Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
For those wishing DNA worked exactly like computer code
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tas8831" data-source="post: 76175883" data-attributes="member: 397968"><p>I agree with your assessment. Part of the problem is the manner in which many people define/use the word "code." </p><p>Some could call tree rings "code" - in that they are just rings, and one has to know or deduce what they indicate in order to use them to make a determination of the tree's age, to 'break the tree ring code', so to speak. But I don't think a person that would subscribe to that would consider the notion that an "Intelligence" designed this tree-ring code. The "genetic code" is really the observed/deduced interaction between mRNA codons and tRNAs associated with specific amino acids, and by extension, the relationship between DNA triplets and mRNA codons.</p><p>Strictly speaking, that is it. Unfortunately, as is often the case in science (especially when science is conveyed to/discussed by the public), words are often used more figuratively. 'Genetic code' is often used to refer to a gene, or the whole genome. This is incorrect, but many - even biologists - do it (and it drives me crazy). Dawkins explicitly refers to the DNA as 'digital code.' When he explains it, it makes sense, but then we have to deal with people running around saying 'a code needs a code-maker!'</p><p></p><p>So I think you are spot on.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tas8831, post: 76175883, member: 397968"] I agree with your assessment. Part of the problem is the manner in which many people define/use the word "code." Some could call tree rings "code" - in that they are just rings, and one has to know or deduce what they indicate in order to use them to make a determination of the tree's age, to 'break the tree ring code', so to speak. But I don't think a person that would subscribe to that would consider the notion that an "Intelligence" designed this tree-ring code. The "genetic code" is really the observed/deduced interaction between mRNA codons and tRNAs associated with specific amino acids, and by extension, the relationship between DNA triplets and mRNA codons. Strictly speaking, that is it. Unfortunately, as is often the case in science (especially when science is conveyed to/discussed by the public), words are often used more figuratively. 'Genetic code' is often used to refer to a gene, or the whole genome. This is incorrect, but many - even biologists - do it (and it drives me crazy). Dawkins explicitly refers to the DNA as 'digital code.' When he explains it, it makes sense, but then we have to deal with people running around saying 'a code needs a code-maker!' So I think you are spot on. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
For those wishing DNA worked exactly like computer code
Top
Bottom