There is a live exchange on the molecular nanotech communication systems in the cell that is trying to reduce them to Chemistry; where a chemical reaction is a physical process. Accordingly, I beg to remind one and all regarding layered communication systems and protocols:

This is an elaboration of the general communication system:

Here is how Yockey summarised it:

Where, the standard genetic code [one of about two dozen dialects] reads like:

The double helix:

As was noted by Crick, right from the outset:

In context:

Now, we can see for ourselves just how desperate objectors to the design inference must be in the face of the point that D/RNA expresses a string data structure carrying a prong-height-based alphanumeric, 4 state per character code that uses chemical interactions and geometry at physical level. It uses the code to address algorithms for protein synthesis. Thus, strings, codes, algorithms [which are goal directed], so too, language.
All of this is an exceedingly strong sign of intelligent design. END
A note on layer-cake communication systems and protocols
KF,
One could also argue that all computer processes could be explained away as pure physical phenomena. 😉
Both hardware and software depend on physics to operate.
The hydroelectric power is based on physical phenomena.
The cars, trains, boats, submarines, airplanes depend on physics to operate.
In all those cases the designers have taken physics into account very seriously.
The Newtonian math so elegantly presented in Principia Matemática – a classic jewel in the history of science- describes physical phenomena.
The biochemical processes in the biological systems can be explained away with chemistry which can be explained away with physics.
But that would be one category of explanation: the physical side of the story.
As Professor John Lennox has said, to the question “why is the water in the kettle boiling?” a valid answer could be “the electric current going through a resistance generates enough energy in the form of heat that is passed to the water molecules which then increasingly move in all directions until they reach a point where the water is transformed from liquid to vapor – boiling point (certainly a very primitive explanation at elementary school level).
But another valid explanation could be that the water in the kettle is boiling now because I want a cup of tea.
Both explanations don’t conflict with each other.
We could add another valid explanation: because the kettle was designed purposely to perform that specific function: boil water in a convenient and practical way.
No conflict whatsoever between the three explanations.
Just different categories of explanations.
In all the above cases, even the simple kettle, we see functional information that is observed through physical phenomena.
The kettle has a switch to turn it on in reaction to a manual human action or a timer mechanism connected to the kettle. Somebody had to make the decision to turn it on manually or to setup the timer according to some schedule. Here we’re talking information. The kettle parts are put together according to a functional configuration. As far as I’m aware of, that is intelligent design.
I have to stop here but will try to come back to this later.
Jawa, likewise, your comment. KF
https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/what-mutations-not-random-an-enigmatic-in-built-self-preserving-organization/#comment-700892
Jawa, yes, there is much more. However, every school child knows about protein coding segments and they are algorithmic code bearing strings, with huge implications. KF
KF,
Yes, agree.
The DNA sequences in the TF-binding sites (aka “landing pads”) conform to a regulatory code associated with the different cell types. This is a hot fascinating research topic these days: an unbelievable multilevel control system. The best engineers and scientists can barely start to scratch the surface of this mystery that seems to point to ID on steroids. Control systems engineers drool uncontrollably in complete unbelief when discovering these fascinating things, like a hungry dog that discovers a juicy beefsteak.
5-month old paper:
“Deciphering eukaryotic gene-regulatory logic with 100 million random promoters”
Nature Biotechnology
“How transcription factors (TFs) interpret cis-regulatory DNA sequence to control gene expression remains unclear”
These are not epigenetic markers or histone codes. These are DNA nucleotide sequences.
But of course, as we all should know very well, all those marvelous things magically appeared through undirected processes. Yeah, right.
If you know of somebody that believes that fairytale, tell them that they can buy -at a heavily discounted price- an oceanfront penthouse with private beach access right in the center of Kansas. 😉
KF,
Yes, agree that the amazing semiotics seen in the correlation of the GCAT-based codons with the aminoacids that form the proteins leaves no doubts about the designed origin of the biological systems, as you clearly present in your OP here.
More ID:
Designing Eukaryotic Gene Expression Regulation Using Machine Learning
More ID:
Localization elements and zip codes in the intracellular transport and localization of messenger RNAs in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
More ID:
Soft Power of Nonconsensus Protein-DNA Binding
More ID:
Functional effects of variation in transcription factor binding highlight long-range gene regulation by epromoters
More ID:
Deciphering regulatory DNA sequences and noncoding genetic variants using neural network models of massively parallel reporter assays
More ID:
Uncovering tissue-specific binding features from differential deep learning
But, but, muh GOLD STANDARD . . .