Yockey reminds us on code use in Protein Synthesis

Let us refocus again: Lehninger -- actually, his literary heirs -- summarises in a key, matter of fact conclusion of Biochemistry, in what has been a leading standard textbook for 1/2 a century:

"The information in DNA is encoded in its linear (one-dimensional) sequence of deoxyribonucleotide subunits . . . . A linear sequence of deoxyribonucleotides in DNA codes (through an intermediary, RNA) for the production of a protein with a corresponding linear sequence of amino acids . . . Although the final shape of the folded protein is dictated by its amino acid sequence, the folding of many proteins is aided by “molecular chaperones” . . . The precise three-dimensional structure, or native conformation, of the protein is crucial to its function." [Principles of Biochemistry, 8th Edn, 2021, pp 194 – 5. Now authored by Nelson, Cox et al, Lehninger having passed on in 1986. Attempts to rhetorically pretend on claimed superior knowledge of Biochemistry, that D/RNA does not contain coded information expressing algorithms using string data structures, collapse. We now have to address the implications of language, goal directed stepwise processes and underlying sophisticated polymer chemistry and molecular nanotech in the heart of cellular metabolism and replication.]

This would hardly need remarking on, but some objectors here, under colour of Biochem, have asserted or implied that the genetic code is not a code. (BTW, compare the genetic and ascii code tables in the OP as updated.) They need to explain themselves. Especially, given what Wiki, with the thumbscrews in sight, confessed:

In communications and information processing, code is a system of rules to convert information—such as a letter, word, sound, image, or gesture—into another form [--> a tabulation of symbols and codes is a statement of rules], sometimes shortened or secret, for communication through a communication channel or storage in a storage medium. An early example is an invention of language, which enabled a person, through speech, to communicate what they thought, saw, heard, or felt to others. But speech limits the range of communication to the distance a voice can carry and limits the audience to those present when the speech is uttered. The invention of writing, which converted spoken language into visual symbols, extended the range of communication across space and time. The process of encoding converts information from a source into symbols for communication or storage. Decoding is the reverse process, converting code symbols back into a form that the recipient understands, such as English or/and Spanish. One reason for coding is to enable communication in places where ordinary plain language, spoken or written, is difficult or impossible. For example, semaphore, where the configuration of flags held by a signaler or the arms of a semaphore tower encodes parts of the message, typically individual letters, and numbers. Another person standing a great distance away can interpret the flags and reproduce the words sent . . . . Examples . . . . Genetic code Main article: Genetic code Biological organisms contain genetic material that is used to control their function and development. This is DNA, which contains units named genes from which messenger RNA is derived. This in turn produces proteins through a genetic code in which a series of triplets (codons) of four possible nucleotides can be translated into one of twenty possible amino acids. A sequence of codons results in a corresponding sequence of amino acids that form a protein molecule; a type of codon called a stop codon signals the end of the sequence.

KF PS, in the main article, Wiki goes on to confess:

The genetic code is the set of rules used by living cells to translate information encoded within genetic material (DNA or RNA sequences of nucleotide triplets, or codons) into proteins. Translation is accomplished by the ribosome, which links proteinogenic amino acids in an order specified by messenger RNA (mRNA), using transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules to carry amino acids and to read the mRNA three nucleotides at a time. The genetic code is highly similar among all organisms and can be expressed in a simple table with 64 entries. A series of codons in part of a messenger RNA (mRNA) molecule. Each codon consists of three nucleotides, usually corresponding to a single amino acid. The nucleotides are abbreviated with the letters A, U, G and C. This is mRNA, which uses U (uracil). DNA uses T (thymine) instead. This mRNA molecule will instruct a ribosome to synthesize a protein according to this code. The codons specify which amino acid will be added next during protein synthesis. With some exceptions,[1] a three-nucleotide codon in a nucleic acid sequence specifies a single amino acid. The vast majority of genes are encoded with a single scheme (see the RNA codon table). That scheme is often referred to as the canonical or standard genetic code, or simply the genetic code, though variant codes (such as in mitochondria) exist.

kairosfocus

F/N: a noteworthy case in point: https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1625040/m2/1/high_res_d/Forester_Jennifer_FINAL.pdf >>Pics or It Didn’t Happen: Sexist Hyperskepticism in the Modern Skeptical Movement>> KF kairosfocus

F/N: It is worth noting a key first result:

The truth claim, “there are no [gernerally knowable] objective truths regarding any matter (so, any particular matter),” roughly equivalent to, “knowledge is inescapably only subjective or relative,” is an error. Which, happily, can be recognised and corrected. Often, such error is presented and made to seem plausible through the diversity of opinions assertion, with implication that none have or are in a position to have a generally warranted, objective conclusion. This, in extreme form, is a key thesis of the nihilism that haunts our civilisation, which we must detect, expose to the light of day, correct and dispel, in defence of civilisation and human dignity. (NB: Sometimes the blind men and the elephant fable is used to make it seem plausible, overlooking the narrator's implicit claim to objectivity. Oops!) Now, to set things aright, let’s symbolise: ~[O*G] with * as AND. This claims, it is false that there is an objective knowable truth. It intends to describe not mere opinion but warranted, credible truth about knowledge in general. So, ~[O*G] is self referential as it is clearly about subject matter G, and is intended to be a well warranted objectively true claim. But it is itself therefore a truth claim about knowledge in general intended to be taken as objectively true, which is what it tries to deny as a possibility. So, it is self contradictory and necessarily false. In steps: PHASE I: Let a proposition be represented by x G = x is a proposition asserting that some state of affairs regarding some identifiable matter in general including e.g. history, science, the secrets of our hearts, morality etc, is the case O = x is objective and knowable, being adequately warranted as credibly true} PHASE II: It is claimed, S= ~[O*G] = 1, 1 meaning true However, the subject of S is G, it therefore claims to be objectively true, O and is about G where it forbids O-status to any claim of type G so, ~[O*G] cannot be true per self referential incoherence ============= PHASE III: The Algebra, translating from S: ~[O*G] = 0 [as self referential and incoherent cf above] ~[~[O*G]] = 1 [the negation is therefore true] __________ O*G = 1 [condensing not of not] where, G [general truth claim including moral ones of course] So too, O [if an AND is true, each sub proposition is separately true] ================ CONCLUSION: That is, there are objective moral truths; and a first, self evident one is that ~[O*G] is false, ~[O*G] = 0. The set of knowable objective truths in general -- and embracing those that happen to be about states of affairs in regard to right conduct etc -- is non empty, it is not vacuous and we cannot play empty set square of opposition games with it. That’s important. Also, there are many particular objective general and moral truths that are adequately warranted to be regarded as reliable. Try, Napoleon was once a European monarch and would be conqueror. Try, Jesus of Nazareth is a figure of history. Try, it is wrong to torture babies for fun, and more. Ours is a needlessly confused age, heading for trouble.

kairosfocus

CD, notice the assumption you make and the substantial issues you evade to try to brush aside a discussion; on claimed stylistics? That is telling us a lot. But anyway for record, there is a widespread error that imagines skepticism an intellectual virtue. This, being the general attitude of giving doubt seniority over warrant and common sense. It is an inadequate substitute for a legitimate cardinal virtue, prudence. One that our age is too often inclined to forget. Namely, to govern oneself by sound reason, giving guidance, discernment, due restraint, wisdom. In this context, hyperskepticism is the full blown form of the error, whether global or selective. For, things come in degrees and wisdom is often found in due balance. Deflection fails, and so does distraction . . . KF PS, distraction? Yes, given the push to try to deny that the genetic code used in protein synthesis is precisely that, a code; let us note the consistent sidestepping of Lehninger:

"The information in DNA is encoded in its linear (one-dimensional) sequence of deoxyribonucleotide subunits . . . . A linear sequence of deoxyribonucleotides in DNA codes (through an intermediary, RNA) for the production of a protein with a corresponding linear sequence of amino acids . . . Although the final shape of the folded protein is dictated by its amino acid sequence, the folding of many proteins is aided by “molecular chaperones” . . . The precise three-dimensional structure, or native conformation, of the protein is crucial to its function." [Principles of Biochemistry, 8th Edn, 2021, pp 194 – 5. Now authored by Nelson, Cox et al, Lehninger having passed on in 1986. Attempts to rhetorically pretend on claimed superior knowledge of Biochemistry, that D/RNA does not contain coded information expressing algorithms using string data structures, collapse. We now have to address the implications of language, goal directed stepwise processes and underlying sophisticated polymer chemistry and molecular nanotech in the heart of cellular metabolism and replication.]

By their side-steps shall ye know them. kairosfocus

CD at 36, The "real" news media does it all the time. When everything is "breaking news," people lose interest. Breaking news used to be used rarely and involved really important news events. Now - it's a meaningless term. relatd

KF/28 So now “hyperskeptical” is joined by “hypercredulity.” You know there is a rule in writing and speaking that if you use superlatives too often, people will start to ignore you. It’s a variant of the Chicken Little phenomenon. Behavioral psychologists call it “habituation.” chuckdarwin

LCD at 34, The Dictatorship of the Better than Thou? We WILL Censor you if you defy us! We will look through your Twitter posts for evidence of things we don't like! We control the vertical! We control the horizontal! We are the self-proclaimed Perfect People! Oh brother... relatd

St. Antony the Great( 356 AD): "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, 'You are mad; you are not like us.” How in the world would know about the woke culture that happens todays(2022) in 356 AD? Lieutenant Commander Data

Seversky at 24, You're wrong. Here's some humor. (With apologies to Al Jolson.) Sung to the tune of Swanee. Daw-kins, how I love ya, how I love ya My dear old Dawkins You tell the world that evo is good Yet you are so misunderstood Oh Daw - kins how I love ya, how I love ya My dear old Dawkins I say why can’t they see That nothing made you and me? relatd

Jerry, first, our audience is wider than these objectors or even hecklers; and charity demands that we place no one in the latter category until reasonable doubt is removed. Insofar as there is substance, we need to answer it. Not least, to show it answerable. As, I trust is now shown for objections to the concept, [selective/global] hyperskepticism. KF PS, refocussing Lehninger:

"The information in DNA is encoded in its linear (one-dimensional) sequence of deoxyribonucleotide subunits . . . . A linear sequence of deoxyribonucleotides in DNA codes (through an intermediary, RNA) for the production of a protein with a corresponding linear sequence of amino acids . . . Although the final shape of the folded protein is dictated by its amino acid sequence, the folding of many proteins is aided by “molecular chaperones” . . . The precise three-dimensional structure, or native conformation, of the protein is crucial to its function." [Principles of Biochemistry, 8th Edn, 2021, pp 194 – 5. Now authored by Nelson, Cox et al, Lehninger having passed on in 1986. Attempts to rhetorically pretend on claimed superior knowledge of Biochemistry, that D/RNA does not contain coded information expressing algorithms using string data structures, collapse. We now have to address the implications of language, goal directed stepwise processes and underlying sophisticated polymer chemistry and molecular nanotech in the heart of cellular metabolism and replication.]

Fair comment, what does such code imply? kairosfocus

F/N2: Wikipedia has been shown the thumb screws again:

Radical skepticism (or radical scepticism in British English) is the philosophical position that knowledge is most likely impossible.[1] Radical skeptics hold that doubt exists as to the veracity of every belief and that certainty is therefore never justified. To determine the extent to which it is possible to respond to radical skeptical challenges is the task of epistemology or "the theory of knowledge".[2] Several Ancient Greek philosophers, including Plato, Cratylus, Pyrrho, Arcesilaus, Carneades, Aenesidemus, Agrippa the Skeptic, and Sextus Empiricus have been viewed as having expounded radically skeptic positions. Three of the Hellenistic philosophies held radically skeptic views: Pyrrhonism, Academic Skepticism, and Cyrenaicism. In ancient Greek the radical skeptical view was termed acatalepsy, denoting the ungraspablity of knowledge. In modern philosophy, two representatives of radical skepticism are Michel de Montaigne (most famously known for his skeptical remark, Que sçay-je ?, 'What do I know?' in Middle French; modern French Que sais-je ?) and David Hume (particularly as set out in A Treatise of Human Nature, Book 1: "Of the Understanding"). As radical skepticism can be used as an objection for most or all beliefs, many philosophers have attempted to refute it. For example, Bertrand Russell wrote "Skepticism, while logically impeccable, is psychologically impossible, and there is an element of frivolous insincerity in any philosophy which pretends to accept it."[3] Radical skepticism should either be in doubt of itself, or affirm itself. But affirming skepticism is a contradiction. Hence skepticism cannot be maintained.

This is on global hyperskepticism. For selective hyperskepticism, there are arbitrary lines placed that cannot practically be surmounted, especially for empirical matters. These lines are placed there, of course, inconsistently, and it is that arbitrariness that undercuts it. KF kairosfocus

am fast approaching the conclusion that some frequent objectors are little more than empty trolls and hecklers

They nearly all are. There isn’t an honest one among them except one or two. If you don’t realize that, then maybe you shouldn’t be posting your long convoluted answers. Their main objective is to provoke you. And you take the bait and your responses makes them smile. You must know this by now. ChuckDarwin is a clown and you don’t respond to a clown in a serious way. Every time you do, the clown has won. jerry

F/N: Greenleaf:

Evidence, in legal acceptation, includes all the means by which any alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation, is established or disproved . . . None but mathematical truth is susceptible of that high degree of evidence, called demonstration, which excludes all possibility of error [--> Greenleaf wrote almost 100 years before Godel], and which, therefore, may reasonably be required in support of every mathematical deduction. [--> that is, his focus is on the logic of good support for in principle less than utterly certain conclusions, i.e. in the modern sense, inductive logic and reasoning in real world, momentous contexts with potentially serious consequences.] Matters of fact are proved by moral evidence alone; by which is meant, not only that kind of evidence which is employed on subjects connected with moral conduct, but all the evidence which is not obtained either from intuition, or from demonstration. In the ordinary affairs of life, we do not require demonstrative evidence, because it is not consistent with the nature of the subject, and to insist upon it would be unreasonable and absurd. [--> the issue of warrant to moral certainty, beyond reasonable doubt; and the contrasted absurdity of selective hyperskepticism.] The most that can be affirmed of such things, is, that there is no reasonable doubt concerning them. [--> moral certainty standard, and this is for the proverbial man in the Clapham bus stop, not some clever determined advocate or skeptic motivated not to see or assent to what is warranted.] The true question, therefore, in trials of fact, is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but, whether there is sufficient probability of its truth; that is, whether the facts are shown by competent and satisfactory evidence. Things established by competent and satisfactory evidence are said to be proved. [--> pistis enters; we might as well learn the underlying classical Greek word that addresses the three levers of persuasion, pathos- ethos- logos and its extension to address worldview level warranted faith-commitment and confident trust on good grounding, through the impact of the Judaeo-Christian tradition in C1 as was energised by the 500 key witnesses.] By competent evidence, is meant that which the very-nature of the thing to be proved requires, as the fit and appropriate proof in the particular case, such as the production of a writing, where its contents are the subject of inquiry. By satisfactory evidence, which is sometimes called sufficient evidence, is intended that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind [--> in British usage, the man in the Clapham bus stop], beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances which will amount to this degree of proof can never be previously defined; the only legal [--> and responsible] test of which they are susceptible, is their sufficiency to satisfy the mind and conscience of a common man; and so to convince him, that he would venture to act upon that conviction, in matters of the highest concern and importance to his own interest.

[= definition of moral certainty as a balanced unprejudiced judgement beyond reasonable, responsible doubt. Obviously, i/l/o wider concerns, while scientific facts as actually observed may meet this standard, scientific explanatory frameworks such as hypotheses, models, laws and theories cannot as they are necessarily provisional and in many cases have had to be materially modified, substantially re-interpreted to the point of implied modification, or outright replaced; so a modicum of prudent caution is warranted in such contexts -- explanatory frameworks are empirically reliable so far on various tests, not utterly certain. Morally certain facts of observation and experience in our common world are not necessary truths.]

[A Treatise on Evidence, Vol I, 11th edn. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1888) ch 1., sections 1 and 2. Shorter paragraphs added. (NB: Greenleaf was a founder of the modern Harvard Law School and is regarded as a founding father of the modern Anglophone school of thought on evidence, in large part on the strength of this classic work.)]

Moral certainty is of course the first level of certainty. Where, here is a dirty secret of Science: given the pessimistic induction and limitations of inductive support, no scientific theory (being an abductive explanatory construct) can amount to moral certainty. It can be morally certain that certain theories consistently accurately predict observable outcomes in a tested range, but that is a completely different matter. For, there are no ends of known- to- be- false models that do the same. Newtonian dynamics is currently a well known case in point. This of course underscores the point that observations are epistemologically senior in science: a theory that predicts observations falsely is thereby put in at least the position of doubt. It may even become sufficiently observationally faulty to be decisively undermined. And more, but at this point this is really for record. I have low confidence that certain objectors will even ponder this soberly for a moment. In the minds of the extreme hyperskeptics, we are necessarily ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. Sad, if such are hanging around. KF kairosfocus

CD, again, strawman. As I noted to you, people coin words all the time to capture new or more specific concepts, especially on technical subjects or issues. So not a word is meaningless, as you know. You were given the root reference to Greenleaf on the error of the skeptic. You were pointed to Clifford-Sagan evidentialism, root of the error that "extraordinary" claims require similarly extraordinary evidence. Nope, only reasonable evidence adequate to warrant. But then, it is beginning to be clear that several objectors object to object, not to discuss reasonably. And that is specifically what hyperskepticism addresses. KF PS, perhaps you didn't think to look up on global, hyper- or radical- skepticism. Had you done so instead of playing stunts, you would have come across Pyrrho and his doubting of all knowledge. Such is of course self referentially absurd and self defeating. Global hyperskepticism necessarily fails. Narrowing to selective forms imposes a double standard of warrant where what one prefers/does not prefer [what is "extraordinary"] leads to an arbitrarily or cynically high standard for what one wishes to reject, something almost no empirical matter can rise to. And of course this shows why we do not need a "parallel" hypercredulity, as if one is fallaciously rejecting what one dislikes it is because one has committed to what he should not. That is, there is a crooked yardstick at work demanding to dismiss what is actually straight because it does not match one's preferred brand of crookedness. PPS: We can bring it home to our focal topic. Suddenly we see objectors trying to insist that the genetic code is not a code. Never mind that we have clear evidence it is. Why, because codes go where they refuse to go so suddenly there cannot be a code there. That is why I am challenging objectors to explain to us just what they think Lehninger's literary heirs got wrong. The evasions and side tracks and stunts speak for themselves as to what is going wrong. As one trick is to bury an inconvenient comment under inanities and distractions:

"The information in DNA is encoded in its linear (one-dimensional) sequence of deoxyribonucleotide subunits . . . . A linear sequence of deoxyribonucleotides in DNA codes (through an intermediary, RNA) for the production of a protein with a corresponding linear sequence of amino acids . . . Although the final shape of the folded protein is dictated by its amino acid sequence, the folding of many proteins is aided by “molecular chaperones” . . . The precise three-dimensional structure, or native conformation, of the protein is crucial to its function." [Principles of Biochemistry, 8th Edn, 2021, pp 194 – 5. Now authored by Nelson, Cox et al, Lehninger having passed on in 1986. Attempts to rhetorically pretend on claimed superior knowledge of Biochemistry, that D/RNA does not contain coded information expressing algorithms using string data structures, collapse. We now have to address the implications of language, goal directed stepwise processes and underlying sophisticated polymer chemistry and molecular nanotech in the heart of cellular metabolism and replication.]

PPS, For cause, I am fast approaching the conclusion that some frequent objectors are little more than empty trolls and hecklers. kairosfocus

Seversky/8 LOL. I pointed out to KF on another thread that "hyperskeptical" is not actually a word. His response, which is standard by now, was to go off on another polemic about how the world is going to hell in a bucket (or handbasket, whichever you prefer).... chuckdarwin

@Sev I caught it, that’s why I gave you face palm Picard Also to start a Star Wars vs StarTrek fight Star Wars is better and more fun LATER! https://tenor.com/vDGl.gif AaronS1978

@Seversky @24 You’ve done exactly what I described and proved the point. You own-goaled; kicked a goal against yourself. Belfast

Apparently, sense of humor failure is another symptom of ID/Creationism. Seversky

It seems that, when Seversky and JVL do not understand the article itself, they wait until someone comments and then make comments on the comment; nostris sempiterna miseria. Belfast

@ 18 “pained face palm” https://tenor.com/bKAbH.gif AaronS1978

Just for record, see an ASCII code table. kairosfocus

Sev, nonsense. You know saith is not a word from Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, but a translation to in effect Elizabethan era English. Empty rhetorical stunt, revelatory of lack of seriousness. KF kairosfocus

JVL, the implicit issue being raised is so-called chemical evolution, and particularly a Darwin pond type scenario. There is no evidential basis of observation that the complex structures and functional organisation for life came about by blind chance and mechanical necessity. Then once you start from life, there is no good observation to back origin of body plans by blind forces. All is precisely where Lewontin left it in 1997: a priori ideological imposition. The blind faith you project to the other. KF kairosfocus

Relatd/17

You have been seduced by the Dark Side of evolutionary theory…

Perhaps, but I'm still only an apprentice. Now, ask yourself how many times the word "saith" appears in the Bible. Take out the letter "a" and you have "sith". Is this as sign of the Dark Side? Seversky

Seversky at 15, You have been seduced by the Dark Side of evolutionary theory... relatd

JVL at 14, It must be "your agenda" [my agenda] as opposed to the atheist evolutionary agenda. Yes, there are two sides and it is clear which side you are on. If you can forget that for a moment, which is more credible? That is, which follows the facts? Evolution where living things only appear as if they are designed. ID where living things are actually deigned relatd

Zweston/12

You need to repent. You will be judged for your sins and you will either have Christ’s righteousness or your own to stand on.

I fear you have been seduced by The Dark Side of the Force. Seversky

Relatd: So, if I put all of the parts of a bicycle in a pool of water, leave it for a million years, it will self-assemble? No, of course not. But something similar is applied to living things. Do you really, seriously think that you are arguing against the actual reasoning used to support the unguided evolutionary theory? I see this kind of ridiculous and straw-man impression stated over and over again. And it's particularly frustrating coming from those who say their own view is frequently misrepresented. Why can't you address the actual unguided evolutionary arguments? Do you not know them or do you not understand them? Or are you ignoring them because it suits your agenda? Which is it? JVL

Seversky @7 If you would be interested in discussing issues related to belief in God that extend beyond evidence (or not) for ID, feel free to email me at boundariesofscience@gmail.com. Eric Caspian

Sev @7... nice deflection. You need to repent. You will be judged for your sins and you will either have Christ's righteousness or your own to stand on. zweston

Sev, who was Lehninger, what was the impact of his book and why is it in an eighth edition from his literary heirs? Why did Yockey pose the framework above? And why was it recognised by March 19, 1953 by Crick? Why is there a code table for D/RNA codons? Why are there about 20 recognised dialects? Why were investigators able to augment the code and why have others been able to use DNA to store conventional digital data? KF PS, Do you see why there is reason to believe that some of our regular objectors have moved to a point where they are exerting a Clifford-Sagan double standard on warrant? FYI, "extraordinary" claims only require reasonable evidence just as other claims. Going beyond such is indeed hyperskeptical. kairosfocus

Zweston at 6, Richard Dawkins, the current high priest, has stated that given "enough time," "anything is possible." That it is the whole "science" of evolution. So, if I put all of the parts of a bicycle in a pool of water, leave it for a million years, it will self-assemble? No, of course not. But something similar is applied to living things. relatd

Relatd, just Lehninger should be more than enough to remind us of the actual consensus, whatever stunts and talk points are being raised here and in similar contexts. KF kairosfocus

Relatd/5

It is settled then. “Given hyperskeptical objections, we need to emphasise that it is in fact uncontroversial consensus that the genetic code is just that, an actual code.”

"Hyperskeptical" certainly seems to be code for "disagrees with kf". Seversky

Zweston/6

Why won’t people just come to Christ and be forgiven and experience real life? Sin sure looks tasty but it has a bitter aftertaste. From experience.

Have you been making graven images, taking the Lord's name in vain and coveting other peoples property? That's a sure way to eternal hellfire and damnation from a loving and merciful God. Seversky

Relatd at 5.... the darwinists are moving the goalposts... evolution is the intelligent designer. :) Don't you know that evolution is God? ;) it's truly absurd. People suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Why won't people just come to Christ and be forgiven and experience real life? Sin sure looks tasty but it has a bitter aftertaste. From experience. zweston

It is settled then. "Given hyperskeptical objections, we need to emphasise that it is in fact uncontroversial consensus that the genetic code is just that, an actual code." relatd

Figure I’ll drop this here before the arguing happens code /k??d / ? noun 1 a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy: the Americans cracked their diplomatic code [mass noun] messages written in code. ?a phrase or concept used to represent another in an indirect way: ‘We'll catch up soon’ is usually a code for ‘I'm not that into you’. ?a series of letters, numbers, or symbols assigned to something for the purposes of classification or identification: each box had a label with the code SC 90. ? short for dialling code: I was given the number, but not the code for Guildford. 2 [mass noun] Computing program instructions: assembly code. 3 a systematic collection of laws or statutes: a revision of the penal code. ?a set of conventions or moral principles governing behaviour in a particular sphere: a strict dress code a stern code of honour. ? verb [with object] 1 convert (the words of a message) into a code so as to convey a secret meaning: only Mitch knew how to read the message—even the name was coded. ?express the meaning of (a statement) in an indirect way: they code their language when talking to the general public. ?assign a code to (something) for purposes of classification or identification: she coded the samples and sent them for dissection. 2 write code for (a computer program): most developers code C + + like C [no object] I no longer actively code in PHP. 3 [no object] (code for) Biochemistry be the genetic code for (an amino acid or protein): genes that code for human growth hormone. ?be the genetic determiner of (a characteristic): one pair of homologous chromosomes codes for eye colour. – PHRASES bring something up to code North American renovate or update an old building in line with the latest building regulations: the wiring will be brought up to code. – ORIGIN Middle English: via Old French from Latin codex, codic- ( see codex). The term originally denoted a systematic collection of statutes made by Justinian or another of the later Roman emperors; compare with code (SENSE 3 OF THE noun) (mid 18th century), the earliest modern sense. AaronS1978

This discovery of biological messaging underlies the importance of ID in understanding design in nature and moving such understanding into designing and improving products to improve the human condition. The real world of science, engineering and manufacturing seems to already be operating in this arena in the form of the disciplines of Systems Biology. See my article on such and my encounter with such a researcher working in the area of hearing. https://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2014/11/21/interesting-people-i-have-met-e-michael-ostap-ph-d/ ayearningforpublius

Again, this is similar to human developed communications systems that enclose meaningful messages between start and stop bit patterns. I have personal experience, and indeed have been the cause of catastrophic system failures due to a breakdown (bugs) in this scheme. ayearningforpublius

Yockey reminds us on code use in Protein Synthesis kairosfocus