DNA can certainly be referred to as a code. It’s just not an intelligently produced symbolic code using abstractions to pass meaning. It’s only a code as indicated by the second definition I gave above.
My first quick thought (and I’m very interested in feedback from others concerning this didactic illustration) is to ask if the electron orbitals of hydrogen and oxygen are the “instructions” to make H2O/water. Is the recipe for making water “coded” into hydrogen and oxygen atoms? No, we would simply say that the properties of those types of atoms bring about H2O under the right conditions. No “code” is stored.
Likewise, even though words like “recipe” (and “code”) can serve as convenient analogies when talking about DNA and protein synthesis, ultimately it is all a matter of chemistry and physics. (Of course, I say that as an evangelical Christ-follower and Molinist who has no problems affirming that God created a universe where such chemistry and physics produces such amazing DNA and living organisms!)
2 Likes
From my post above.
Lots of natural processes encode information. Tree rings encode information about local environmental conditions the year they grew. Starlight encodes information about the chemical composition of the star. DNA encodes information about the local environment a species lives in. All natural “code” processes with no abstraction anywhere.
1 Like
There’s nothing symbolic about that except in our description. That triplet pairs with the anticodon on a tRNA, to which is attached an amino acid. There’s no reading of anything symbolic in any literal sense.
1 Like
I would say that one is possible if we observed symbolism.
I wonder if Marshall (or anyone in that “code” camp) would say that a hydrogen atom is code for +1 and an oxygen atom is code for -2, such that water/H2O is code for 2*(+1)+(-2)=0, which is code for “combine hydrogen and oxygen to produce a stable molecule.”
Various configurations of electrons leading to various valences are not “instructions”. Are various configurations of nucleotides “instructions”? If yes, what is the difference?
[I’m always looking for new ways to explain basic biology concepts to non-scientists. Some work and some don’t—and some I eventually reject as flawed. So these are nothing more than didactic experiments at this point.]
3 Likes
I think they would say no because there is no decoder. Water is a marvelous example of an emergent property and Simon Conway Morris and Michael Denton have both written separate books about it. But…
I think that (I’m on very very unfamiliar ground here) the ribosomes decode the mRNA that was CODED by polymerase. The symbolism would be that although DNA specifies what sex (forgive me if this is not the right term) you are, it is “read” by ribosomes (I’m very out of my comfort zone) to make amino acids, that eventually culminate in making you biologically male, female or intersex.
When hydrogen and oxygen combine they BECOME water. There’s no encoding or decoding going on.
Tree rings are not decoded through any natural process, they’re decoded by us. Unless I’m wrong?! That would be cool.
Go easy on me, I’m not a scientist.
What is the main difference between ASCII and the DNA “code”?
“Does DNA care what symbols we give it? Not at all. The 1’s and 0’s on your computer’s hard drive don’t care what you call them either, but they still symbolically represent something other than a voltage or magnetic field. They represent Excel spreadsheets and programs and photos of Uncle Herman and Aunt Mildred. And maybe other people too.
The decoding of the human genome is the interpretation of DNA’s base pairs, mapping them to specific biological functions. The reason we can make that genome map is because a direct relationship between genetic code and creature actually does exist; it’s not just our imagination. DNA codes for specific characteristics, which are discoverable and definable. We decode the genome because cracking the genetic code has utility. It enables us to change the code (thereby changing the creature), understand how biology works, achieve specified goals.”
DNA base pairs are abstract or symbolic for biological function. Where am I going wrong in this?
But you’re just reasserting the claim. Capitalizing “CODED” makes it less, not more, convincing. 
The chemistry that makes hydrogen and oxygen BECOME water is just more complex than the chemistry that underlies protein synthesis. There’s still no symbolism or abstraction involved.
To me, this “code is literal” idea is just a form of vitalism. Do you realize that you can buy in vitro transcription/translation kits, to which you add your DNA of interest and get out the corresponding protein? Does that provide a better perspective?
1 Like
You’re right, my wife’s biggest complaint about the articles and papers I have written is that I italicize so much that italics loses it’s significance. Haha
I think at this point we need a computer person to chime in. I’m sure the process through which an A on a keyboard becomes an A on a computer screen is a a very complex multistep process. It’s still a code.
So I’m not sure how saying that chemical processes are complex nullifies the concept of a genetic code either.
What makes 1000001 decoded by SOMETHING in a computer (I don’t know what) that then forms an A on a screen so different from GGG (or whatever you wanna call it) being decoded by the cell to make glycyne, which is not made of the stuff that makes GGG up?
What is the fundamental difference? I’m not seeing it. I say that DNA is symbolic instructions for a cell that is decoded. You say, “no it’s not. It’s just a process more complex than the process to make water.” Why is DNA not symbolic?
Well stated.
It is also worth restating the obvious:
This kind of equivocation of the word “code” (and I’m not claiming that this is always deliberate equivocation) leads to an argument which many non-scientist Christians find compelling: “Only intelligent agents create codes. DNA is a code. Therefore, it could only have been created by an intelligent agent.”
The argument is invalid due to the equivocation of the word “code” on which it is based. Equivocations are logic fallacies.
They are fallacies only if the equivocation is false.
-So far, I have heard, “this is stuff creationists say.” Not an argument.
“Vitalism.” Not an argument.
“No symbolism.” I then provide example of symbolism, and say why the other examples offered aren’t properly “code.”
“It’s really complex.” Not an argument.
“It’s not code.” Not an argument.
“It’s an equivocation.” Not an argument.
Please. I’m perfectly willing to abandon this line of reasoning. It makes little difference to me whether or not it’s actually code. Please just give me evidence. Respond directly to my example of why it IS code. I gave an example of encoding and decoding.
Equivocations are false by definition—because an equivocation is a conflation of two different definitions.
If that had been the only reason given behind any of these points, you are correct that it would have been an invalid argument. Also, it is not invalid to also mention that some arguments are over-used hand-waving arguments traditionally favored by origins ministry hand-wavers. (Admission: I used to be far too prone to using traditional hand-waving arguments when I was a die-hard “creation science” fan.)
Vitalism is a claim from a pre-scientific age. Noting that fact certainly is a valid observation. Non-science arguments don’t constitute compelling scientific arguments.
Are you referring to the ASCII code as symbols post?
Are your “other examples offered” simply mapped inputs and their outputs—or are they true symbols for abstractions?
2 Likes
You’re not listening. It’s not a code because it lacks abstraction and symbolism. It lacks people agreeing on abstractions and symbols.
I would never claim that it was. It’s a description of what Perry and you are doing.
No one’s said that.
It’s not code because it lacks symbols. It’s not very charitable for you to ignore what Allen, Swamidass, and I actually write and respond to things that we don’t say that you put inside quotation marks.
You completely missed my point.
We agree that there is no code involved in making water from hydrogen and oxygen. I’m pointing out that transcription and translation aren’t different from the example you gave, because there’s no symbolism nor abstraction involved!
That’s not what I wrote. Try rereading it.
Because there are abstractions, created and agreed upon by people, involved in the computer. Those abstractions/symbolisms are the essence of a code.
If YOU say to me a GGG means a glycine amino acid residue, that’s a code, because we agree that “G” refers to a particular base–that’s symbolic.
But there is no such symbolism in a cell!
Sorry, you’re right about equivocation.
And yes, I’m referring to the analogy between computer code and DNA.
Are you saying that computer code is only code because WE interpret it as such? And we’ve agreed on what things mean? You’re saying WE provide the symbolism by SAYING what things mean?
@Mark, I have a question. You agreed with @Perry_Marshall when disputed calling mutations “errors in replication”. However, looking at this quote, he says that the genetic code has “error correction.” How do you make sense of this?
No, I am saying it because it fits the definition that Perry provided.
It doesn’t really have anything to do with our interpretation, just that we agree on a particular symbolic link(s). They are abstractions that do not exist in biology. If these abstractions are sufficiently arbitrary, it is difficult or impossible for others to interpret the code. That’s often the point of a code.