The "Digital Code" of DNA

Wrong! If DNA is not inherently capable of storing digital code, wherein the nucleotides A, C, T, and G serve as digits, then how do you explain genetic mutation by way of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)?”HM

I didn't say that. I said that the "code" is the structure of the molecule. Mutations consist of atoms - and/or groups of atoms - "moving" to a different location on the structure, don't they? How does that have anything to do with "digits"?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Of course it is, physically, but your point is quite silly. The same thing could be said about a written language: 'Words are in the structure of the sentence, or letters are in the structure of the word.' What does that mean? Of course they are. And of course you have to have something physical to hold a code. No one's saying that genetic codes fly around on their own. Can we get past that now?”HM

And words are meaningless unless we apply a meaning to them in the same way that the DNA "code" is meaningless until we apply a meaning to it.The function of the code is independent of any "meaning" because its all just chemistry. There is no "code" necessary.

Read the OP. That's the only question here.If you agree that there is no "digital code" except for the chemistry of the molecule, then we're done.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

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

That isn't clear at all. I have asked you repeatedly, over several threads, to back up that statement. Kindly show us, once and for all, something that is not accounted for by known chemical principles. False, as I have explained repeatedly. All molecules hold the same code - the principles of chemical bonding. All molecules "inherit" the same principles of chemical bonding.
The "code" is nothing more than that.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

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

If there's a difference, show it. Because the "order of the bondings" - the structure of the molecule - determines the reactions that it undergoes. Move one functional group and the behaviour of the molecule is completely different. Exactly. It doesn't "impair" it's function - it just changes how it functions. Different ordering produces different reactions which produce different products. It's the same for any molecule.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

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

Their ordering is based on the same chemical principles. Irrelevant. The information is stored/carried in exactly the same way. The information itself is different, but the way it is stored and used is exactly the same. But it's the principles that we're talking about. You claimed earlier that DNA operates on some phantom unknown principle.There's nothing fundamentally different between a DNA molecule and any other molecule. They all bond in the same ways. They all vary in their behaviour based on their structure alone. They all carry their own information in the same way.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

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

You are when you're calling it a digital code. A code without meaning is no longer a code. My point still stands. Well, at least you're admitting that the code is unecessary. Consider yourself refuted. Oh, wait... maybe you're not.btw: There is NO digital genetic code and it is NOT necessary.Wow, that's a fun game.How about instead of just stating crap, you actually support it?

But they are based on the same chemical principles like every other chemical that exists. There isn't anything about DNA that makes it excluded from chemical principles.And quartz crystals have no "codes" that specify structure because WE haven't defined the codes as such. The only thing that makes DNA different is that we've labeled and defined the "code". But that is something that we have added on, it isn't intrinsic to the property of DNA like you seem to think it is.