- Oct 26, 2004
So? Discovering something doesn't mean you fully understand how it functions. That Newton wrote on gravity does not mean his work was not later replaced by Einstein. Further, he may well be an expert in codes, but if he doesn't know anything about DNA, any claims he makes about it are baseless. Regardless of what claims he makes, the bottom line is that DNA does not fall under the dictionary definition of code as it pertains to information. Appeals to authority do not change that.Um, because he was the co-discoverer of the DNA molecule? At any rate, the word code and how to define it falls more in line with information theory; therefore Yockey would be considered one of the World's foremost experts in that field.
DNA is a sequence of ordered chemicals. It causes certain other chemicals and proteins to react in certain ways which trigger complicated processes we see in biology. A fish is a fish for the same reason jello is jello, because chemically that is what it is. Jello is something else you can add to the list of things that are not a code. DNA IS the information, there is no representation, no conversion,If they don't represent anything, why is a cat a cat and a fish a fish?
Are you telling me there is no specific information content in DNA?
The whole point of metaphor is that you don't say it is a metaphor, once you do it becomes a simile or an analogy.I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you on this. Biology text books concerning DNA to mRNA transcription and translation are replete with the words encode and decode, code and information....and they are not used figuratively or metaphorically.
If such terms are not really applicable as you claim, one can only wonder at their liberal use..
Interestingly, you are the one using the word in a liberal fashion, I am actually using it in a very narrowly defined way whereas you are trying to expand it to encompass things that don't technically fit.
So you keep asserting without evidence.Using the definition of the word code that you stated, I cannot see how you could disagree that DNA is not a code.
DNA is synonymous with the word code and not in a figurative sense, and this is supported by main stream Science.
The reason it is not a code is because the genetic material is not an arbitrary stand in for another designator. For example, suppose when the English alphabet was being selected, we decided the shape for the letter A was going to be O and vice versa. Would English be appreciably different today? No, because it is a code and the designators are immaterial and arbitrary, it doesn't matter. DNA is not a code, but is in fact a chemical reaction, if you decide to replace Adenine with, say Methylguanocine, the whole thing falls apart. Codes don't have this problem. Codes are designators, codes are a representation of information, DNA is the information.
Yes, you have appealed to authority. This is called a logical fallacy. That you cite "quoted famous person" as the highlight of your argument should be an indicator to you it is not a very strong argument. I leave you with this, a good article on why DNA is not a true code, but rather something else.Any way, I'm done with this debate. I've done all that I could, including citing famous Scientists and text books to prove that DNA is literally, not theoretically, synonymous with a code..
If people don't want to believe something because they have a priori philosophical commitments, then nothing I, or anyone else says is going to make a difference..