isn't a digital code. Believer, how about we be honest. You believe a god exist. There is no evidence. Why don't you just be honest about that? Just say I believe a god exist, and leave it there. Instead you lie and call DNA a digital code. This only causes me to lose respect for you as a believer and to lose respect for your religion and the so call morality it provides. Once upon a time, I thought the religious were honest people. Now, I believe religion makes people more dishonest. This form topic is an example of why I believe that today.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

so why do we call it the "genetic code"?
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 8:11:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 8:02:06 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/18/2015 6:38:04 PM, NoMagic wrote:
DNA isn't digital code. One thing that irritates me about believers is their level of dishonesty. I've lost all respect for believers on this front. No biologist is standing around going, look DNA is a digital code. If your religion cannot even offer honesty, frankly I don't know of what value it is.
"DNA is a nucleic acid; alongside proteins and carbohydrates, nucleic acid compose the three major macromolecules essential for all know forms of life. Most DNA molecules consist of two biopolymer strands coiled around each other to form a double helix." DNA isn't a digital code. Believer, how about we be honest. You believe a god exist. There is no evidence. Why don't you just be honest about that? Just say I believe a god exist, and leave it there. Instead you lie and call DNA a digital code. This only causes me to lose respect for you as a believer and to lose respect for your religion and the so call morality it provides. Once upon a time, I thought the religious were honest people. Now, I believe religion makes people more dishonest. This form topic is an example of why I believe that today.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

so why do we call it the "genetic code"?
Genetic is referring to genes. I think that is probably the answer. If it was digital code, then why wouldn't biologist call it digital code? You called it digital code, not genetic code. Why not just be honest about your belief? Why do you try and justify it dishonestly? I honestly have lost much respect for the faithful due to these type of tactics. Why not just say "I believe the Bible is true" and call it good. I would actually respect that more than dishonest attempts to justify your beliefs. Will you address this?
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 8:15:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 7:57:50 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/18/2015 5:06:42 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:20:51 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
I have encountered several people on DDO who dispute this straightforward truth. This forum, connected to the other three forums I have recently created here, is simply a courtesy to such people. Dispute this truth if you wish

Define 'code'.

a system of signals or symbols for communication (from merriam webster online)

Then I don't see how DNA can be construed as a digital code. If you gave me a definition of code more in line with Shannon's information theory, then I might agree (depending on some other factors), but referring to it as a code in that sense does not imply an intelligence at all.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 8:18:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 8:02:06 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/18/2015 6:38:04 PM, NoMagic wrote:
DNA isn't digital code. One thing that irritates me about believers is their level of dishonesty. I've lost all respect for believers on this front. No biologist is standing around going, look DNA is a digital code. If your religion cannot even offer honesty, frankly I don't know of what value it is.
"DNA is a nucleic acid; alongside proteins and carbohydrates, nucleic acid compose the three major macromolecules essential for all know forms of life. Most DNA molecules consist of two biopolymer strands coiled around each other to form a double helix." DNA isn't a digital code. Believer, how about we be honest. You believe a god exist. There is no evidence. Why don't you just be honest about that? Just say I believe a god exist, and leave it there. Instead you lie and call DNA a digital code. This only causes me to lose respect for you as a believer and to lose respect for your religion and the so call morality it provides. Once upon a time, I thought the religious were honest people. Now, I believe religion makes people more dishonest. This form topic is an example of why I believe that today.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

so why do we call it the "genetic code"?

Because science reporting is garbage and misrepresents information to laypeople who are not familiar with the technical definitions of many words which have much looser definitions in colloquial speech. What you're saying is basically like saying, "well it's called the god particle, so therefore science has proven god exists". That would be silly.
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 9:49:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 8:11:07 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 2/18/2015 8:02:06 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/18/2015 6:38:04 PM, NoMagic wrote:
DNA isn't digital code. One thing that irritates me about believers is their level of dishonesty. I've lost all respect for believers on this front. No biologist is standing around going, look DNA is a digital code. If your religion cannot even offer honesty, frankly I don't know of what value it is.
"DNA is a nucleic acid; alongside proteins and carbohydrates, nucleic acid compose the three major macromolecules essential for all know forms of life. Most DNA molecules consist of two biopolymer strands coiled around each other to form a double helix." DNA isn't a digital code. Believer, how about we be honest. You believe a god exist. There is no evidence. Why don't you just be honest about that? Just say I believe a god exist, and leave it there. Instead you lie and call DNA a digital code. This only causes me to lose respect for you as a believer and to lose respect for your religion and the so call morality it provides. Once upon a time, I thought the religious were honest people. Now, I believe religion makes people more dishonest. This form topic is an example of why I believe that today.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

so why do we call it the "genetic code"?
Genetic is referring to genes. I think that is probably the answer. If it was digital code, then why wouldn't biologist call it digital code? You called it digital code, not genetic code. Why not just be honest about your belief? Why do you try and justify it dishonestly? I honestly have lost much respect for the faithful due to these type of tactics. Why not just say "I believe the Bible is true" and call it good. I would actually respect that more than dishonest attempts to justify your beliefs. Will you address this?

Why all the angst? I hate to break it to you, but I'm not here to seek your respect.

Yes, it is genetic code. But that does not exclude the fact that it is also digital. At any rate, it is the word "code" and not so much the word "digital" that is the main stumbling block for you, unbeliever.

By the way, you have it exactly backward: I myself was an unbeliever for the first 30 years of my adult life. When I was confronted with the evidence from life; specifically that it is digital code (genetic code) (code!) that lies at the heart of all living systems, I realized that I could either embrace the implications or pretend that it wasn't true. I chose the former. I am by no means alone. So you see, I am not very invested in justifying my beliefs. I am much more interested in pursuing what is true. How about you?

Oh yeah...you might want to look up Francis Crick's "Sequence Hypothesis."
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 9:57:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 8:15:25 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:57:50 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/18/2015 5:06:42 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:20:51 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
I have encountered several people on DDO who dispute this straightforward truth. This forum, connected to the other three forums I have recently created here, is simply a courtesy to such people. Dispute this truth if you wish

Define 'code'.

a system of signals or symbols for communication (from merriam webster online)

Then I don't see how DNA can be construed as a digital code. If you gave me a definition of code more in line with Shannon's information theory, then I might agree (depending on some other factors), but referring to it as a code in that sense does not imply an intelligence at all.

Shannon's information theory seeks nothing more than what is mathematically possible within the context of a communication channel. As Shannon himself noted, his theory does not concern itself at all with meaning or function. Meaning and function are clearly manifested in the DNA/RNA protein synthesis process. Specific sequences of DNA prescribe primary protein structure. Proteins - the molecular machinery that basically maintains all living systems - are clearly functional results of those sequences. In fact, the molecular machinery of life represents the most advanced feats of engineering we have ever encountered.

And by the way, the DNA storage and processing system is the most advanced information storage and processing system we have ever encountered.

So yes, DNA is indeed digital code. You may wish to re-visit Francis Crick's "Sequence Hypothesis"
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:01:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 8:18:02 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 8:02:06 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/18/2015 6:38:04 PM, NoMagic wrote:
DNA isn't digital code. One thing that irritates me about believers is their level of dishonesty. I've lost all respect for believers on this front. No biologist is standing around going, look DNA is a digital code. If your religion cannot even offer honesty, frankly I don't know of what value it is.
"DNA is a nucleic acid; alongside proteins and carbohydrates, nucleic acid compose the three major macromolecules essential for all know forms of life. Most DNA molecules consist of two biopolymer strands coiled around each other to form a double helix." DNA isn't a digital code. Believer, how about we be honest. You believe a god exist. There is no evidence. Why don't you just be honest about that? Just say I believe a god exist, and leave it there. Instead you lie and call DNA a digital code. This only causes me to lose respect for you as a believer and to lose respect for your religion and the so call morality it provides. Once upon a time, I thought the religious were honest people. Now, I believe religion makes people more dishonest. This form topic is an example of why I believe that today.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

so why do we call it the "genetic code"?

Because science reporting is garbage and misrepresents information to laypeople who are not familiar with the technical definitions of many words which have much looser definitions in colloquial speech. What you're saying is basically like saying, "well it's called the god particle, so therefore science has proven god exists". That would be silly.

Or maybe we call it the genetic code because even stone-cold atheists from Francis Crick to Hubert Yockey to Richard Dawkins recognize it as code.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:14:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 9:57:47 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/18/2015 8:15:25 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:57:50 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/18/2015 5:06:42 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:20:51 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
I have encountered several people on DDO who dispute this straightforward truth. This forum, connected to the other three forums I have recently created here, is simply a courtesy to such people. Dispute this truth if you wish

Define 'code'.

a system of signals or symbols for communication (from merriam webster online)

Then I don't see how DNA can be construed as a digital code. If you gave me a definition of code more in line with Shannon's information theory, then I might agree (depending on some other factors), but referring to it as a code in that sense does not imply an intelligence at all.

Shannon's information theory seeks nothing more than what is mathematically possible within the context of a communication channel. As Shannon himself noted, his theory does not concern itself at all with meaning or function. Meaning and function are clearly manifested in the DNA/RNA protein synthesis process. Specific sequences of DNA prescribe primary protein structure. Proteins - the molecular machinery that basically maintains all living systems - are clearly functional results of those sequences. In fact, the molecular machinery of life represents the most advanced feats of engineering we have ever encountered.


That is true about Shannon's information theory, but that does not imply that it does not apply to codes which also have meaning and/or function. It is clearly used mainly in that context. And remember that information theory has, of course, continued to develop since Shannon.

I don't know what you mean when you say that meaning is manifested in the DNA/RNA protein synthesis process. I agree with function, but to say meaning is quite vague in this context. Either way, I don't really see the relevance on this point. I said that I would agree with the usage of the term code in the sense that it is used in information theory but not in the sense of the definition you provided.

And by the way, the DNA storage and processing system is the most advanced information storage and processing system we have ever encountered.


I'm not sure that is true. It isn't very robust. I am aware of the idea that it can be modified into a useful storage medium, but not that it is a good storage medium as it occurs naturally. I am not aware of how it can be used as a processing system. I would be grateful for some educational material on this.

So yes, DNA is indeed digital code. You may wish to re-visit Francis Crick's "Sequence Hypothesis"

I just visited it (not re-visited it, because I hadn't heard of it before). I see why you are bringing it up, but it is ambiguous as to how they are using the term 'code'. It does seem that it might be used in the sense of information theory.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:15:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:01:49 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/18/2015 8:18:02 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 8:02:06 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/18/2015 6:38:04 PM, NoMagic wrote:
DNA isn't digital code. One thing that irritates me about believers is their level of dishonesty. I've lost all respect for believers on this front. No biologist is standing around going, look DNA is a digital code. If your religion cannot even offer honesty, frankly I don't know of what value it is.
"DNA is a nucleic acid; alongside proteins and carbohydrates, nucleic acid compose the three major macromolecules essential for all know forms of life. Most DNA molecules consist of two biopolymer strands coiled around each other to form a double helix." DNA isn't a digital code. Believer, how about we be honest. You believe a god exist. There is no evidence. Why don't you just be honest about that? Just say I believe a god exist, and leave it there. Instead you lie and call DNA a digital code. This only causes me to lose respect for you as a believer and to lose respect for your religion and the so call morality it provides. Once upon a time, I thought the religious were honest people. Now, I believe religion makes people more dishonest. This form topic is an example of why I believe that today.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

so why do we call it the "genetic code"?

Because science reporting is garbage and misrepresents information to laypeople who are not familiar with the technical definitions of many words which have much looser definitions in colloquial speech. What you're saying is basically like saying, "well it's called the god particle, so therefore science has proven god exists". That would be silly.

Or maybe we call it the genetic code because even stone-cold atheists from Francis Crick to Hubert Yockey to Richard Dawkins recognize it as code.

Maybe. Again, the issue is in what sense it is being called a 'code'. But the fact that it is called a "genetic code" itself means very little.
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 10:54:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 9:49:08 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/18/2015 8:11:07 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 2/18/2015 8:02:06 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/18/2015 6:38:04 PM, NoMagic wrote:
DNA isn't digital code. One thing that irritates me about believers is their level of dishonesty. I've lost all respect for believers on this front. No biologist is standing around going, look DNA is a digital code. If your religion cannot even offer honesty, frankly I don't know of what value it is.
"DNA is a nucleic acid; alongside proteins and carbohydrates, nucleic acid compose the three major macromolecules essential for all know forms of life. Most DNA molecules consist of two biopolymer strands coiled around each other to form a double helix." DNA isn't a digital code. Believer, how about we be honest. You believe a god exist. There is no evidence. Why don't you just be honest about that? Just say I believe a god exist, and leave it there. Instead you lie and call DNA a digital code. This only causes me to lose respect for you as a believer and to lose respect for your religion and the so call morality it provides. Once upon a time, I thought the religious were honest people. Now, I believe religion makes people more dishonest. This form topic is an example of why I believe that today.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

so why do we call it the "genetic code"?
Genetic is referring to genes. I think that is probably the answer. If it was digital code, then why wouldn't biologist call it digital code? You called it digital code, not genetic code. Why not just be honest about your belief? Why do you try and justify it dishonestly? I honestly have lost much respect for the faithful due to these type of tactics. Why not just say "I believe the Bible is true" and call it good. I would actually respect that more than dishonest attempts to justify your beliefs. Will you address this?

Why all the angst? I hate to break it to you, but I'm not here to seek your respect.

Yes, it is genetic code. But that does not exclude the fact that it is also digital. At any rate, it is the word "code" and not so much the word "digital" that is the main stumbling block for you, unbeliever.

By the way, you have it exactly backward: I myself was an unbeliever for the first 30 years of my adult life. When I was confronted with the evidence from life; specifically that it is digital code (genetic code) (code!) that lies at the heart of all living systems, I realized that I could either embrace the implications or pretend that it wasn't true. I chose the former. I am by no means alone. So you see, I am not very invested in justifying my beliefs. I am much more interested in pursuing what is true. How about you?

Oh yeah...you might want to look up Francis Crick's "Sequence Hypothesis."
I don't believe for a second you where an atheist. I understand this dishonest tactic as well. As an ex Christian, I get that you feel a bit threatened that Christians are concluding Christianity is false. You wish to present this as though you were convinced by the case for Christianity and changed your position. I've run into this several times before. You've already established your dishonesty with your attempt to claim digital code is the same as genetic code. Now you again wish to make a new adjustment, "well it's the word code that is important." So now apparently anything with the word "code" in it really means the same thing. Your logic is terrible. You clearly are dishonest, and a Christian. You may not care about my respect. This is fine. I don't care about yours either. But guess what. You probably would like me to respect your religion. I don't. I don't because you are dishonest in the name of it. You lie for your religion. This tells me something about your religion. It should also tell you something about your religion. If you need to lie in order to validate it, your religion is probably a lie itself. Here's the deal. You've always been a Christian. You where raised a Christian. Your parents are Christians. Your culture is primarily Christian. This is why you are a Christian. Not because you've looked at the evidence. Since you have none this clearly isn't true. You simply use dishonest arguments to support what you where raised to believe. You aren't fooling anyone. Now, you lie in order to promote and validate your faith. I have no respect for liars, you. I have no respect for religions that breed liars, yours.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 11:32:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.

" Francis Crick

What Mad Pursuit (1990), 138.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 12:32:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 8:02:06 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/18/2015 6:38:04 PM, NoMagic wrote:
DNA isn't digital code. One thing that irritates me about believers is their level of dishonesty. I've lost all respect for believers on this front. No biologist is standing around going, look DNA is a digital code. If your religion cannot even offer honesty, frankly I don't know of what value it is.
"DNA is a nucleic acid; alongside proteins and carbohydrates, nucleic acid compose the three major macromolecules essential for all know forms of life. Most DNA molecules consist of two biopolymer strands coiled around each other to form a double helix." DNA isn't a digital code. Believer, how about we be honest. You believe a god exist. There is no evidence. Why don't you just be honest about that? Just say I believe a god exist, and leave it there. Instead you lie and call DNA a digital code. This only causes me to lose respect for you as a believer and to lose respect for your religion and the so call morality it provides. Once upon a time, I thought the religious were honest people. Now, I believe religion makes people more dishonest. This form topic is an example of why I believe that today.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

so why do we call it the "genetic code"?

Because its shorter to say than 'sequence' or 'formula', neither of which have the same divinely connective connotations you would like to make, but are as equally true in their application.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 12:35:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 2:20:51 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
I have encountered several people on DDO who dispute this straightforward truth. This forum, connected to the other three forums I have recently created here, is simply a courtesy to such people. Dispute this truth if you wish

1) its not 'digital'. There are more than 2 positions for DNA to be at.
2) 'code' is misnomer for 'pattern', 'sequence', 'formula', etc. Its just a shorter word.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 10:25:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 10:14:08 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:57:47 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/18/2015 8:15:25 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:57:50 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/18/2015 5:06:42 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:20:51 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
I have encountered several people on DDO who dispute this straightforward truth. This forum, connected to the other three forums I have recently created here, is simply a courtesy to such people. Dispute this truth if you wish

Define 'code'.

a system of signals or symbols for communication (from merriam webster online)

Then I don't see how DNA can be construed as a digital code. If you gave me a definition of code more in line with Shannon's information theory, then I might agree (depending on some other factors), but referring to it as a code in that sense does not imply an intelligence at all.

Shannon's information theory seeks nothing more than what is mathematically possible within the context of a communication channel. As Shannon himself noted, his theory does not concern itself at all with meaning or function. Meaning and function are clearly manifested in the DNA/RNA protein synthesis process. Specific sequences of DNA prescribe primary protein structure. Proteins - the molecular machinery that basically maintains all living systems - are clearly functional results of those sequences. In fact, the molecular machinery of life represents the most advanced feats of engineering we have ever encountered.


That is true about Shannon's information theory, but that does not imply that it does not apply to codes which also have meaning and/or function. It is clearly used mainly in that context. And remember that information theory has, of course, continued to develop since Shannon.

I did not mean to say that it does not apply to codes which have meaning and/or function. What I am saying is that Shannon's purposes do not address meaning or function

I don't know what you mean when you say that meaning is manifested in the DNA/RNA protein synthesis process. I agree with function, but to say meaning is quite vague in this context. Either way, I don't really see the relevance on this point. I said that I would agree with the usage of the term code in the sense that it is used in information theory but not in the sense of the definition you provided.

Consider the codon table. Each triplet of RNA nucleotides is assigned a particular AA (or a stop command, as the case may be). The assignment is the meaning. The codon table is purely formal and abstract, not physical. That specific codons are assigned specific AAs is explainable only as symbolic meaning. The meaning is manifested when a functional protein has emerged.

I'm sorry that you do not agree with the definition I have provided for code, but the definition is true as applied to DNA. DNA is a linear string of discreet symbols, the precise sequence of which prescribes non trivial function.

And by the way, the DNA storage and processing system is the most advanced information storage and processing system we have ever encountered.


I'm not sure that is true. It isn't very robust. I am aware of the idea that it can be modified into a useful storage medium, but not that it is a good storage medium as it occurs naturally. I am not aware of how it can be used as a processing system. I would be grateful for some educational material on this.

I don't agree that DNA occurs naturally. DNA occurs exclusively in living systems. The evidence that DNA occurs "naturally" apart from living systems is nil. The evidence that DNA does not occur naturally is overwhelming. Anyway, here is an article that might help educate you on the information storage efficiency (I appreciate you asking):

http://qz.com...

A great source that addresses the advanced information processing prowess of DNA is the short but powerful book, "The Programming of Life" by Donald Johnson who holds Phd's in chemistry and computer and information science

So yes, DNA is indeed digital code. You may wish to re-visit Francis Crick's "Sequence Hypothesis"

I just visited it (not re-visited it, because I hadn't heard of it before). I see why you are bringing it up, but it is ambiguous as to how they are using the term 'code'. It does seem that it might be used in the sense of information theory.

Hubert Yockey might be able to clear it up a bit for you. Speaking about the sequence hypothesis, he points out that we are not reasoning by analogy; that it applies directly to the genetic text as well as to written language
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 10:31:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 10:54:42 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:49:08 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/18/2015 8:11:07 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 2/18/2015 8:02:06 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/18/2015 6:38:04 PM, NoMagic wrote:
DNA isn't digital code. One thing that irritates me about believers is their level of dishonesty. I've lost all respect for believers on this front. No biologist is standing around going, look DNA is a digital code. If your religion cannot even offer honesty, frankly I don't know of what value it is.
"DNA is a nucleic acid; alongside proteins and carbohydrates, nucleic acid compose the three major macromolecules essential for all know forms of life. Most DNA molecules consist of two biopolymer strands coiled around each other to form a double helix." DNA isn't a digital code. Believer, how about we be honest. You believe a god exist. There is no evidence. Why don't you just be honest about that? Just say I believe a god exist, and leave it there. Instead you lie and call DNA a digital code. This only causes me to lose respect for you as a believer and to lose respect for your religion and the so call morality it provides. Once upon a time, I thought the religious were honest people. Now, I believe religion makes people more dishonest. This form topic is an example of why I believe that today.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

so why do we call it the "genetic code"?
Genetic is referring to genes. I think that is probably the answer. If it was digital code, then why wouldn't biologist call it digital code? You called it digital code, not genetic code. Why not just be honest about your belief? Why do you try and justify it dishonestly? I honestly have lost much respect for the faithful due to these type of tactics. Why not just say "I believe the Bible is true" and call it good. I would actually respect that more than dishonest attempts to justify your beliefs. Will you address this?

Why all the angst? I hate to break it to you, but I'm not here to seek your respect.

Yes, it is genetic code. But that does not exclude the fact that it is also digital. At any rate, it is the word "code" and not so much the word "digital" that is the main stumbling block for you, unbeliever.

By the way, you have it exactly backward: I myself was an unbeliever for the first 30 years of my adult life. When I was confronted with the evidence from life; specifically that it is digital code (genetic code) (code!) that lies at the heart of all living systems, I realized that I could either embrace the implications or pretend that it wasn't true. I chose the former. I am by no means alone. So you see, I am not very invested in justifying my beliefs. I am much more interested in pursuing what is true. How about you?

Oh yeah...you might want to look up Francis Crick's "Sequence Hypothesis."
I don't believe for a second you where an atheist. I understand this dishonest tactic as well. As an ex Christian, I get that you feel a bit threatened that Christians are concluding Christianity is false. You wish to present this as though you were convinced by the case for Christianity and changed your position. I've run into this several times before. You've already established your dishonesty with your attempt to claim digital code is the same as genetic code. Now you again wish to make a new adjustment, "well it's the word code that is important." So now apparently anything with the word "code" in it really means the same thing. Your logic is terrible. You clearly are dishonest, and a Christian. You may not care about my respect. This is fine. I don't care about yours either. But guess what. You probably would like me to respect your religion. I don't. I don't because you are dishonest in the name of it. You lie for your religion. This tells me something about your religion. It should also tell you something about your religion. If you need to lie in order to validate it, your religion is probably a lie itself. Here's the deal. You've always been a Christian. You where raised a Christian. Your parents are Christians. Your culture is primarily Christian. This is why you are a Christian. Not because you've looked at the evidence. Since you have none this clearly isn't true. You simply use dishonest arguments to support what you where raised to believe. You aren't fooling anyone. Now, you lie in order to promote and validate your faith. I have no respect for liars, you. I have no respect for religions that breed liars, yours.

I use my real name here as a testimony to the truth of my statements. Anyone who has known me can bear witness.

In the meantime, do you have anything besides pure hate to bring to this forum? If not, there is no need to hear from you again. This forum was not created as a therapeutic outlet for your apparently uncontrollable and irrational unpleasantness.
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 10:33:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 12:35:11 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:20:51 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
I have encountered several people on DDO who dispute this straightforward truth. This forum, connected to the other three forums I have recently created here, is simply a courtesy to such people. Dispute this truth if you wish

1) its not 'digital'. There are more than 2 positions for DNA to be at.
2) 'code' is misnomer for 'pattern', 'sequence', 'formula', etc. Its just a shorter word.

1) each strand is linear and each character is discreet.
2) code is the correct word by definition
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 2:32:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 10:33:30 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/20/2015 12:35:11 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:20:51 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
I have encountered several people on DDO who dispute this straightforward truth. This forum, connected to the other three forums I have recently created here, is simply a courtesy to such people. Dispute this truth if you wish

1) its not 'digital'. There are more than 2 positions for DNA to be at.
2) 'code' is misnomer for 'pattern', 'sequence', 'formula', etc. Its just a shorter word.

1) each strand is linear and each character is discreet.
2) code is the correct word by definition

.... no, its not 'linear'. Its a knotted mass of twisted molecules which are not characters, nor are they 'discreet'. Sequence, pattern, and formula are also correct words by definition.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 9:52:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 10:25:32 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/18/2015 10:14:08 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:57:47 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/18/2015 8:15:25 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:57:50 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/18/2015 5:06:42 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:20:51 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
I have encountered several people on DDO who dispute this straightforward truth. This forum, connected to the other three forums I have recently created here, is simply a courtesy to such people. Dispute this truth if you wish

Define 'code'.

a system of signals or symbols for communication (from merriam webster online)

Then I don't see how DNA can be construed as a digital code. If you gave me a definition of code more in line with Shannon's information theory, then I might agree (depending on some other factors), but referring to it as a code in that sense does not imply an intelligence at all.

Shannon's information theory seeks nothing more than what is mathematically possible within the context of a communication channel. As Shannon himself noted, his theory does not concern itself at all with meaning or function. Meaning and function are clearly manifested in the DNA/RNA protein synthesis process. Specific sequences of DNA prescribe primary protein structure. Proteins - the molecular machinery that basically maintains all living systems - are clearly functional results of those sequences. In fact, the molecular machinery of life represents the most advanced feats of engineering we have ever encountered.


That is true about Shannon's information theory, but that does not imply that it does not apply to codes which also have meaning and/or function. It is clearly used mainly in that context. And remember that information theory has, of course, continued to develop since Shannon.

I did not mean to say that it does not apply to codes which have meaning and/or function. What I am saying is that Shannon's purposes do not address meaning or function

I don't know what you mean when you say that meaning is manifested in the DNA/RNA protein synthesis process. I agree with function, but to say meaning is quite vague in this context. Either way, I don't really see the relevance on this point. I said that I would agree with the usage of the term code in the sense that it is used in information theory but not in the sense of the definition you provided.

Consider the codon table. Each triplet of RNA nucleotides is assigned a particular AA (or a stop command, as the case may be). The assignment is the meaning. The codon table is purely formal and abstract, not physical. That specific codons are assigned specific AAs is explainable only as symbolic meaning. The meaning is manifested when a functional protein has emerged.

I'm sorry that you do not agree with the definition I have provided for code, but the definition is true as applied to DNA. DNA is a linear string of discreet symbols, the precise sequence of which prescribes non trivial function.

The part I take issue with is 'for communication'.


And by the way, the DNA storage and processing system is the most advanced information storage and processing system we have ever encountered.


I'm not sure that is true. It isn't very robust. I am aware of the idea that it can be modified into a useful storage medium, but not that it is a good storage medium as it occurs naturally. I am not aware of how it can be used as a processing system. I would be grateful for some educational material on this.

I don't agree that DNA occurs naturally. DNA occurs exclusively in living systems. The evidence that DNA occurs "naturally" apart from living systems is nil. The evidence that DNA does not occur naturally is overwhelming. Anyway, here is an article that might help educate you on the information storage efficiency (I appreciate you asking):

The way I worded it was slightly ambiguous. I meant that DNA is not a robust storage medium in the form that it occurs in naturally. It requires manipulation. I didn't mean to make any suggestion that DNA occurs naturally outside of living systems, and I'm not sure where you got that part.


http://qz.com...

I thought you would provide a scientific paper. Nonetheless, did they not have to manipulate the DNA to achieve this? That was precisely my point.

A great source that addresses the advanced information processing prowess of DNA is the short but powerful book, "The Programming of Life" by Donald Johnson who holds Phd's in chemistry and computer and information science

Maybe I'll take a look. It's always a little strange when someone gets a second PhD (after your first, getting a second has very little value), but maybe he had his reasons. That's just an aside anyway. Since I don't have the book, is there someone in specific that you think is valuable with respect to our discussion? I was hoping to find his theses also, to get a sense of where his actual expertise is, but maybe they were written long enough ago that they're only hosting in analogue versions.


So yes, DNA is indeed digital code. You may wish to re-visit Francis Crick's "Sequence Hypothesis"

I just visited it (not re-visited it, because I hadn't heard of it before). I see why you are bringing it up, but it is ambiguous as to how they are using the term 'code'. It does seem that it might be used in the sense of information theory.

Hubert Yockey might be able to clear it up a bit for you. Speaking about the sequence hypothesis, he points out that we are not reasoning by analogy; that it applies directly to the genetic text as well as to written language

I have no disagreement with this if 'code' is being used in the sense of information theory.
Otokage
Posts: 2,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 12:53:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 7:57:50 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/18/2015 5:06:42 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:20:51 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
I have encountered several people on DDO who dispute this straightforward truth. This forum, connected to the other three forums I have recently created here, is simply a courtesy to such people. Dispute this truth if you wish

Define 'code'.

a system of signals or symbols for communication (from merriam webster online)

Chemical elements are therefore codes? Remember that H + O means water. The chemical code can indeed be used for communication in the same way DNA could be used too. The chemical code proves code systems can be created by nature, and thus DNA being a code is not a valid argument for DNA being intelligently created.
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 2:05:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 10:31:00 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/19/2015 10:54:42 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:49:08 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/18/2015 8:11:07 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 2/18/2015 8:02:06 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/18/2015 6:38:04 PM, NoMagic wrote:
DNA isn't digital code. One thing that irritates me about believers is their level of dishonesty. I've lost all respect for believers on this front. No biologist is standing around going, look DNA is a digital code. If your religion cannot even offer honesty, frankly I don't know of what value it is.
"DNA is a nucleic acid; alongside proteins and carbohydrates, nucleic acid compose the three major macromolecules essential for all know forms of life. Most DNA molecules consist of two biopolymer strands coiled around each other to form a double helix." DNA isn't a digital code. Believer, how about we be honest. You believe a god exist. There is no evidence. Why don't you just be honest about that? Just say I believe a god exist, and leave it there. Instead you lie and call DNA a digital code. This only causes me to lose respect for you as a believer and to lose respect for your religion and the so call morality it provides. Once upon a time, I thought the religious were honest people. Now, I believe religion makes people more dishonest. This form topic is an example of why I believe that today.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

so why do we call it the "genetic code"?
Genetic is referring to genes. I think that is probably the answer. If it was digital code, then why wouldn't biologist call it digital code? You called it digital code, not genetic code. Why not just be honest about your belief? Why do you try and justify it dishonestly? I honestly have lost much respect for the faithful due to these type of tactics. Why not just say "I believe the Bible is true" and call it good. I would actually respect that more than dishonest attempts to justify your beliefs. Will you address this?

Why all the angst? I hate to break it to you, but I'm not here to seek your respect.

Yes, it is genetic code. But that does not exclude the fact that it is also digital. At any rate, it is the word "code" and not so much the word "digital" that is the main stumbling block for you, unbeliever.

By the way, you have it exactly backward: I myself was an unbeliever for the first 30 years of my adult life. When I was confronted with the evidence from life; specifically that it is digital code (genetic code) (code!) that lies at the heart of all living systems, I realized that I could either embrace the implications or pretend that it wasn't true. I chose the former. I am by no means alone. So you see, I am not very invested in justifying my beliefs. I am much more interested in pursuing what is true. How about you?

Oh yeah...you might want to look up Francis Crick's "Sequence Hypothesis."
I don't believe for a second you where an atheist. I understand this dishonest tactic as well. As an ex Christian, I get that you feel a bit threatened that Christians are concluding Christianity is false. You wish to present this as though you were convinced by the case for Christianity and changed your position. I've run into this several times before. You've already established your dishonesty with your attempt to claim digital code is the same as genetic code. Now you again wish to make a new adjustment, "well it's the word code that is important." So now apparently anything with the word "code" in it really means the same thing. Your logic is terrible. You clearly are dishonest, and a Christian. You may not care about my respect. This is fine. I don't care about yours either. But guess what. You probably would like me to respect your religion. I don't. I don't because you are dishonest in the name of it. You lie for your religion. This tells me something about your religion. It should also tell you something about your religion. If you need to lie in order to validate it, your religion is probably a lie itself. Here's the deal. You've always been a Christian. You where raised a Christian. Your parents are Christians. Your culture is primarily Christian. This is why you are a Christian. Not because you've looked at the evidence. Since you have none this clearly isn't true. You simply use dishonest arguments to support what you where raised to believe. You aren't fooling anyone. Now, you lie in order to promote and validate your faith. I have no respect for liars, you. I have no respect for religions that breed liars, yours.

I use my real name here as a testimony to the truth of my statements. Anyone who has known me can bear witness.

In the meantime, do you have anything besides pure hate to bring to this forum? If not, there is no need to hear from you again. This forum was not created as a therapeutic outlet for your apparently uncontrollable and irrational unpleasantness.
Pure hate??? I'm going to have to ask for a quote of mine that expresses hate. Can you support that characterization of me? My criticism of you and what your are presenting is due to your lack of honesty. I'm not found of hypocrisy. We live in a world where the faithful (you) run around claiming a higher degree of morality and claiming faith is something to be honored. Yet here you are, present a dishonest characterization of Genetic Code. So I call you out on your dishonesty, which is motivated by your religion, and then you claim I'm expressing "pure hate." No, sorry that isn't the case. I'm pointing out your dishonest position. I understand you don't like this. But, I don't like your dishonesty either. Make honest argument. Do honest research. Do honest science. That is all I ask. You lying in the name of your religion only stains your faith. You are harming your cause. I'm only pointing it out to you, and others.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 6:50:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 12:53:28 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:57:50 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/18/2015 5:06:42 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:20:51 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
I have encountered several people on DDO who dispute this straightforward truth. This forum, connected to the other three forums I have recently created here, is simply a courtesy to such people. Dispute this truth if you wish

Define 'code'.

a system of signals or symbols for communication (from merriam webster online)

Chemical elements are therefore codes? Remember that H + O means water. The chemical code can indeed be used for communication in the same way DNA could be used too. The chemical code proves code systems can be created by nature, and thus DNA being a code is not a valid argument for DNA being intelligently created.

H+0 doesn't mean water, H+0 (rather 2H +0) IS water. Your argument is ridiculous.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.