The "Digital Code" of DNA

kuresu, in his OP, said this:

quote:

---

Anywho, in the previous thread, unless I'm grossly misrepresenting Hoot Mon's argument, he argues that:

​

DNA/RNA is a "digital" code. And, while this code is an intrinsic property of DNA, it is not the result of any chemical properties that we know of today. This, he argues, is an argument against any hypothesis of abiogenesis, because he just can't see how this "code" arose. Nevermind the argument of incredulity present.

---

There is a important inaccuracy in kuresu statement. It's with the words "chemical properties." If you substituted "chemical principles" for "chedmical properties" then the quote would correctly reflect my position:"DNA/RNA is a "digital" code. And, while this code is an intrinsic property of DNA, it is not the result of any chemical principles that we know of today."Clearly, the truth is that there are no know chemical principles that account for the evolution of a digital genetic code.And kuresu also stated in his OP:

quote:

---

I argue, as do many others:

​

DNA/RNA are just chemicals. Not something more thanks to this "digital code". This is not a hinderance to any hypothesis of abiogenesis.

---

I disagree. Nucleic acids are the only molecules we know of that hold digital genetic code. If this is not remarkable and unique in nature then I don't know what is. I believe that abiogenesis must have included the evolution of a digital genetic code. If it did not, then I would have to ask how anything ever got inherited. Without genetic heritability it's hard to imagine how abiogenesis could have taken place.”HM

CS wrote: Non sequitur. Who said anything about "meaning" anyway? What kind of meaning do you mean? Synatactical meaning? Onlological meaning? Poetic meaning? Well, yes. But you brought up "meaning."btw: There is a digital genetic code, and it is necessary.”HM

Whew! You still cannot differentiate codes from bondings. I'm afriad you are missing out on something quite interesting. If chemical bonding is all there is to it, then why should the order of the bondings have any relevance to the function of a DNA molecule? By way of your reasoning, a DNA molecule could be ordered in any way and not impair its function...because all the principles of chemical bonding are operating and satisfied.”HM

No, it's not. The ordering of DNA is not the same thing as the ordering a quartz crystal. Very different kinds of information are involved. Yes, they all involve chemical bonding, but the quartz crystal has nothing in its structure that even faintly resembles the digital genetic information encoded on a DNA molecule. Their electromagnetic bonding properties and principles may be the same, but their informative properties and principles are quite different.”HM

No they are not”not their ordering. Quartz crystals have no codes that specific structure. Linear digital codes carrying genetic information are found on only one kind of molecule”nucleic acids”and electromagnetic bonding principles do not explain their ordering. Furthermore, a quartz crystal has no heritable properties because it lacks serial generations to which encoded information can be passed.”HM

I may be a little dopey, mainly for trying to reason with you guys, but I am not disingenuous. There are simply no credible molecular biologists I know of that would deny the unambiguous biological existence of a genetic code. If either you or CS are denying it then you are doing so for reasons apart from science. You would have to be very uninformed to deny the natural existence of a genetic code, and that it is digital. But if you wanted to argue that everything is metaphor, then you could always say that genetic code is just a popular way of speaking that reflects contemporary computer concepts, or some dodge like that. I'm not saying this and neither are credible molecular biologists. We're saying that there is a real, actual, and unambiguous genetic code that engages nucleotides as digits to hold heritable information about the expression of proteins. The code has a celebrated alphabet, but it lacks syntactical meaning and therefore does not qualify as a language (according to Chomsky).btw: What kind of proteins do rock produce? And do they pass that ability on to their little stone children?”HM

What would it take if Watson and Crick are not enough?

OK. Try this: You can order genes through the Internet (if you're a qualified scientist, I assume). How is this done? By specifying the code”the digital code: TACAGGCTACTA...

Ringo, are you saying the equivalent of this: 'A Ford is nothing more than summation of its parts. There is no Fordness that goes beyond the physical automobile itself.'”HM

Yup. To wit: US Scientists Create Polio Virus With Mail Order Chemicals

quote:

---

Scientists in the US have, for the first time, fabricated a working copy of a dangerous disease virus from scratch in the lab, using chemicals obtained by mail order and the publicly available knowledge of the virus's code.

​

Using harmless pieces of DNA they received through the post [office], researchers at the State University of New York built a synthetic version of the polio virus so like the real thing that it infected mice and made them ill .

​

The New York team's work, published yesterday in the online version of the journal Science, alarmed polio specialists, but also prompted concerns that other viruses more suitable for biowarfare, such as smallpox, could be synthesised.

​

.

​

Written down, the genetic code for polio is only 7,741 letters long .

---

How about a Ford owner's manual? There's digital Fordness in there.”HM

Because structure alone does not explain the genetic code”the molecular structure must be arranged to hold its genetic information. You can have a DNA molecule with any arrangement of nucleotides and it's still a DNA molecule. The structure of a DNA molecule is not the primary concern here, because the arrangement of nucleotides into coded information goes a huge step beyond mere structure. You want a DNA molecule to work like a quartz molecule. You want to see all of the information contained in the electromagnetic bonding. You fail to see how a rock is different from sea urchin, because you pull the shade down on anything that is more than just bonding chemistry.But I suppose you will say, ignorantly, that molecular arrangement is only structure. That's like saying 'a jelly doughnut is only food.' What's the point? ...futility is a bad feeling.”HM

...and the arrangement of a song is only music.”HM