Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   DNA is not English
platypus
Member (Idle past 5754 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 1 of 26 (372245)
12-26-2006 1:55 AM


The creationist argument about information theory often relies on the analogy of DNA with language. It is often phrased such that things like languages which contain information cannot come from random processes, they must be designed. Rather than refer to examples that show an information increase during evolutionary processes, or argue about a definition of information, I would like this thread to be focused on a simple point: DNA is not a typical language.
An biotech website has expanded the analogy between DNA and language in the following way (Just a moment...)
quote:
Letters: Nucleotide Bases
Words: Codons
Sentences: Genes
Book: DNA
I tend to agree with this analogy, only adding in that exons act as periods. For clarification, a codon is a set of three nucleotide bases which codes for an amino acid. A gene is a series of codons which produces a string of amino acids, or a protein. A protein is a molecule which performs various functions. (These are layman definitions)
DNA is a language with 4 letters (ACGT), meaning that there are 4^3 different words or codons that can be made, or 64 different words. Let me also point out that each codon refers to an amino acid, except for the exons.
Many creationist arguments procede as follows. Take a word, like
evolution
Perform some random substitution:
evolhtion
Now you have something which is nonsensical, it has lost meaning and is not readable.
In these cases, what is being performed is a point mutation, a substitution of a single nucleotide base for another. Let's carry the analogy. Say we have this codon:
ACG
It codes for Threonine. By a point mutation, we get.
GCG
which codes for Alanine. The domain for those dedicated to health and quality of life This link has a chart that gives a complete list of how codons code for amino acids.
In other words, we imposed a random change in the codon, and meaning is still preserved. The important point is that this was not a carefully chosen example. All words or codons contain meaning in the language of DNA: a point mutation can never produce meaningless codons, or degrade genetic information.
One possible objection: point mutuations often lead to non-functional proteins, thus indicating a loss of information.
Counter: But information is not actually lost or degraded. Each codon still has meaning, and the sentence as a whole has meaning- it still produces a protein, if a non-functional one. This is where the analogy really breaks down. The language of DNA is not simply information, it has a physical significance- it produces proteins.
DNA can only be viewed as a set of instructions for making proteins rather than any old smalltalk, though even here the analogy breaks down. DNA doesn't tell something else how to build a protein, it is directly involved in the building process. If only the instructions to my new ikea table set did that!
Additionally, the instructions have not lost meaning when a point mutation produces a non-functional protein. The instructions are just as clear as before, "build this list of amino acids in a chain." The language is still just as readable. The instructions just simply don't work.
Point mutations in the English language produce nonsensical words. Point mutations in the genetic language never produce nonsensical words, they always produce a changed but still meaningful phrase. Thus, treating DNA as a language like English is silly.
Edited by platypus, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by mick, posted 12-26-2006 5:52 PM platypus has not replied
 Message 9 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 12-27-2006 2:16 AM platypus has not replied

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 5754 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 7 of 26 (372374)
12-26-2006 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Fosdick
12-26-2006 7:41 PM


Re: Genetic "language" is not a metaphor
Translating the code into a protein requires rules of language; a simple language, but a language nonetheless.
What are the rules? If they are simple, you should be able to list them right here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Fosdick, posted 12-26-2006 7:41 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Fosdick, posted 12-27-2006 12:01 PM platypus has replied

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 5754 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 8 of 26 (372378)
12-26-2006 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Fosdick
12-26-2006 7:41 PM


Re: Genetic "language" is not a metaphor
As a separate point, you are using code and language interchangeable. Is this justified? The morse code is definitely a code, not a language. Yet the morse code has no meaning on its own. We can perform a 1 to 1 mapping of the code onto English, and thus get a phrase with meaning. But the morse code only has meaning because it refers to a language.
I think this is the point mick is getting at. DNA does seem to be a sort of code. But what does this code translate into? Certainly not a language. It translates into a set of amino acids, which form a protein. Take the gene for dark skin, for instance. Does your skin "decide" to become dark after "reading" the DNA? No, it produces a protein which produces dark pigments in your skin. (I'm not sure if this is exactly how skin tone is determined, but I would guess that it is something like this, as are many other traits) In this case, there is no exchange of some immaterial information, the process is very physical. You can think of the trait as being contained in the code of DNA, but that analogy can only go so far.

You hear evolutionist says we are descedant from apes and monkees. Sure, but that's not the point. All of life is related, not just human's with monkees. If you hug a tree, you're hugging a relative, a very distant relative, but a relative nonetheless." Dr. Joan Roughgarden in Evolution and Christian Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Fosdick, posted 12-26-2006 7:41 PM Fosdick has not replied

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 5754 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 11 of 26 (372481)
12-27-2006 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Fosdick
12-27-2006 12:01 PM


Re: Genetic "language" is not a metaphor
Hey,
Tried clicking on your links, but they opened an error page. Can you give the URL? I am honestly interested in how far the language analogy has been taken.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Fosdick, posted 12-27-2006 12:01 PM Fosdick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 12-27-2006 6:20 PM platypus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024