Is DNA computer language source code?

The “Introducing Bruce Fast” thread got a bit hectic, so

A good question.
Let me start to answer that question with another question. Is a robot, oh, like say a 3d printer a “computing device”?

Let me answer that question with another question. What are you trying to get at?

Something went weird here. I tried to quote only “What are the necessary characteristics of a computer language?”

I’m just trying to establish some nomenclature.

To answer the question in the OP: yes, is like source code, no, it is not like source code. This is only an analogy at best, and a particularly bad analogy to boot.

I intend to prove that DNA is computer language source code. But I must establish some nomenclature first. Is a robot, such as a 3d printer, a “computing machine”?

Let me be a bit more precise. DNA is memory, the order of the nucleotides is the source code.

I don’t know if there is any abstract or generic definition or template for programming languages.

But, obviously, they run on a computer with a CPU which has an instruction set and would typically require a compiler or interpreter to translate the human-readable format into the machine-readable format so that it can be executed.

I don’t think DNA is a language nor do I think it is source code.

1 Like


Trying to define the DNA/software analogy into reality isn’t going to work here. :slightly_smiling_face:

This is hilarious. This proof depends on your definition, which is subjective. So you have subjectively determined DNA is a computer language source code. Let’s jsut avoid the detour and grant that can subjectively say this.

Now what?

Is there anyone here that disagrees with the brave Mung that a robot, such as a 3d printer, is a computing device?

The definition that I will use is pre-established without consideration to the biological question.

Yes, you have a Predetermined and subjective definition that you are applying to a new domain without consideration of that domain. What could go wrong?

1 Like

Pre-established by whom?

Boy you guys are a suspicious bunch. You can’t answer a simple question because you are sure you will be trapped. You are second guessing the trap around every corner. Quit feeling so darn vulnerable. Even once I have proven that an organism is a self-replicating, software controlled robot, I will not have somehow falsified very much at all.

1 Like

When I present the definition I will use, you may question its veracity, its chain of custody if you will.

Sorry BF but you should understand we have seen far too many scientifically unknowledgeable computer science majors and engineers trying to define their ID beliefs into existence and/or confuse analogies with reality. Just as you’re doing. Don’t take our frustration personally but we’ve played this rodeo 100x before.


I could afford to answer it because I didn’t care if there was a trap. If my answer turned out to be wrong I could always change my mind about it.

First, I promise not to do the Dembski 2 step. Dempski seems to define CSI as something that meets a mathematical definition and can only be produced by intelligence. Everything past the and is hooey. CSI as Dempski defines it seems valid as “you can’t get here in a single step”. However, if multiple steps are available, the entire CSI concept is challenged.

Second, you say you have dealt with “computer science majors and engineers”. The thing is, we see, as Bill Gates describes so well, “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” (I only would edit his statement by removing the “like a” bit.) While I caution my fellow computer science and engineers to watch carefully for the Dempski 2 step, life must be addressable on our terms. Our general terms, that a living organism is a self-replicating, software driven robot, is valid.

1 Like