Just what have I claimed about the code? It contains Shannon information, but not just Shannon information, but information with specificity.
You said,
Which is just hilarious.
Here, maybe this example will help you understand: Both the following number sequences contain the same amount of Shannon information, 33.2 bytes: 3480397121 and 602 545 1256. However, the first sequence does not specify anything. The second, however, when entered into a telephone keypad, will result in an electronic communication line being opened.
If you say so. I am not certain that 3480397121 does not specify an electronic communication line being opened, but I am certain that there is nothing (neither in information content or specificity) inherently about it that prevents it from resulting in an electronic communication line being opened when entered into a telephone keypad.
As a matter of fact, it could be arranged such that 3480397121 results in opening the electronic communication line opened by 602 545 1256, and the sequence 602 545 1256 not specify anything. This is because they are symbols, and symbols have only the information we assign to them.
This is illustrated more clearly by erasing the numbers from your telephone keypad, and replacing them with letters such that 1234567890 become ABCDEFGHIJ. Then punching in FJB EDE ABEF would result in THE EXACT SAME electronic communication line being opened.
This is because altering symbols CANNOT alter the real things they represent. The reason for this is that the actual nature of things symbolized is independent of the symbols that represent them. This is the point I made that you deny is valid; that you are yet rather insistent upon asserting is valid as you demand that "the information and instructions contained in code form in dna are independent of the dna molecule used to transfer the instructions."
This is demonstrably NOT the case for the "information and instructions" for protiens that are "coded" for in DNA.
You have presented your strawman argument before about the "abstractness" of the English alphabet to argue against DNA "code", which I'm sure you just read on an atheist rebuttal website and you really had no understanding of what you were arguing. ID does not claim what you keep strawmanning about code.
Well, maybe Intelligent Design Theory doesn't say anything you claim it says, but you insist that "
"proteins WERE and ARE the symbols that are transferred within the code," and that
"... dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries!!
You are rather emphatic on this point, and it seems rather consistent with the pertinent literature you post from the Intelligent Design sources you cite as definitive. Hence, I am at a loss as to why you insist that I have in any manner constructed a strawman of the notion of "code" utilized by Intelligent Design theorists.
The actual fact of reality is that proteins are not symbols, and the information and instructions contained in "code" form in DNA is chemically indissociable from the DNA molecule.
If proteins were symbols as you say, then polysaccharides could be functionally indistinguishable from polypeptides, as you would be simply exchanging one symbol (peptide) for another (sugar).
If the "the information and instructions contained in code form in dna are independent of the dna molecule used to transfer the instructions" as you say, you could substitute nucleic acids (provided you did so systematically) and the information transferred (being "chemically independent" from the DNA molecule) would result in the same protein the unaltered DNA molecule coded for.
In fact, if such chemical independence was actually the case, you could systematically replace adenine with say ... a methyl group; you could then replace cytosine with an acetyl group; you could replace guanine with an alcohol; and you could replace thymine with an ester. Being merely symbols, all of these molecules would be chemically independent of the "the information and instructions" they represent. The resulting molecule would be in every sense "code" for the same protein that the DNA molecule was--with necessarily the exact same "information" content and specificity, since we are only exchanging symbols. Then we would expect that this new molecule would function just like a strand of DNA.
This of course, is just ludicrous.
The reason for this is that DNA IS NOT A "CODE" in the manner you say it is!
Such substitutions cannot be made in DNA if the product of its function is to remain consistent. If DNA actually has it's very own discrete, specific, necessary, and self-defining function in the production of proteins (I think it does), then it's not actually a symbol for proteins--DNA then is not "code" that means proteins, because DNA doesn't actually function (in the genetics of organisms) that way.
It claims DNA contains complex information or Shannon information, but it also claims information that specifies something, which distinguishes it from the gibberish you want to infer "just happened" in the primordial soup.
As plainly demonstrated above, I am NOT the one whose notions result in gibberish.
Your entire post above is quite the joke.
You're the joke.
Rather than pick up a book like Signature In The Cell and read what claims are being made by ID, you rely on atheist websites for all your information. Your only source of information on the topic is what you have read on the internet. How sad. You will remain hopelessly lost in your ignorance.
Whatever you say Mr. "dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries!"
