# Is there really information being conveyed within a cell?

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Created:** [December 31, 2024, 4:02am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951 "2024-12-31T04:02:01Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 493

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![theaz101](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/278dde/32.png) [@theaz101](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/theaz101)\
**Post date:** [March 9, 2025, 1:36pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/493 "2025-03-09T13:36:15Z")

</div>

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> > [@theaz101](#):
> >
> > I don’t know where you got the idea that the Creationist claim is that the Genetic code is intended to communicate to humans. That’s basically a straw-man.
> 
> Yet you are making that very claim _in the same comment!_.

I don’t see how you would think so. I’m making a clear distinction between the purpose of the genetic information as used by the cell, and man’s ability to find out about the information through research.

The key word that I was responding to was “intended”.

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> > [@theaz101](#):
> >
> > Whatever we have learned about the Genetic code and the transcription/translation processes is knowledge gained from research. **My claim is that this knowledge implies a creator.**
> 
> The claim is there is a Creator. Nothing wrong with that! The trouble is you are selectively choosing facts to support your claim.
> 
> > [@theaz101](#):
> >
> > No, there’s nothing magical about it. Only that functional digital information is the result of intelligence. Also, digital doesn’t mean base 10. It refers to the use of groupings of something (bits/nucleotides/dot & dashes) to store information.
> 
> You are asserting there is “something special” about base 2 coding that is not present in base 10. This is an example of how you are being arbitrarily selective. In another comment (not quoted here) you assert that _genetic code is Created just like computer code._
> 
> ANY information can be encoded in any base, so if there is “something special” about base 2, then it is equally true that all information in any sort of encoding to proof of the Creator.  
> Again, I don’t mean to criticize your belief, just the means you use to support it.

I don’t think there is anything special about the base of a coding system. You are the one who first brought up the issue of base.

My claim is that all functional digital information, which requires elements (dots/dashes, bits, nucleobases) of a coding system to be put into functional sequences, requires intelligence to do so.

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> > [@theaz101](#):
> >
> > There is no code in tree rings, varves or spectral lines. You can’t code a message or instructions in any of them.
> 
> Human can and do interpret the information encoded in all of these.
> 
> > [@theaz101](#):
> >
> > Agreed, but that is “1A” information (knowledge gained through research). It isn’t coded information that can be decoded according to the mapping of the codeset.
> > 
> > …
> > 
> > The Genetic code is “1B” information. The use of sequences or arrangements of something (bits or nucleotides) that produce an effect.
> > 
> > When you know the sequence of a mature mRNA, you can decode it and find out what the sequence of amino acids will be in the protein.
> 
> This coding is “hard-wired” by the laws of chemistry. It doesn’t get more naturally occurring than that.

By this logic, the words on this post are just “hard-wired” by the laws of electronics or physics.

This is why Crick’s Sequence hypothesis is so fundamentally important. The coding is only “hard-wired” because the DNA bases were put into the right sequence in the first place. And there is no law of chemistry that requires any specific sequence of bases, just as there is no law of physics or gravity that requires a series of Scrabble tiles be put in any specific sequence.

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> You interpret that as a sign of the Divine, and I can see why you might, but then we can equally say that EVERYTHING is a sign of the Divine. You are essentially restating your own presupposition in a needlessly complex form. 🙂

My interpretation is that a sign of intelligence that precedes humanity is a sign of the Divine.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951)._