All aboard the atheist bus?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Devil said:
Im not certain whether you are more ignorant, or more arrogant. Probably it's 50:50. Your use of words is sloppy - you think evolution means the theory of, and coded sets are a code.

A code is abstract, DNA is not.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm a bit confused:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=genetic code&db=luna

The sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins. It is the biochemical basis of heredity and nearly universal in all organisms.
Click to expand...

Or are you splitting hairs between the meaning of 'code' and 'genetic code'?
 
Seeker_UK said:
Or are you splitting hairs between the meaning of 'code' and 'genetic code'?
Click to expand...

I am being accurate. DNA is a molecule and not a code. Codes are man-made, DNA isn't. IDiots (and mr bllox) cannot grasp this very simple fact. If DNA is a code, then NaCl is also a code -- for salt.

DNA cannot possibly code for text, because living cells can't synthesise text. Frankly, I am surprised that mr bllox passed any O levels, never mind his alleged A levels.
 
Bub - the genetic code of our dna contains information. It is encoded using a coding set - the basic genetic building blocks. Information does not have to be man made, it exists independently. Entropy is a measure of the rate of flow of information. Molecules can be used to encode information and solve problems using evolutionary techniques - that is the basis of dna computing which has been executed successfully in the lab. DNA has already been used to code both text and optimisation problems to be solved using dna computing in the lab. Have you heard of genetic algorithms and evolutionary computing bub? Check it out...

DNA is a code that contains information and is also a molecule. NACL is a molecule but it is not a coding system. However, it does contain information - its unique state can be described using a finite number of binary bits. Paul has summed it up qualtatively in a way that even you should be able to understand. It makes no difference wether humans encode information in dna or whether it is encoded by natural selection due to environmental pressure, it is stil linformation and it is still a code. If you werent an oaf with no imagination and monocular vision. Cyclopsian!
 
If you were to carve "Nick loves young asian girls" into a tree trunk, would this mean that wood is a code and contains information?
 
Indeed - wood would be the medium, the alphabet would be the code and my preference for asian ladies would be the information. Just as dna is the medium, genetic building blocks are the coding set and the genes are the information. Game set and match I believe ;)
 
Doing it in Braille would be an alternative strategy, but human manipulation of a piece of wood doesn't turn the piece of wood into a code. As you point out above - the wood is the medium.

DNA is a molecule, and not a code.
 
DNA is a molecule that can be used to encode information. Its building blocks comprise a coding set. Information is encoded from the environment by natural selection. It should be clear to you now!
 
But it's not a code. Codes are arbitrary, and abstract.

What's the nucleotide sequence required to synthesise a protein shaped like a question mark?
 
Seeker_UK said:
That's being a little unfair. Codes can be limited in what they cover.
Click to expand...

I've never heard of a protein shaped like a question mark. The only way DNA could encode text is if you were to codify the text to start with. The Universal Constructor doesn't exist. Genes and proteins are a coded set, not an arbitrary code.
 
You are thinking is anthropocentric terms and therein lies your error. Codes are not arbitrary they are chosen - either by human choice or choice made by natural selection. There is absolutely no difference whatsoever. A coding set is just the basis set for code.

A question mark is a human linguistic construct its valid only for human construction. There is no reason for it to appear in genetic code. However you can use the genetic code to encode human text in symbolic form just as binary can be used to encode the ascii character set if you wished to embed human text in a genome. I fear you are missing the point and taking things too literally. I am guessing your knowledge of how computers (and codes) work is quite limited.

Coding and information have precise mathematical definitions and their is no difference between human encoded information and genetically coded information.
 
Also the genetic code is arbitrary - chosen by evolution. A small proportion of organisms actually have a differing coding set.
 
The only way DNA could encode text is if you were to codify the text to start with.
Click to expand...
That was a given.

The Universal Constructor doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
It exists in a mathematical sense. And as a pattern that a machine can interpret.

It's interesting because von Neumann showed that to achieve replication and evolution the equivalent of DNA was required. This was some time before DNA was found in life.

Genes and proteins are a coded set, not an arbitrary code.
Click to expand...
If I have two or more states then I can encode anything. DNA has 4 states, so each base can carry two bits of information. Text is mostly encoded with 8 bits per character, so 4 bases per character. Although I'm pretty sure that natural selection would have discovered 'Zip'.

Paul
 
Paul Ranson said:
If I have two or more states then I can encode anything. DNA has 4 states, so each base can carry two bits of information. Text is mostly encoded with 8 bits per character, so 4 bases per character.

Paul
Click to expand...

So it's not "a code", any more than 4 sets of coloured balls is "a code". And it can't "encode text". We can encode text and then transcribe it to DNA bases (or balls IOW).
 
Text can be "encoded" (written) on a piece of paper, Paul. I am demystifying DNA as there appears to be some confusion about what it actually does.
 
I wouldn't call writing 'encoding', but there you go.

There's nothing, AFAIK, in the known workings of DNA that help make a case for ID or creationism. And much evidence for evolution. The common gene in every example of the eye for example.

Paul
 
I wouldn't call writing 'encoding'


Well, neither would I, normally, but the alphabet is quite obviously a code, and that's the "encoding" part. Writing is transcription of the code.

It's only mr hazyknowledge's ignorant & extended ramblings on this topic which have brought me to this point, I assure you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top