(11-20-2017, 08:59 PM)dadmansabode Wrote: more explanation for you
CODE IS DEFINED as communication between an encoder ( a writer or speaker ) and a decoder ( a reader or listener ) using agreed upon symbols . . .
DNA's definition as a LITERAL CODE ( and not a figurative one ) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960's . . .
DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages . . . DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon's 1948 model: ..
The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins .. Genetic information passes from DNA to an RNA copy and then is READ in the cell by the the ribosome which makes a protein molecule based on the genetic information encoded in DNA . . . This is the central tenet of molecular biology . . . Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical .. but in fact quite literal in every way . . . In other words .. the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all .. it is direct application of mathematics to DNA .. which by definition is a code
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PATTERNS AND CODES
PATTERNS occur naturally .. no help required from a 'designer' . . .
Many patterns occur in nature without the help of a designer .. snowflakes .. tornadoes .. hurricanes .. sand dunes .. stalactites .. rivers and ocean waves . . .
These patterns are the natural result of what scientists categorize as chaos and fractals .. These things are well-understood and we experience them every day
CODES .. however .. do not occur without a designer . . .
Examples of symbolic codes include music .. blueprints .. languages like English and Chinese .. computer programs .. and yes .. DNA
The essential distinction is the difference between a pattern and a code .. Chaos can produce patterns ..
but chaos has never been shown to produce codes or symbols . . . Codes and symbols store information .. which is not a property of matter and energy alone ..
Information itself is a separate entity.
see also: DNA: the tiny code thats toppling evolution
[url=http://www.ucg.org/science/dna-tiny-code-thats-toppling-evolution/][/url]
My argument here is that this is a matter of semantics - fun with words. Trying to make a distinction between states of information (whether it is "code" or "pattern") by redefining words to mean what one wants them to mean.
"Patterns" occur all the time, but would not exist at all without someone or some thing to recognize the pattern as a pattern - otherwise, it just "is", and has no name... because there is no one and no thing to name it. Kinda like animals would be if Adam had never named them.
Does "code" exist if there is no recipient to receive it? Is it then not just another "pattern"?
Just so you'll know, NO patterns are random. Each and every one has a design to follow, and a reason for following that design. That's why they are "patterns" - they have a design. What is in question here is WHAT or WHOM designed the design for the pattern to follow. Using the snowflakes you mentioned as "just patterns", you will never see a snowflake shaped like a dodecahedron. That's because they have a design to follow, and are constrained by it. Who or what designed that pattern, if anything or anyone? THAT is what is at question here.
Are we trying to confuse or conflate "code", "pattern", and information" here?
.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’