• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Infometrics. Is DNA a code?

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Sometimes when studying about DNA and the amazing way it works, I often wondered about how the coding process came about where everything fell into place resulting in a complex organism.

There is a lot of debate involving intelligent design for which DNA code can be read and deciphered into tangible working systems that integrate and create even more complex systems.

There's also plenty of supporting evidence demonstrating how the role of chance plays into DNA and its coding and deciphering mechanisms.

One of the more interesting articles I've read I would like to share here....

Is DNA a Code?


So what do you think? Is DNA a code?
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Yes, DNA is a code. No, it is not sufficient evidence of intelligent design.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Sometimes when studying about DNA and the amazing way it works, I often wondered about how the coding process came about where everything fell into place resulting in a complex organism.

There is a lot of debate involving intelligent design for which DNA code can be read and deciphered into tangible working systems that integrate and create even more complex systems.

There's also plenty of supporting evidence demonstrating how the role of chance plays into DNA and its coding and deciphering mechanisms.

One of the more interesting articles I've read I would like to share here....

Is DNA a Code?
Yep, it is an extremely complex code, that within an organism is read, and turned into very complex commands for the operation of the organism. It is pure information at the highest level

So what do you think? Is DNA a code?
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
It is an information-storing "code" whether or not it was intelligently designed, yes. Why would anyone feel that specific standards or algorithms can't be present in the universe, or followed and "executed" without an intelligence behind them? It happens all the time. Unless crystals are intelligent - or require God's intervention to form. What about electron valence in atoms? Why does anything arrange itself in any sort of configuration? Is there always an intelligence behind such things? Why would anyone feel the need to believe this? And the biggest reason that idea is nonsense is the "lowest common denominator." Even if you believe in "God", then what makes God tick? Why are the standards and codes and algorithms of God allowed or followed? Who made God's rules? At some point there has to be a level at which things simply are the way they are and there is no smoke and mirrors behind it. Otherwise you have to infinitely move on to creator after creator after creator after creator, etc. Though I have seen those who are foolish enough to state that "everything has a cause... oh... except God."
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
It is an information-storing "code" whether or not it was intelligently designed, yes. Why would anyone feel that specific standards or algorithms can't be present in the universe, or followed and "executed" without an intelligence behind them? It happens all the time. Unless crystals are intelligent - or require God's intervention to form. What about electron valence in atoms? Why does anything arrange itself in any sort of configuration? Is there always an intelligence behind such things? Why would anyone feel the need to believe this? And the biggest reason that idea is nonsense is the "lowest common denominator." Even if you believe in "God", then what makes God tick? Why are the standards and codes and algorithms of God allowed or followed? Who made God's rules? At some point there has to be a level at which things simply are the way they are and there is no smoke and mirrors behind it. Otherwise you have to infinitely move on to creator after creator after creator after creator, etc. Though I have seen those who are foolish enough to state that "everything has a cause... oh... except God."
Everything that is within the universe has a cause. Since you are a creature of the universe it is foolish of you to call me foolish because I recognize that no one knows about anything outside the universe, God exists outside the universe, which he created.

Here is what you are proposing regarding the origin of life. We know that except for those viruses who use the DNA of a host to replicate, all known life is DNA based for reproduction and operation at the cellular level. Even in the simplest life the DNA code must be in a specific order which is complicated. The DNA code instructs the organism to grow a ''reader" so that the DNA can be read to instruct the proteins in great detail and specificity to operate the organism.

So, in an alleged primordial sea, made up of unknown components, unknown chemicals came together to form encoded bits of information that formed chains in the proper order, including instructions to create a reader to read the code so that that first magical organism could take nourishment, excrete, and reproduce. One bit of hundreds of bits of information out of place would doom the organism before it ever existed. This begs the question, since it had no parents, where the instruction came from that would allow it to read the DNA code in the first place. Of course the issue of how do the proper proteins know how do respond to the code is apparent.

All of this allegedly occurred by blind chance. I won't bore you with concepts like the affects of radiation on DNA, or light degradation and a variety of other environmental factors that could have effected an early organism, nor will I dwell on WHERE THE INFORMATION CAME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE. Suffice it to say that it seems awfully difficult for a chance brew of chemicals to produce detailed instructions for the operation of an organism, properly encoded in the proper order before the organism exist. In retrograde, the organism could not exist without the information it required to operate existing before it did.

That is what atheists believe occurred, or something more bizarre, even more unbelievable, if that is possible.

As Sir Fred Hoyle said " How many tornado's are required in an airplane junkyard to assemble a perfectly functional and flyable airplane ? " Indeed, even simple life is more complex than an airplane.
 
Last edited:

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
Code is a complex term for pattern.

Mostly everything in nature has a pattern.

And just because you can't spot it, doesn't mean it's not there.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Code is a complex term for pattern.

Mostly everything in nature has a pattern.

And just because you can't spot it, doesn't mean it's not there.
Code is not a pattern. DNA is a very specific chain of encoded INFORMATION designed specifically to operate a specific organism. My shotgun when fired produces a pattern on paper. It isn´t written information.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
.........

The complex structures that DNA builds, are purposeful and elegant. Design is obvious....far beyond any simple Mucinex Mucus Man appearance.

(Can you imagine if all organisms looked like that?!)
I think things come across as appearing designed because in order for there to be a perception of design, there would be a need to have a contrast by which design is distinguished which would be disorder and randomness.

Our natural disposition is that of pattern-seeking by which in perceiving patterns , mainly those involving symmetry and stability, begs the question of what were viewing is actually something designed at all.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Code is not a pattern. DNA is a very specific chain of encoded INFORMATION designed specifically to operate a specific organism. My shotgun when fired produces a pattern on paper. It isn´t written information.
Neither is DNA. Be careful, try not to apply an equivocation error. Creationists usually use one definition of "code" in one part of their argument and then another elsewhere. The experts in the filed do not see any "intelligence" behind it.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
I literally stopped reading (and refuse to continue) after these two ideas presented in the same sentence:

I recognize that no one knows about anything outside the universe

God exists outside the universe, which he created.

Do you not see the obvious/glaring/terrible contradiction here? It is the same sort of contradiction I was originally calling out. It seems you just cannot help yourself.
 

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
Sometimes when studying about DNA and the amazing way it works, I often wondered about how the coding process came about where everything fell into place resulting in a complex organism.

It is the same type of coding that operates in all chemical processes, both within organisms and outside of organisms. It is the same type of code that allows ice to form hexagonal shaped crystals.

There is a lot of debate involving intelligent design for which DNA code can be read and deciphered into tangible working systems that integrate and create even more complex systems.

DNA is unlike any code used by humans for communication. Human codes are abstract while DNA is concrete and physical. For example, the anti-codon on a transfer RNA binds to the proper codon on a DNA string because of the hydrogen bonds between the complementary bases, not because there is some intelligent reader looking at the sequence.

So what do you think? Is DNA a code?

That is a somewhat arbitrary choice in the end since humans can make words mean whatever they want them to mean. I think it is better to ask "If DNA is a code, what else would be a code?".
 

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
Even in the simplest life the DNA code must be in a specific order which is complicated.

If this were the case then there would be a single species whose members would all have identical DNA. Obviously, this isn't the case. There is no specific order that life must have. In fact, there are currently billions of different sequences of DNA that make humans. The number of possible DNA sequences that can support life grows to nearly infinity when we consider all of the organisms that are living right now, all that have lived in the past, all that will live in the future, and all that could have lived.

The DNA code instructs the organism to grow a ''reader" so that the DNA can be read to instruct the proteins in great detail and specificity to operate the organism.

There is nothing in the cell that reads anything in a fashion like humans reading a newspaper. You might as well claim that oxygen reads hydrogen in order to make water.

Adenosines naturally bind to thymines and guanidines naturally bind to cytosines. This is because of hydrogen bonding. No reading is needed.

Also, DNA doesn't instruct anything. It is merely a substrate for the reaction of nucleotides and proteins.

As Sir Fred Hoyle said " How many tornado's are required in an airplane junkyard to assemble a perfectly functional and flyable airplane ? " Indeed, even simple life is more complex than an airplane.

Does it require a tornado to make a snowflake?
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
If this were the case then there would be a single species whose members would all have identical DNA. Obviously, this isn't the case. There is no specific order that life must have. In fact, there are currently billions of different sequences of DNA that make humans. The number of possible DNA sequences that can support life grows to nearly infinity when we consider all of the organisms that are living right now, all that have lived in the past, all that will live in the future, and all that could have lived.



There is nothing in the cell that reads anything in a fashion like humans reading a newspaper. You might as well claim that oxygen reads hydrogen in order to make water.

Adenosines naturally bind to thymines and guanidines naturally bind to cytosines. This is because of hydrogen bonding. No reading is needed.

Also, DNA doesn't instruct anything. It is merely a substrate for the reaction of nucleotides and proteins.



Does it require a tornado to make a snowflake?
We are speaking of the alleged first organism given birth by abiogenisis. To help me more clearrly understand what you are trying to say, please answer a few questions, before we go on.

Are you saying that encoded DNA is not information ?

Are you saying that a random, not specific order of DNA at the cellular level will still allow the cell survive, function, and thrive ?

Are you saying that proteins in a cell would control the function of a cell without the encoded information of DNA ?

Are you saying that the information in DNA is not read, and used by the cell for the basic function of the cell ?

How could the human genome be understood as having genes that result in specific attributes, like blue eyes, if they did not contain the information to create blue eyes ?

No, it doesn´t require a tornado to create a snowflake, that is based in the physical law relating to the creation of snowflakes. Ditto for refraction and rainbows, ditto for what makes a baseball curve ( air turbulence ).

Please cite me any physical law that created a completely living organism from non living chemicals, and explain why, since physical laws don´t cease to exist, why we can walk outside and see it working today.

BTW, Sir Fred Hoyle would tell you that in comparison to a living organism a snowflake is hopelessly crude and uncomplicated. You of course realize that he was speaking of the complete and total randomness of abiogenesis.

Thanks !
 

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
Are you saying that encoded DNA is not information ?

You need to define "information" so that I can answer that question.

Are you saying that a random, not specific order of DNA at the cellular level will still allow the cell survive, function, and thrive ?

Studies have shown that random DNA sequences can result in functional genes.

"It is generally assumed that new genes arise through duplication and/or recombination of existing genes. The probability that a new functional gene could arise out of random non-coding DNA is so far considered to be negligible, as it seems unlikely that such an RNA or protein sequence could have an initial function that influences the fitness of an organism. Here, we have tested this question systematically, by expressing clones with random sequences in Escherichia coli and subjecting them to competitive growth. Contrary to expectations, we find that random sequences with bioactivity are not rare. In our experiments we find that up to 25% of the evaluated clones enhance the growth rate of their cells and up to 52% inhibit growth. Testing of individual clones in competition assays confirms their activity and provides an indication that their activity could be exerted by either the transcribed RNA or the translated peptide. This suggests that transcribed and translated random parts of the genome could indeed have a high potential to become functional. The results also suggest that random sequences may become an effective new source of molecules for studying cellular functions, as well as for pharmacological activity screening."
Random sequences are an abundant source of bioactive RNAs or peptides

Are you saying that proteins in a cell would control the function of a cell without the encoded information of DNA ?

That's exactly what they do in mature human red blood cells which lack DNA. The function of proteins does not require the presence of DNA (unless they are proteins whose function is to bind to or alter DNA). In the case of RBC's, hemoglobin binds to oxygen just fine without DNA there to tell it to bind oxygen.

Are you saying that the information in DNA is not read, and used by the cell for the basic function of the cell ?

It isn't read in the same sense of a human reading a newspaper. We don't bind to a newspaper through hydrogen bonds in order to read it. You will have to define what you mean by "read" in order for it to make sense.

How could the human genome be understood as having genes that result in specific attributes, like blue eyes, if they did not contain the information to create blue eyes ?

It is the interaction of DNA, RNA, and proteins that result in the phenotypes we see. Proteins and RNA copy DNA. Proteins bind to DNA and make RNA. The RNA binds to a complex of RNA and proteins to make new proteins. The RNA and proteins from different cells interact to produce the phenotype we see. The function of DNA appears to be inheritance more than anything else.

No, it doesn´t require a tornado to create a snowflake, that is based in the physical law relating to the creation of snowflakes. Ditto for refraction and rainbows, ditto for what makes a baseball curve ( air turbulence ).

But where did the information come from to create a snowflake?

Please cite me any physical law that created a completely living organism from non living chemicals, and explain why, since physical laws don´t cease to exist, why we can walk outside and see it working today.

We don't know how life originated, but we have yet to see a physical law that would prevent life emerging from non-life. If you are aware of such a physical law, now would be the time to reference it.

BTW, Sir Fred Hoyle would tell you that in comparison to a living organism a snowflake is hopelessly crude and uncomplicated. You of course realize that he was speaking of the complete and total randomness of abiogenesis.

Thanks !

Putting words in the mouths of dead scientists isn't a very good way of discussing these topics.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
You need to define "information" so that I can answer that question.



Studies have shown that random DNA sequences can result in functional genes.

"It is generally assumed that new genes arise through duplication and/or recombination of existing genes. The probability that a new functional gene could arise out of random non-coding DNA is so far considered to be negligible, as it seems unlikely that such an RNA or protein sequence could have an initial function that influences the fitness of an organism. Here, we have tested this question systematically, by expressing clones with random sequences in Escherichia coli and subjecting them to competitive growth. Contrary to expectations, we find that random sequences with bioactivity are not rare. In our experiments we find that up to 25% of the evaluated clones enhance the growth rate of their cells and up to 52% inhibit growth. Testing of individual clones in competition assays confirms their activity and provides an indication that their activity could be exerted by either the transcribed RNA or the translated peptide. This suggests that transcribed and translated random parts of the genome could indeed have a high potential to become functional. The results also suggest that random sequences may become an effective new source of molecules for studying cellular functions, as well as for pharmacological activity screening."
Random sequences are an abundant source of bioactive RNAs or peptides



That's exactly what they do in mature human red blood cells which lack DNA. The function of proteins does not require the presence of DNA (unless they are proteins whose function is to bind to or alter DNA). In the case of RBC's, hemoglobin binds to oxygen just fine without DNA there to tell it to bind oxygen.



It isn't read in the same sense of a human reading a newspaper. We don't bind to a newspaper through hydrogen bonds in order to read it. You will have to define what you mean by "read" in order for it to make sense.



It is the interaction of DNA, RNA, and proteins that result in the phenotypes we see. Proteins and RNA copy DNA. Proteins bind to DNA and make RNA. The RNA binds to a complex of RNA and proteins to make new proteins. The RNA and proteins from different cells interact to produce the phenotype we see. The function of DNA appears to be inheritance more than anything else.



But where did the information come from to create a snowflake?



We don't know how life originated, but we have yet to see a physical law that would prevent life emerging from non-life. If you are aware of such a physical law, now would be the time to reference it.



Putting words in the mouths of dead scientists isn't a very good way of discussing these topics.
Well, actually, I saw the entire interview with him on ABIOGENESIS. The analogy was made regarding abiogenesis. The entire discussion was about abiogenesis. Would you conclude the analogy was about aerodynamics? There is no apparent physical law that would preclude a person from living 200 years either.

Reality isn't the result of just physical laws. There is no apparent physical law that would prevent life from originating from a used bic lighter, but I would bet the ranch that it is never going to happen.

This is always the cop out of those who have faith in abiogenesis, It's possible. At what point does it's possible become scientifically impossible ? Can lead be turned into gold ? It's possible, right ?

Actually no, the function of DNA at the cellular level isn;t just inheritance. It's purpose is also operational. You cannot inherit cells that do not have the DNA driven instructions to form properly and operate properly, and reproduce properly, they die, and if you have enough of them, you die as well.

Cancer cells are the result of normally functioning cells that for variety of reasons cease to operate as their precursor cells were programmed to do. They look different from the normal cells of the organ, and do not function as the cells for the organ should. The organ dies, the cells spread and colonize, the host dies, the cancer cells die.

Unless the cells function as designed and essentially programmed, death is almost always the result. As to that very first result of life from non life...................................?
 

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
This is always the cop out of those who have faith in abiogenesis, It's possible. At what point does it's possible become scientifically impossible ? Can lead be turned into gold ? It's possible, right ?

I don't have "faith in abiogenesis". I don't know how life started, and I'm pretty sure you don't either given your inability to present any evidence for how life started. I certainly don't have faith in your understanding of biochemistry.

Actually no, the function of DNA at the cellular level isn;t just inheritance. It's purpose is also operational. You cannot inherit cells that do not have the DNA driven instructions to form properly and operate properly, and reproduce properly, they die, and if you have enough of them, you die as well.

Please reread what I said:

"The function of DNA appears to be inheritance more than anything else."

I never said that inheritance was DNA's only job. What I was arguing for was that inheritance is DNA's main job. DNA isn't sitting in the nucleus and barking out orders like you have portrayed it. DNA isn't going around in the cell making sure all of the proteins are behaving properly. Instead, DNA is used by other molecules as a substrate for chemical reactions. It is just one of many molecules that react together.

Cancer cells are the result of normally functioning cells that for variety of reasons cease to operate as their precursor cells were programmed to do. They look different from the normal cells of the organ, and do not function as the cells for the organ should. The organ dies, the cells spread and colonize, the host dies, the cancer cells die.

Unless the cells function as designed and essentially programmed, death is almost always the result. As to that very first result of life from non life...................................?

Where is your evidence that anything was designed into DNA?
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
I don't have "faith in abiogenesis". I don't know how life started, and I'm pretty sure you don't either given your inability to present any evidence for how life started. I certainly don't have faith in your understanding of biochemistry.



Please reread what I said:

"The function of DNA appears to be inheritance more than anything else."

I never said that inheritance was DNA's only job. What I was arguing for was that inheritance is DNA's main job. DNA isn't sitting in the nucleus and barking out orders like you have portrayed it. DNA isn't going around in the cell making sure all of the proteins are behaving properly. Instead, DNA is used by other molecules as a substrate for chemical reactions. It is just one of many molecules that react together.



Where is your evidence that anything was designed into DNA?
I never said that you had faith in abiogenesis, I said those that do.

No, DNA isn't barking out orders nor is it going around in the cell. What it is doing is controlling those chemical reactions in a very specific way based upon the information in the DNA strand.

Information, Merriam Webster Dictionary, 2. "The attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative responses of something that produces specific effects. E.g binary computer code, DNA "

Information can be communicated by sound, visually, electronically, by pulse, or chemically.


regarding abiogenesis, where did that information come from to allow that first living creature to operate successfully, to ensure the proper chemical reactions for the right purposes at the right time ?
 

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
No, DNA isn't barking out orders nor is it going around in the cell. What it is doing is controlling those chemical reactions in a very specific way based upon the information in the DNA strand.

What are "those chemical reactions" and what do you mean by "information"?

Information, Merriam Webster Dictionary, 2. "The attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative responses of something that produces specific effects. E.g binary computer code, DNA "

So how does that definition apply to DNA?

regarding abiogenesis, where did that information come from to allow that first living creature to operate successfully, to ensure the proper chemical reactions for the right purposes at the right time ?

From what I can see, the same place that allows water molecules to form complex hexagonal patterns. It is the same information found throughout chemistry.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
What are "those chemical reactions" and what do you mean by "information"?



So how does that definition apply to DNA?



From what I can see, the same place that allows water molecules to form complex hexagonal patterns. It is the same information found throughout chemistry.
You aren't seeing it very clearly, with respect. Information isn't required for a response to a physical law. A rock doesn't need information to fall as a result of gravity, nor does the earth need information to produce gravity.

There is no physical law that exists that compels non living matter to become living matter. There is no physical law that compels life from a non living source to reproduce, nourish itself, respond to the environment, etc., etc., etc. at the moment of it's creation. Without any of these but reproduction, it couldn;'t exist at the moment of it's creation.

DNA controls the response of whatever in the cell when the response could be different in one or more ways and the response has very specific effects, the proper operation and life of the cell.

DNA is composed of complex chains of this information, which has been identified as specific, encoded, instruction.

The information controls the cell by controlling specific chemical reactions at the right time and the right place so it will survive, function properly, and reproduce.

Just as a computer must have a binary code programmed into it to operate using electricity, a cell must have a DNA code to operate using chemical reaction.

No number of random chemical reactions can produce a surviving life form without the specific, pre established , disciplined, operational information.
 
Top