Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Skeptical Zone asks: What is a code?

Vincent Torley
October 30, 2015
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Over at the Skeptical Zone, Petrushka has written a post arguing that “DNA is a template, not a code.” In today’s post, I’d like to briefly review the reasons why we claim that the genetic code is a literal reality, not a metaphor, and explain exactly what a code is.

But before I do that, I’d like to critique Petrushka’s short post, titled, What Is A Code? (October 20, 2015):

Lots of heat surrounding this question.

My take is that a code must be a system for conveying meaning.

In my view, an essential feature of a code is that it must be abstract and and able to convey novel messages.

DNA fails at he level of abstraction. Whatever “meaning” it conveys cannot be translated into any medium other than chemistry. And not just any abstract chemistry, but the chemistry of this universe.

Without implementing in chemistry, it is impossible to read a DNA message. One cannot predict what a novel DNA string will do.

DNA is a template, not a code.

Go to it.

Petrushka’s three reasons for denying that the code in our DNA is a genuine code are that: (i) its meaning can only be translated into chemistry; (ii) it cannot convey new messages; and (iii) it is impossible to predict what a novel DNA string will do.

Regarding Petrushka’s argument that whatever “meaning” DNA conveys “cannot be translated into any medium other than chemistry”: scientists have developed computer models of DNA (see also here), so the objection that DNA’s meaning is confined to the domain of chemistry is factually incorrect.

As for DNA’s ability to convey new messages: I’d like to ask Petrushka if he believes that genes have evolved over the course of time, and that one gene (call it A), which codes for a certain protein, can evolve into another gene (call it B), that codes for a different protein. Since Petrushka writes for the Skeptical Zone, I presume his answer would be yes to both questions. In that case, Petrushka’s objection that DNA cannot convey new messages falls to the ground: he himself would admit that DNA can, over the course of time, convey new messages.

Finally, Petrushka’s claim that “it is impossible to predict what a novel DNA string will do” is incorrect. There is a whole field of science, known as gene prediction, whose aim is to identify the regions of genomic DNA that encode genes. Indeed, there is a Web server that “takes a sequence, either RNA or DNA, and creates a highly probable, probability annotated group of secondary structures, starting with the lowest free energy structure and including others with varied probabilities of correctness.” For an overview of the various software tools that predict DNA structure, the reader is invited to go here.

So when Petrushka argues (in a comment in his post) that whereas “grammar, syntax and spelling make it possible to construct novel sentences that have a predictable meaning,” “you cannot construct novel sequences of DNA and know what they mean or what they will do,” he is overstating his point. It is indeed true, as we will see, that we cannot deduce with certainty what a given piece of DNA will do, but that’s because the genetic code is but one of several codes that controls what goes on inside the cell. Despite this fact, scientists can deduce quite a lot about what a piece of DNA will do, simply by examining its sequence.

Why the genetic code is a literal reality

In today’s post, I’d like to discuss four pieces of evidence that support my claim that talk of a genetic code is no mere metaphor: it is a literal reality.

My first piece of evidence is a letter by Francis Crick to his son in March 1953 (h/t kairosfocus):

I could quote Crick at further length, but I see that Mung has already done so, in an excellent post over at the Skeptical Zone, titled, Code Denialism Pt. 1 – Crick, which was written in reply to Petrushka’s post. I highly commend Mung’s post to readers, as well as his follow-up post, Code Denialism Pt. 2 – Nirenberg, in which he quotes further scientific testimony, concluding with a quote from theoretical biologist Howard H. Pattee’s paper, “Causation, Control, and the Evolution of Complexity”: “…the fact is that present life requires semiotic control by coded gene strings.”

My second piece of evidence is the sheer prevalence of usage of the term “genetic code” among scientists today. If the reader goes over to Pub Med and types “genetic code” in quotes, he/she will get nearly 9,000 matches. That number speaks for itself.

Even Intelligent Design’s most ardent foes readily admit the legitimacy of the term, “genetic code.” Larry Moran, Professor of biochemistry at the University of Toronto and a long-time critic of Intelligent Design, was asked by commentator Virgil Cain whether he accepted the reality of the genetic code, in a recent post on Uncommon Descent:

Larry Moran- Do you think the genetic code is a real code (like Morse Code is a real code)?

Professor Moran replied:

Yes. That’s how I describe it in my textbook.

Well, there you have it. That’s what an eminent professor of biochemistry and a leading critic of Intelligent Design says.

Dr. Stephen Meyer on why protein-based life requires a code

My third, and most vital. piece of evidence comes from a passage in Dr. Stephen Meyer’s best-selling book, Signature in the Cell (HarperOne, 2009, pp. 114-118), in which he explains, in pellucid prose, exactly what a code is, and what’s wrong with Petrushka’s assertion that “DNA is a template, not a code.” Meyer exposes the error in the “template” metaphor for DNA (which was first formulated by George Gamow) by contrasting it with Francis Crick’s proposal that DNA contained a code:

Deducing a Code

By the late 1950s the relationship between DNA and protein was coming into focus. By then leading molecular biologists understood that the three-dimensional specificity of proteins depended on the one-dimensional specificity of their amino acid sequences. They also suspected that the specific arrangements of amino acids in protein chains derived in turn from specific sequences of nucleotide bases on the DNA molecule. Yet the question remained: How does the sequence of bases on the DNA direct the construction of protein molecules? How do specific sequences in a four-character alphabet generate specific sequences in a twenty-character alphabet?

Francis Crick anticipated the answer: the cell is using some kind of a code. Crick first began to suspect this as he reflected on a proposal by George Gamow, a Russian-born theoretical physicist and cosmologist who had, in the post-war years, turned some of his prodigious intellectual powers to reflect on new discoveries in molecular biology.

Gamow had immigrated to the States in the 1930s to take an appointment at George Washington University after working at the famed Theoretical Physics Institute in Copenhagen. In 1953 and 1954 he proposed a model to explain how the specific sequences in DNA generate the specific sequences in proteins. According to Gamow’s “direct template model,” as it was called, protein assembly occurred directly on the DNA strand. Gamow proposed that proteins formed as amino acids attached directly to the DNA molecule at regularly spaced intervals. Gamow thought the amino acids could nestle into diamond-shaped cavities in DNA that formed in the space between the two backbones (see Fig. 5.1). In this model, a group of four nucleotide bases from two parallel strands of DNA made a specifically shaped hollow into which one and only one amino acid could fit. As each group of nucleotides acquired an amino acid partner, the amino acids would also link with each other to form a chain. According to Gamow, the nearly identical spacing of amino acids in protein and of bases in DNA enabled the direct “matching” of amino acids to nucleotide groups on the DNA template. This matching occurred because of the supposed fit between the cavities produced by the bases and the shape of the side chain of the amino acids and the chemical affinity between the bases and amino acids.

The notion that “DNA is a template” isn’t Petrushka’s; it’s George Gamow’s. But it rests on bad science. To quote Meyer again:

Francis Crick first recognized the futility of this scheme. In a famous communication to members of the “RNA Tie Club,” Crick explained that there was nothing about the chemical properties or shapes of the bases to ensure that one and only one amino acid would fit into, or attach to, the cavities created by a group of bases. In the first place, many of the amino acids were difficult to differentiate structurally, because they had similar side chains. Second, the bases themselves did not necessarily create shapes that either matched these shapes or, still less, differentiated one from another. As Crick put it, “Where are the nobby hydrophobic surfaces to distinguish valine from leucine from isoleucine? Where are the charged groups, in specific positions, to go with the acidic and basic amino acids?” As Juddson explains, “Crick was a protein crystallographer, and knew of no reason to think that Gamow’s holes in the helix could provide the variety or precision of shapes necessary to differentiate a score or more of rather similar objects.”

Yet in the absence of such spatial matching and the formation of corresponding chemical attachments, there could be no reliable transmission of information. For the direct template needed to explain the irregularity and specificity of the amino acid sequences in proteins, individual bases (or groups of bases) needed to manifest discriminating spatial geometries. Figuratively speaking, DNA bases not only needed to “zig” in a way that matched the specific “zags” of each amino acid, but DNA needed to do so at irregular intervals in order to produce the irregular sequencing of amino acids that characterizes proteins. Yeet as Crick realized, both the individual bases themselves and their various combinations lacked distinguishing physical features that could account for the specificity of amino-acid sequencing. Further, the geometry of the DNA molecule as a whole, at the level of its gross morphology, presents a highly repetitive sequence of major and minor grooves (see Fig. 5.2). Therefore, it could not function as a direct template for protein synthesis. As Crick explained, “What the DNA structure does show … is a specific pattern of hydrogen bonds, and very little else.”

If the chemical features and shapes of the DNA bases do not directly account for the specific sequencing of proteins, what does? Crick remained adamant that the specific arrangement of the nucleotide bases, not anything about their physical or chemical features per se, dictated amino acid sequencing.

Crick’s insight had profound implications. If a single protein could not copy the information in DNA directly, as the direct template model suggested, then as Jacques Monod would later explain, “you absolutely needed a code.” And so Crick postulated a third factor consistent with his original sequence hypothesis. He proposed the existence of a genetic code – a means of translating information from one chemical domain into another.

So there we have it. A code is a means of translating information from one domain into another – in this case, a chemical domain. That’s a broad, non-trivial definition.

Meyers then proceeds to describe how the genetic code works:

To envision what Crick had in mind, imagine having a human alphabet that uses four and only four distinct shapes that combine in various specific ways to form not just words, but words that correspond to individual letters in a larger alphabet roughly the size of the English alphabet; this larger alphabet then uses its letters (each of which is one of those words composed of the four shapes) to build sentences. Of course, we have a symbol system that does much the same thing. The binary code that computer programmers use has a translation key that enables programmers to produce English text from sequences of binary digits. Each letter in the English alphabet is represented by a unique combination of two character types, O’s and 1’s. For example, in ASCII code the letter A is represented by the sequence 100 0001, the letter B by the sequence 100 0010, and so on. Each of the letters of the twenty-six letter English alphabet has a corresponding representation in the two-digit numeric alphabet of this binary system (see Fig. 5.3). Crick realized that if his sequence hypothesis were true, then there must be some similar translation system in the cell – one that determined how sequences written in the four-character alphabet of DNA are converted into sequences that use a twenty-letter amino-acid alphabet. The DNA detective was now in the business of code breaking as well.

Yet in a physical system, as opposed to a social or linguistic one, a code must have a <b?physical expression. Crick postulated the existence of a third molecule, an adapter molecule functioning as a translation device that could recognize and convert the information in the sequential arrangements of the bases into specific amino-acid sequences. More specifically, he proposed the existence of twenty separate adapter molecules corresponding to each of the twenty protein-forming amino acids. Each adapter would, by the familiar mechanism of complementary base pairing, bind to a sequence of DNA text at one end and to a specific amino acid at the other. Crick also proposed the existence of specific enzymes (one for each of the twenty adapter-amino acid pairs) to connect the specific amino acids and their corresponding adapters. The set of correspondences between sections of genetic text, on the one hand, and the specific amino acid, on the other, constituted a genetic code (see Fig. 4.6).

Though these correspondences were mediated physically by adapter molecules and enzymes, this complex system, as conceived by Crick, would be governed by the functional requirements of information transfer as by rules of chemical affinity – as much by a set of chemically arbitrary conventions as by the necessary relations of physical-chemical law. Indeed, as Crick imagined this system, nothing about the physical or chemical features of the nucleotides or amino acids directly dictated any particular set of assignments between amino acids and bases in the DNA text. It had to be cracked…

That last phrase encapsulates a vital feature of the genetic code: its chemical arbitrariness: “nothing about the physical or chemical features of the nucleotides or amino acids directly dictated any particular set of assignments between amino acids and bases in the DNA text.”

So, how did Crick’s proposal withstand the test of time? Remarkably well, as Meyer describes it:

Crick’s proposal was striking in its sheer theoretical audacity. Biochemistry had not a shred of evidence for the existence of adapter molecules or their corresponding enzymes. Crick simply deduced the need for a code by thinking about what would be needed to make the cell’s communication system work…

What Crick would postulate on the grounds of functional necessity took nearly five years of intensive research and many transatlantic communications and conferences to verify and calculate…

…Indeed, Crick’s adapter molecules and their corresponding enzymes functioned much as he had originally envisaged, albeit as part of a far more complex process than even he has foreseen.

Finally, I should point out that strictly speaking, DNA itself is not a code. As Meyer puts it, “The set of correspondences between sections of genetic text, on the one hand, and the specific amino acid, on the other, constituted a genetic code .”

Dr. Jonathan Wells: In addition to the genetic code, there are other codes in the cell

My fourth and final piece of evidence comes from Dr. Jonathan Wells, who has two Ph.D.s – one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale – and who is the author of Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?: Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design and The Myth of Junk DNA as well as being the co-author of The Design of Life with Dr. William A. Dembski.

Dr. Wells contends that not only is the genetic code real, but there are at least six different codes inside the cell.

In a recent podcast on ID The Future, Dr. Jonathan Wells defined a code in biology as follows:

Well, a code, generally speaking, is a pattern that conveys information. Now, what information does is it limits whatever thing that promotes a huge range of possibilities to a specific set of those possibilities. For example, if we have a long string of letters that really make no sense – they don’t delimit anything, except the letters themselves – but if the sentence actually means something in English, then it specifies the thought, out of the infinite universe of thoughts that are out there, and that’s how information works. It can be in the form of letters, it can be in the form of digital information on a CD that specifies music – say, one song – out of the infinite number of possible songs that are out there, and in biology, the code specifies, among other things, the form of an organism. And a code in biology is generally carried, not by digital information or by letters, but by molecules. So biological code is a pattern in molecules that carries information to specify features of the organism.

Dr. Wells then proceeded to describe not only the genetic code, but five other codes inside the cell:

Well, a genetic code can mean two things. To a biologist, it technically means a set of instructions whereby information in DNA and RNA is translated into protein. A certain set of sub-units in RNA specifies a certain subset of amino acids and proteins. But that’s not the only meaning of code in biology – genetic code, that is. The other meaning – somewhat less technical – is that the sequence of sub-units in DNA and RNA can carry information that specifies proteins. So, I’ll use “genetic code” in the second sense, and it certainly is such a code. It’s not as powerful as it’s sometimes made out to be, as I’ll explain in a minute, because there are other codes besides it.

One code we could call the epigenetic code. It turns out that the DNA molecules in cells are chemically altered in many cases – not in the sense that the sequences of the sub-units changes, but the sub-units are decorated, so to speak, with other molecules that affect which parts of the DNA get transcribed into RNA and therefore translated into protein. So that’s another code in the organism that’s independent of the sequence of DNA it sequences.

On top of that, there’s still another code: the RNA splicing code. It turns out that in organisms such as ourselves, when the DNA is transcribed into RNA, the RNA is then cut up and spliced back together. And it can be spliced back together in many ways. We know of one stretch of DNA in fruit flies, for example, that after RNA splicing, can produce over 18,000 different proteins – a single stretch of DNA! So there’s the RNA splicing code, about which we don’t know a whole lot. It might be partly influenced by RNAs that have been transcribed from non-protein-coding RNA, but we don’t fully understand the nature of the RNA splicing code.

On top of that is the sugar code. It turns out that almost every protein made in the cell is further modified by the addition of sugar molecules. Now sugar molecules are far more complex than DNA and RNA. DNA and RNA sequences are linear – one-dimensional – but sugar molecules are three-dimensional, and so they carry a whole lot more information than in the RNA and in the DNA. So proteins are modified by the addition of sugar molecules that add a whole new level of complexity to what’s going on here.

Now on top of the sugar code is the membrane code. It turns out that there’s a pattern in the membrane of the living cell that’s there before the DNA is transcribed, and can be inherited independently of the DNA. And the membrane pattern is that it determines[?? – audio unclear] the spatial gradient for things in the cell, and the spatial ranking is all-important – especially in the embryo.

And finally, on top of the membrane code, there’s something called the bio-electric code. There are molecules in the membranes of all our cells that generate electric fields, and these fields, once generated, form a three-dimensional pattern that is known to affect development. For example, in a frog embryo, researchers have modified the electric field that they generate, without modifying the molecules or the membrane. And just by electrically modifying the bio-electric field, they can alter development.

So there are at least six codes in biology: the genetic code and five others.… They all carry information. They all affect cellular activity, and mostly embryo development.

Readers who would like to learn more about codes in biology will enjoy perusing Dr. Wells’s latest paper, “Membrane Patterns Carry Ontogenetic Information That Is Specified Independently of DNA”. The “Summary and Implications” section on page 14 provides a helpful overview.

A final objection?

In a subsequent comment on his post, Petrushka writes:

My understanding of the word “code” — which may not be the only possible one — is a system of transferring information such that an arbitrary reader can discover the meaning of the message.

This applies to human languages, including encrypted ones or extinct ones.

I think it also applies to musical notation, including mechanical notations, such as music box cylinders.

One thing that distinguishes such symbol systems is grammar and syntax. The notation has elements that can be rearranged to form alternate messages, and such alternate messages can be understood.

DNA does not have anything analogous to grammar and syntax….

Contrary to what Petrushka asserts, scientists can indeed legitimately speak of the language of the cell. Dr. Don Johnson is a scientist who has worked hard to build a link between the biological sciences and information technology over the past two decades. In addition to being the author of Programming of Life and Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability: A Call to Scientific Integrity, Dr. Johnson has both a Ph.D. in chemistry and a Ph.D. in computer and information sciences. He has spent 20 years teaching in universities in Wisconsin, Minnesota, California, and Europe. On April 8, 2010, Dr. Johnson gave a presentation entitled Bioinformatics: The Information in Life for the University of North Carolina Wilmington chapter of the Association for Computer Machinery. Dr. Johnson’s presentation is now on-line here. Both the talk and accompanying handout notes can be accessed from Dr. Johnson’s Web page. Here’s an excerpt from his presentation blurb:

Each cell of an organism has millions of interacting computers reading and processing digital information using algorithmic digital programs and digital codes to communicate and translate information.

On a slide entitled “Information Systems In Life,” Dr. Johnson points out that:

  • the genetic system is a pre-existing operating system;
  • the specific genetic program (genome) is an application;
  • the native language has a codon-based encryption system;
  • the codes are read by enzyme computers with their own operating system;
  • each enzyme’s output is to another operating system in a ribosome;
  • codes are decrypted and output to tRNA computers;
  • each codon-specified amino acid is transported to a protein construction site; and
  • in each cell, there are multiple operating systems, multiple programming languages, encoding/decoding hardware and software, specialized communications systems, error detection/correction systems, specialized input/output for organelle control and feedback, and a variety of specialized “devices” to accomplish the tasks of life.

Petrushka’s claim that DNA lacks grammar and syntax is also incorrect, as author, business consultant and electrical engineer Perry Marshall points out on his Cosmic Fingerprints.com Website, in a thought-provoking article titled, Language and Design: Product of a Mental Process:

…DNA is not just a molecule, DNA is a language. It is actually very comparable to English and human languages in the way that it is structured. Here is a little chart and it shows the comparison between human languages and DNA. The nucleotide is the A, T, C, G.

Marshall uses a chart to illustrate his point:

DNA Language Human Language
Nucleotide Character
Codon Letter
Gene Word
Operon Sentence
Regulon Paragraph

Marshall continues:

DNA is encoding, decoding mechanism that stores and transmits the message of the living organism. Biologists have actually been using linguistic analysis to decode the human genome. Tools that we must use to analyze languages are continually being used to figure out what all of those genes actually mean.

So if you read some article in the newspaper it says we found a gene that causes Spina Bifida or something like that, some kind of linguistic analysis was used to help figure that out.

Perry Marshall’s Intelligent Design argument

Marshall also proposes an update to Paley’s design argument, which he believes makes it logically unassailable:

Perry Marshall’s Update to Paley’s Design Argument

But now I have an improvement to Paley’s design argument. This sounds audacious but I’m serious. I have an improvement that makes Paley’s argument airtight:

  • Element common to both watches and life is language
  • The essential distinction between pattern and design is language
  • Fundamental Property of all Designs: Idea precedes Implementation
  • Idea must be represented by language
  • All language comes from a mind

Life is preceded by DNA, and a watch is preceded by a plan where a blueprint or at least an idea in somebody’s mind that preceded the building of the watch.

That is true of all things that are designed, an idea comes first.

The essential distinction betweens patterns and designs is language. Patterns don’t have languages, but designs do. So the fundamental property of all designs is that an idea precedes the implementation of the idea.

The idea exists in a symbolic form before it’s physically built. An idea, in order to exist, has to be represented by a language. Even to have an idea in your mind you have to talk to yourself and have images in your mind of what you want to do before you do it. So we know this:

  • Ideas always precede implementation, always, no exceptions.
  • All languages come from a mind. No exceptions.
  • There are no languages that do not come from a mind.
  • So we know that DNA was designed.
  • A mind designed DNA, therefore God exists.

Can this be refuted? Yes, if any exceptions to this can be found. But a lot of people have tried to refute it, unsuccessfully. It’s an airtight inductive proof that life was designed by a mind. If anyone can find a flaw in the logic, it fails. Until that happens, it stands. It’s just like the laws of thermodynamics, or gravity, or conservation of matter and energy. If anyone can find an exception, the law fails to hold.

This leads to what I call The Atheist’s Riddle:

“Show me a language that does not come from a mind. ”

It’s so simple and a child can understand, but so complex no atheist can solve.

Conclusion

It seems to me that Petrushka’s point would be better expressed by saying that whereas the language of the cell is an artificial language, the language we use in our everyday speech is a natural language. (See here for a short exposition of these terms.) Natural languages do indeed have a richness which cannot be exhausted by their grammatical and syntactical rules. Nevertheless, it remains true that to the best of our knowledge, only a mind is capable of designing a language, whether natural or artificial. I conclude that the language of the cell warrants an inference to the existence of an Intelligent Designer.

But regardless of what readers may think of this Intelligent design argument, one point is undeniable: the genetic code is real. It is not a metaphor, but a literal reality – a point I elaborated in my 2013 post, Is the genetic code a real code?

What do readers think?

Comments
“You don’t have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.” George MacDonald - Annals of a Quiet Neighborhood - 1892
As Jonathan Wells mentioned, the bioelectric code cannot be reduced, like the membrane code cannot be reduced, to information in the DNA. Moreover, the bioelectric code is said to be a 'jaw dropper'.
The (Electric) Face of a Frog - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VULjzX__OM The face of a frog: Time-lapse video reveals never-before-seen bioelectric pattern - July 2011 Excerpt: For the first time, Tufts University biologists have reported that bioelectrical signals are necessary for normal head and facial formation in an organism and have captured that process in a time-lapse video that reveals never-before-seen patterns of visible bioelectrical signals outlining where eyes, nose, mouth, and other features will appear in an embryonic tadpole.,,, "When a frog embryo is just developing, before it gets a face, a pattern for that face lights up on the surface of the embryo,",,, "We believe this is the first time such patterning has been reported for an entire structure, not just for a single organ. I would never have predicted anything like it. It's a jaw dropper.",,, http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-frog-time-lapse-video-reveals-never-before-seen.html
Dr Hunter comments:
"The video suggests that bioelectric signals presage, (i.e. foreshadow), the morphological development of the face. It also, in an instant, gives a peak at the phenomenal processes at work in biology. As the lead researcher said, “It’s a jaw dropper.”" Cornelius Hunter - An Electric Face: A Rendering Worth a Thousand Falsifications – September 2011
The bioelectric code adds to the growing list of empirical evidences that the 'form' of an organism is not reducible to DNA, nor to any other material particulars in the cell for that matter, in any conceivable way: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/human-and-chimp-dna-they-really-are-about-98-similar/#comment-584055 In fact Jonathan Wells comments that, in direct contradiction to the molecular reductionism that undergirds neo-Darwinian thought, it is the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism:
Ask an Embryologist: Genomic Mosaicism - Jonathan Wells - February 23, 2015 Excerpt: humans have a "few thousand" different cell types. Here is my simple question: Does the DNA sequence in one cell type differ from the sequence in another cell type in the same person?,,, The simple answer is: We now know that there is considerable variation in DNA sequences among tissues, and even among cells in the same tissue. It's called genomic mosaicism. In the early days of developmental genetics, some people thought that parts of the embryo became different from each other because they acquired different pieces of the DNA from the fertilized egg. That theory was abandoned,,, ,,,(then) "genomic equivalence" -- the idea that all the cells of an organism (with a few exceptions, such as cells of the immune system) contain the same DNA -- became the accepted view. I taught genomic equivalence for many years. A few years ago, however, everything changed. With the development of more sophisticated techniques and the sampling of more tissues and cells, it became clear that genetic mosaicism is common. I now know as an embryologist,,,Tissues and cells, as they differentiate, modify their DNA to suit their needs. It's the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/ask_an_embryolo093851.html
The human body is conservatively made up of a billion-trillion protein molecules.
One Body - XVIVO Scientific Animation - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDMLq6eqEM4 HOW BIOLOGISTS LOST SIGHT OF THE MEANING OF LIFE — AND ARE NOW STARING IT IN THE FACE - Stephen L. Talbott - May 2012 Excerpt: “If you think air traffic controllers have a tough job guiding planes into major airports or across a crowded continental airspace, consider the challenge facing a human cell trying to position its proteins”. A given cell, he notes, may make more than 10,000 different proteins, and typically contains more than a billion protein molecules at any one time. “Somehow a cell must get all its proteins to their correct destinations — and equally important, keep these molecules out of the wrong places”. And further: “It’s almost as if every mRNA [an intermediate between a gene and a corresponding protein] coming out of the nucleus knows where it’s going” (Travis 2011),,, Further, the billion protein molecules in a cell are virtually all capable of interacting with each other to one degree or another; they are subject to getting misfolded or “all balled up with one another”; they are critically modified through the attachment or detachment of molecular subunits, often in rapid order and with immediate implications for changing function; they can wind up inside large-capacity “transport vehicles” headed in any number of directions; they can be sidetracked by diverse processes of degradation and recycling... and so on without end. Yet the coherence of the whole is maintained. The question is indeed, then, “How does the organism meaningfully dispose of all its molecules, getting them to the right places and into the right interactions?” The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary. Two systems biologists, one from the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in Germany and one from Harvard Medical School, frame one part of the problem this way: "The human body is formed by trillions of individual cells. These cells work together with remarkable precision, first forming an adult organism out of a single fertilized egg, and then keeping the organism alive and functional for decades. To achieve this precision, one would assume that each individual cell reacts in a reliable, reproducible way to a given input, faithfully executing the required task. However, a growing number of studies investigating cellular processes on the level of single cells revealed large heterogeneity even among genetically identical cells of the same cell type. (Loewer and Lahav 2011)",,, And then we hear that all this meaningful activity is, somehow, meaningless or a product of meaninglessness. This, I believe, is the real issue troubling the majority of the American populace when they are asked about their belief in evolution. They see one thing and then are told, more or less directly, that they are really seeing its denial. Yet no one has ever explained to them how you get meaning from meaninglessness — a difficult enough task once you realize that we cannot articulate any knowledge of the world at all except in the language of meaning.,,, http://www.netfuture.org/2012/May1012_184.html#2
But since the 'form' of an organism is not reducible to DNA in any conceivable way, what in blue blazes is making the approx. billion-trillion protein molecules of the human body cohere as a single unified whole, i.e. a 'form', for precisely a lifetime, and not a moment longer?
picture - What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer? http://cdn-4.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/harvardd-2.jpg The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings - Stephen L. Talbott - 2010 Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. ,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer? Despite the countless processes going on in the cell, and despite the fact that each process might be expected to “go its own way” according to the myriad factors impinging on it from all directions, the actual result is quite different. Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings
Indeed, the reductive materialistic framework that neo-Darwinists rely on is grossly inadequate as to providing any sensible explanation for how it is possible for a billion-trillion protein molecules to cohere as a single unified whole, i.e. a 'form', for precisely a lifetime, and not a moment longer. In fact, until recently it was naively thought that the communication of information in the cell was accomplished primarily when diffusing molecules randomly collided with each other:
“We have always underestimated cells. Undoubtedly we still do today. But at least we are no longer as naive as we were when I was a graduate student in the 1960s. Then, most of us viewed cells as containing a giant set of second-order reactions: molecules A and B were thought to diffuse freely, randomly colliding with each other to produce molecule AB—and likewise for the many other molecules that interact with each other inside a cell. This seemed reasonable because, as we had learned from studying physical chemistry, motions at the scale of molecules are incredibly rapid. … But, as it turns out, we can walk and we can talk because the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered. Proteins make up most of the dry mass of a cell. But instead of a cell dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules, we now know that nearly every major process in a cell is carried out by assemblies of 10 or more protein molecules. And, as it carries out its biological functions, each of these protein assemblies interacts with several other large complexes of proteins. Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines,,, - Bruce Alberts, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists," Cell, 92 (February 6, 1998): 291-294) Editor-in-Chief of Science (2009-2013) served two six-year terms as the president of the National Academy of Sciences
To say that randomly diffusing molecules are grossly inadequate as an explanation for how it is possible for a billion-trillion protein molecules to cohere for a single unified whole, i.e. a 'form', for precisely a lifetime, and not a moment longer, is to insult the fact that smoke signals are grossly inadequate as a means of communication for the internet. (i.e. 'Grossly inadequate' is to understate the severity of the shortfall in the explanation for how it is possible for a billion-trillion molecules to cohere as a single unified whole.) Indeed, far from communication in the cell being accomplished mainly via randomly diffusing molecules, (as was apparently presupposed for decades by reductive materialists), we now know that extremely sophisticated biophotonic communication is being accomplished within the cell and even between the cells.
Strange! Humans Glow in Visible Light - Charles Q. Choi - July 22, 2009 Schematic illustration of experimental setup that found the human body, especially the face, emits visible light in small quantities that vary during the day. B is one of the test subjects. The other images show the weak emissions of visible light during totally dark conditions. The chart corresponds to the images and shows how the emissions varied during the day. The last image (I) is an infrared image of the subject showing heat emissions. http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/006/481/original/090722-body-glow-02.jpg?1296086873
bornagain
October 31, 2015
October
10
Oct
31
31
2015
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
Virgil Cain: OK, it's probably a question of personal taste. I have good respect of both Zachriel and Petrushka, even if for different reasons. They are both interlocutors that I appreciate. Obviously, I strongly disagree with them on almost everything! :)gpuccio
October 31, 2015
October
10
Oct
31
31
2015
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
gpuccio:
Even if I usually disagree with him, I have usually found that his objections are somewhat reasonable, and to the point.
Strange, I have never seen a reasonable argument from petrushka. petrushka is on the same level of insipidity as Zachriel.Virgil Cain
October 31, 2015
October
10
Oct
31
31
2015
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
DNA Language | Human Language | Chemistry Nucleotide | Character | atoms Codon | Letter | element Gene | Word | molecule Operon | Sentence | amino acid (left handed) Regulon | Paragraph | protein I think I see a pattern (template?) here. All these words represent stuff.awstar
October 31, 2015
October
10
Oct
31
31
2015
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT
I am really amazed at Petrushka's "arguments". Even if I usually disagree with him, I have usually found that his objections are somewhat reasonable, and to the point. That seems not to be the case here. The necessity to deny that the genetic code is a code seems to be really strong for our interlocutors, but it's obviously a folly. OK, I suppose they need to exercise, so that tomorrow they can start denying that the many epigenetic codes are codes... :)gpuccio
October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
11:44 PM
11
11
44
PM
PDT
2015 and there are still people in denial? Denial is a river in Africa......Andre
October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT
A template has a purpose. A template is a product of design. DNA as a template an example of irreducible complexity? Maybe Petrushka meant "appearance of template".ppolish
October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT
What happened to PaV's thread?computerist
October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT
Petrushka:
My understanding of the word “code” — which may not be the only possible one — is a system of transferring information such that an arbitrary reader can discover the meaning of the message.
This is not true, of course. A code is a symbol the meaning of which is must be agreed upon by both sender and receiver. Even a single bit can be enough to convey a message if it occurs at the right time or place. This is why, for example, no one could decipher ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic writings until the discovery of the Rosetta stone by one of Napoleon's soldiers. It was the key that gave meaning to the symbols.Mapou
October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT
I want to thank VJT for his OP. I post over at TSZ but had declined to participate in that particular thread. What stands out to me is that the question was raised, "What Is A Code?" - but never answered. Further, petrushka admits he doesn't care:
I’m not interested in a dictionary war. I don’t care about classifying sequences as codes or languages or whatever. I’m not a bucket person. ... But back to my roadway. the problem I’m addressing is not the definition of code. I couldn’t care less.
Mung
October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT
Nothing impressive about The Code. After all, "it's just chemistry." :Dmike1962
October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT
So which one of the two evolved first, the code or the decoder? Oh wait, that's abiogenesis, not evolution. I know, magicland. Like this somehow exonerates the fact that the most important aspect of the theory (its beginning) is missing and nowhere to be found. ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...Mapou
October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
This is a well-written and captivating article. Easy and informative prose that does not insult one's intelligence. This is the kind of articles I enjoy reading on UD.Mapou
October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
Element common to both watches and life is language The essential distinction between pattern and design is language Fundamental Property of all Designs: Idea precedes Implementation Idea must be represented by language All language comes from a mind
How would you code an accurate working watch in DNA? Too hard? Ok, what about a very simple non-functioning watch-face? You guys are experts on watches and DNA coding, so how would you implement a simple circular disc with 12 markers representing twelve hour and/or five-minute intervals from 0 to 55 arranged at regular 30 degree angles around the circumference in DNA such that a living organism of your choosing would produce such a simple artifact? For extra credit, add roman numerals at 0/12, 3, 6, and 9. In DNA. Where do you start? edit: fixed some of probably many typossteveh
October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
petrushka's three "objections" are not thought out:
(i) its meaning can only be translated into chemistry;
Meaningless as Morse code is only translated into letters and words- same with Braille. Both are real codes.
(ii) it cannot convey new messages;
Is that a requirement for a code? There are many different proteins. And for DNA Venter coded in a message of sorts.
and (iii) it is impossible to predict what a novel DNA string will do.
Not a requirement for being a code. Good secret codes are unpredictable and yet they are still codes. And Venter new what his novel DNA would do.Virgil Cain
October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
Moreover, besides the coding Dr. Wells highlighted, there is also additional multiple overlapping coding within DNA itself:
Thirty Years of Multiple Sequence Codes - Edward N. Trifonov - 2011 How Many “Second Genetic Codes”? Excerpt: According to the media sympathetic to science and enthusiastic about sensational discoveries, the “Second Genetic Code” as it was called by New York Times (8) was discovered by Ya-Ming Hou and Paul Schimmel and published in Nature in 1988 (9). It was about recognition of tRNAs by respective aminoa- cyl-tRNA synthetases. Thirteen years later New Scientist announced the second Second Genetic Code (13), discovered by Jenuwein and Allis (14) and published in Science. This time it was about histone modifications. Five years later, New York Times, again, reported about “a second code in DNA in addition to the genetic code” (15). This was already the third Second Genetic Code, discovered by Segal et al (16), sug- gesting now nucleosome positioning rules. One, surely, would raise eyebrows having learned that there is also the fourth Second Genetic Code (17)—on in- teraction specificities between proteins and DNA, and the fifth Second Genetic Code, the name given by Nature magazine (18) to the set of rules governing gene splicing(19). Bewildered reader, naturally, would say “I’m done with seconds, can I have a third?” (20) The conclusion from the above is obvious: one has to admit that the genetic sequences carry many different codes. If we are to know what the sequences are about, we have to detect and decipher these codes. The times of surrender to “junk” and “selfish DNA” are over, and “non-coding” becomes a misnomer.,,, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1672022911600016 Second, third, fourth… genetic codes - One spectacular case of code crowding - Edward N. Trifonov - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDB3fMCfk0E
In the preceding video, Trifonov elucidates codes that are, simultaneously, in the same sequence, coding for DNA curvature, Chromatin Code, Amphipathic helices, and NF kappaB. In fact, at the 58:00 minute mark he states, "Reading only one message, one gets three more, practically GRATIS!". And please note that this was just an introductory lecture in which Trifinov just covered the very basics and left many of the other codes out of the lecture. Codes which code for completely different, yet still biologically important, functions. In fact, at the 7:55 mark of the video, there are 13 codes that are listed on a powerpoint, although the writing was too small for me to read. Concluding powerpoint of the lecture (at the 1 hour mark):
"Not only are there many different codes in the sequences, but they overlap, so that the same letters in a sequence may take part simultaneously in several different messages." Edward N. Trifonov - 2010 Multiple levels of meaning in DNA sequences, and one more. - Trifonov EN, Volkovich Z, Frenkel ZM. - 2012 Excerpt: If we define a genetic code as a widespread DNA sequence pattern that carries a message with an impact on biology, then there are multiple genetic codes. Sequences involved in these codes overlap and, thus, both interact with and constrain each other, such as for the triplet code, the intron-splicing code, the code for amphipathic alpha helices, and the chromatin code. Nucleosomes preferentially are located at the ends of exons, thus protecting splice junctions, with the N9 positions of guanines of the GT and AG junctions oriented toward the histones.,, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22954214 Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – published online May 2013 Excerpt: In the last decade, we have discovered still another aspect of the multi-dimensional genome. We now know that DNA sequences are typically “ poly-functional” [38]. Trifanov previously had described at least 12 genetic codes that any given nucleotide can contribute to [39,40], and showed that a given base-pair can contribute to multiple overlapping codes simultaneously. The first evidence of overlapping protein-coding sequences in viruses caused quite a stir, but since then it has become recognized as typical. According to Kapronov et al., “it is not unusual that a single base-pair can be part of an intricate network of multiple isoforms of overlapping sense and antisense transcripts, the majority of which are unannotated” [41]. The ENCODE project [42] has confirmed that this phenomenon is ubiquitous in higher genomes, wherein a given DNA sequence routinely encodes multiple overlapping messages, meaning that a single nucleotide can contribute to two or more genetic codes. Most recently, Itzkovitz et al. analyzed protein coding regions of 700 species, and showed that virtually all forms of life have extensive overlapping information in their genomes [43]. 38. Sanford J (2008) Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. FMS Publications, NY. Pages 131–142. 39. Trifonov EN (1989) Multiple codes of nucleotide sequences. Bull of Mathematical Biology 51:417–432. 40. Trifanov EN (1997) Genetic sequences as products of compression by inclusive superposition of many codes. Mol Biol 31:647–654. 41. Kapranov P, et al (2005) Examples of complex architecture of the human transcriptome revealed by RACE and high density tiling arrays. Genome Res 15:987–997. 42. Birney E, et al (2007) Encode Project Consortium: Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature 447:799–816. 43. Itzkovitz S, Hodis E, Sega E (2010) Overlapping codes within protein-coding sequences. Genome Res. 20:1582–1589. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006
Moreover, there are very good mathematical reasons why overlapping coding within DNA will prevent one creature from ever being changed into another creature.
Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – May 2013 Conclusions: Our analysis confirms mathematically what would seem intuitively obvious – multiple overlapping codes within the genome must radically change our expectations regarding the rate of beneficial mutations. As the number of overlapping codes increases, the rate of potential beneficial mutation decreases exponentially, quickly approaching zero. Therefore the new evidence for ubiquitous overlapping codes in higher genomes strongly indicates that beneficial mutations should be extremely rare. This evidence combined with increasing evidence that biological systems are highly optimized, and evidence that only relatively high-impact beneficial mutations can be effectively amplified by natural selection, lead us to conclude that mutations which are both selectable and unambiguously beneficial must be vanishingly rare. This conclusion raises serious questions. How might such vanishingly rare beneficial mutations ever be sufficient for genome building? How might genetic degeneration ever be averted, given the continuous accumulation of low impact deleterious mutations? http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006
A very simple way to understand the monumental brick wall any evolutionary scenario faces with the multiple overlapping coding found in DNA is with the following puzzle found on page 141 of the book ‘Genetic Entropy’ by Dr. Sanford.
S A T O R A R E P O T E N E T O P E R A R O T A S
Which is translated ;
THE SOWER NAMED AREPO HOLDS THE WORKING OF THE WHEELS.
This ancient puzzle, which dates back to at least 79 AD, reads the same four different ways, Thus, If we change (mutate) any letter we may get a new meaning for a single reading read any one way, as in Dawkins weasel program, but we will consistently destroy the other 3 readings of the message with the new mutation (save for the center). This is what is meant when it is said that a poly-functional genome is poly-constrained to any random mutations. This poly-constrained principle is why we never see the unlimited plasticity in organisms that was, and is, imagined by Darwin and his followers, and is also why random mutations, that have effects that great enough that we are able to measure them, are almost always deleterious in the effects that are measured:
'It's becoming extremely problematic to explain how the genome could arise and how these multiple levels of overlapping information could arise, since our best computer programmers can't even conceive of overlapping codes. The genome dwarfs all of the computer information technology that man has developed. So I think that it is very problematic to imagine how you can achieve that through random changes in the code.,,, and there is no Junk DNA in these codes. More and more the genome looks likes a super-super set of programs.,, More and more it looks like top down design and not just bottom up chance discovery of making complex systems.' - Dr. John Sanford - Inventor of the ‘Gene Gun’ - 31 second mark - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YemLbrCdM_s#t=31s
Verse and Music:
John1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. Casting Crowns - The Word Is Alive - Live https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXGaZn1dDOw
bornagain
October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
The only people to object to the genetic code being a real code are the same people who realize there isn't any way that materialism can explain a code. They will deny it is part of a communication system even after it is pointed out it is part of the intracellular communication system. There was a reason it is called messenger RNA-> it is carrying a message from the nucleus (in eukaryotes) that says to build a protein and here is the coding for amino acid sequence. The implications are too great for them to bear so they reach critical mass and either deny or say that of course natural selection could do that.Virgil Cain
October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply