Codes, Evolution, and Intelligent Design

I'm just trying to get everything straight in my head. I'm going to break this down into really simple 'DNA'.Lets say my DNA has only 3 possible configurations: A, B and C.
My ribosomes are set up so that if my DNA is A, B, or C it produces a unique output.Here's a table:

DNA | ribo | Output
A ----------> 1
B ----------> 2
C ----------> 3

So, although it is an extremely simplified situation, is this what you classify as a code?ABE: As pointed out by Quetzal, this is really the definition of the 'decoding' algorithm. What I'm asking is actually "Is the DNA in this simplified example a code?"Edited by Codegate, : Clarifying question.

I'd say that an algorithm is a requirement of a code (at least as a code is defined by tdcanam).Every code needs to have some way to encode/decode it, and the method through which that occurs would be defined by an algorithm.ABE: I updated my original question to be a little clearer ( I hope ). What I was showing in the table was the decoding algorithm. I should have been asking if DNA in that example was still code.Edited by Codegate, : No reason given.

By this definition, DNA can't be a code seeing as how it occurs in nature.I'm trying to stick with the definition that tccanam has put forth for a code which has the premise that DNA is in fact a code.Once we have a firm definition of how we are defining 'code' in the context of this discussion it will be much easier to find pros and cons to the standpoint.I'm hoping that tccanam can provide this for me in baby steps so that I can understand what is being proposed.

I happen to be in complete agreement with you. My simple little chart was just an attempt to simplify what TC was stating in his 'definition' of code.As far as I can tell the whole DNA process is nothing more then basic chemical reactions. A massively ramped up H₂ + O₂ ==> H₂O + O where H₂ represents your DNA and O₂ represents your ribosomes and the resultant products represent the output protiens of the ribos.