You just made my point. The code used in those papers is different than the genetic code.
And the genetic code is not a code. It is merely an analogy to a code.
You have failed to make your point.
That isn’t a definition. What definition are you using for code?
Quaternary ROM is the definition I am using for DNA. DNA is quaternary ROM. (What you asked for was a definition of DNA.)
That isn’t a definition, it’s a function. What is the definition of code you are using? If you don’t know the definition just say so.
No, I asked for a definition of CODE
@Timothy_Horton: Note my edit. What you asked for was a defintion of DNA, not code.
Okay, let’s try this. Code is a system for storing data in memory.
That doesn’t fit any known definition of code. If you are making up your own definitions your arguments will be useless from the get go.
Whoah, that’s some strong jumping to conclusions there. Just out of curiosity, how did you determine how God-made codes function? Have you had access to those in the past?
@Timothy_Horton: Timothy Horton said
“What definition are you using for DNA?”
Quit with the dishonest word-twisting. i was asking for the definition of code as you were applying it to DNA. Not the definition of DNA.
I’m sorry you don’t understand “a method for storing data in memory.” (We make up new definitions all the time. That’s what we do.)
Second, Third, Fourth… Genetic Codes, One Spectacular Case of Code Crowding - video Edward N. Trifonov, University of Haifa, Masaryk University
I understand it fine. You don’t seem to understand if you make up your own definitions to support your “design” claims your claims may be dismissed out of hand. You don’t seem to understand how science works. You don’t get to define your woo into existence.
Is not a code a system for storing data in memory? I mentioned God all of once. My woo has nothing to do with the point, does it. (You got distracted too easily. )
That is still not a recognized definition of code. Do you often make up your own definitions when you have no valid arguments?
You’re still worried about canonical definitions.
Well, there are the facts that only 61 of the 64 codons map to 20 amino acids (not proteins), so consider it brought up.
Precise definitions matter in science. One of the most scurrilous tactics used by ID-Creationists is to keep definitions as vague and undefined as possible. Like refusing to define “code”.