No you didn’t provide examples of DNA being symbolic code. The human designation of the codon as “GGG” is a symbolic representation. The actual codon itself is NOT a symbolic representation of anything.
Until you manage to grasp the difference between the map and the territory there’s not much more anyone can explain to you.
Right. His point is that evolution advances through things like error CORRECTION. I think transposition would be an example of something like this. Copying errors occur but they don’t advance evolution. That’s what Perry would say, I think.
This is very hard to make sense of, because transposition (by which you must mean transposon hopping?) is a random mutation that can be helpful and unhelpful. Would we not want to call the unhelpful hops “errors” in some sense?
What do you think about calling the “genetic code” a templating system, rather than a code. That is actually a much stronger analogy, and has a closer connection to the actually history of discovery.
I am continually mystified by people who attempt arguments from labels. As if the kind of word we use to categorize the entity in question somehow establishes how the entity came to exist in the first place.
Labels are for communication, recognition, and categorization. They are not tools for discovering origins. Calling the genetic code a code, supposing we were to agree it qualifies as one, does NOTHING to establish that it was designed.
That would be like calling the Earth a “work of art” and works of art were made by artists. Who the hell is impressed by this question-begging nonsense?
That grown up otherwise mentally normally endowed people cannot fathom this elementary concept is unsettling to me.
Which would be a ridiculous claim. There’s a vast literature on mutations with positive fitness effects. Perry’s claim is as provably false as it is possible to make one in science.
Of course, Perry can now invent a completely different apologetic around his definition of “copying error” and then insist that no known mutation qualifies as a copying error.
This thread is a good example of an investment in a topic that further POLARIZES the participants … rather than help them find common ground.
It should be moved to a sound-proof venue with an unlocked door to enter (if desired).
This applies to much of what the ID movement does (IC, binding site, etc.). Then the followers, as we see here, think that all they need to do is categorize things and the science is done.
It also applies in spades to the Third Way group. They offer nothing empirical, just relabeling.
The universe is fine-tuned. Fine tuning requires a tuner
Sadly the scientifically untrained laymen who are the DI’s target audience for their anti-science propaganda are often swayed by such empty rhetorical games. That’s why we get the equivocation over the different definitions of “code”. It’s why we get the lame argument from analogy (“the flagellum acts like an outboard motor, outboard motors are designed therefore the flagellum is designed!!”).
The scientific community is well aware the ID-Creationist movement is not a scientific one but rather a religiously motivated political one. Too many unaware laymen fail to get the word.
I’m honestly not well-informed enough to answer your templating question in the slightest! You’d have to explain what templating is first. At this point, I feel like I don’t understand things enough to take a strong stand either way regarding whether DNA is LIKE or IS code. What needs to stop though, is this ID/Creationist talk. If DNA IS code, that doesn’t automatically make creationism true. It still could have come about by a natural process. Phrases like “anti-science propaganda” are vapid and unhelpful.
I guess I just don’t understand why GGG would not be symbolic of glycine since IT ITSELF is NOT glycine, and must be translated as instructions to make glycine by ribosomes. I’m sorry if you have explained why this is false and I have missed it. Saying that’s it’s not symbolic or that it’s not abstract or that it’s a false analogy doesn’t help me pinpoint exactly where you think I’ve gone wrong here. Can you please be as precise as possible? Why are ribosomes not decoders of mRNA? Why is GGG not symbolic of glycine?
As for why it is considered error correction,
Barbara McClintock:
“Evidence from X-rays, ring chromosomes, and that obtained in later experi- ments (9, 10, 11, 12), gives unequivocal support for the conclusion that broken ends will find each other and fuse. The challenge is met by a programmed response. This may be necessary, as both accidental breaks and programmed breaks may be frequent. If not repaired, such breaks could lead to genomic deficiencies having serious consequences.”
In the process of transposition, a cell tries to repair itself. Many times, it is unsuccessful. Sometimes, however, it is successful. This implies that transposition is a goal oriented process. This language may get derided as too anthropathic, but I am simply using McClintock’s language. Once again, please point out where I’ve gone wrong. Perhaps “failed to correct an error” might be a good way to think about it.
I’m the one that everyone disagrees with and although tensions seem quite high, I find these discussions great learning experiences. They help me form my views more fully. I appreciate your concern though, haha. 
We have both been extremely precise. The fact that you repeatedly fail to quote what we write so that you can respond directly to it speaks volumes, Mark.
For a change of pace, why don’t you try responding DIRECTLY to Rumraket’s post?
No one debates that an adaption cannot occur from a mutation. Advancing evolution requires showing how the simple adoptions create transitions. This is where the evidence is spotty.
“You’re not listening. It’s not a code because it lacks abstraction and symbolism. It lacks people agreeing on abstractions and symbols.”
This doesn’t specifically answer what I have asked.
Neither does this: “It’s not code because it lacks symbols.”
Can you say, “ribosomes are not decoders because ________________________.” And the becsuse should not say “because they are not decoding anything.” Please explain WHY they are not decoding GGG.
I agree with rumkat that whether it’s code or not, it does not established whether it was designed.
Because none of the steps involve abstractions or symbols.
How? Why?
I do not want this to become a creation/evolution debate. This is a debate about whether DNA is code.
Yes, it really does. YOU posted Perry’s specific definition, and translation doesn’t fit the specific definition YOU posted!
Have you conveniently forgotten that?
Are you referring to this?
“” 1. Code is defined as the rules of communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols."
Yes!!! It’s up to you to explain where the agreement(s) and symbol(s) are, instead of just reasserting using the word “code” and derivatives thereof. If you use the terms “code,” “encoding,” or “decoding,” you’re cheating.
Try it for once instead of challenging others to prove a negative.