coded information in DNA

Who is the "reader" / "listener" who agrees to the "symbols" in DNA? Your definition excludes all transfers of information that do not have a sentient receiver who can agree to the code. That means that it cannot apply to the chemistry of life.Try again.

It would be more meaningful for you to try to rebute the different natural scenarios that could have given rise to DNA...So even if you were right about DNA being a code and not gravitation and all the stuffs you discussed about, the fact that all the codes you have seen being produced were the results of intelligence wouldn't mean there are no other way of producing codes.

For example, computers, radios and human languages are not inextricably tied to their substrates. You can download information onto a computer, adjust the reception of a radio and interpret several different languages, all without changing the chemical composition of your computer, radio or eardrum.However, you cannot change the information content of DNA without changing the chemical composition of the DNA. This suggests that the information content of DNA is just a chemical property of the molecule, and not an externally-enforced "message."

If you include thermometers, then you're opening a whole new can fo worms. What about a water hole that raises and lowers based on atmospheric pressure? It's sending us messages about the atmospheric pressure, but it wasn't created by a conscious mind.

The empirical data supporting a naturalistic explanation is that everything we observe is consistent with the laws of nature.

On the contrary. 100% of our experience tells us that no code is produced by a violation of the laws of nature.

Stating it doesn't make it so. Why, exactly doesn't it qualify as per Shannon? Be very precise, please.

pmarshall writes:If we say the temperature in the room is 70 degrees F, we have used a convention of symbols to describe a very real characteristic of air. However 70 degrees F" is the symbolic representation of a man-made encoding / decoding system; the air itself is just molecules in motion.Now if mercury is sitting in a tube (a naturally occurring thermometer, let’s say) and it rises when the temperature rises, we still do not yet have an encoding / decoding system. However, if we take a red pen and mark degree marks on the tube so that the rising of the mercury corresponds to a specific temperature, now we do have an encoding / decoding system, and when we read the thermometer, we have coded information.This is consistent with my definition of coded information" as a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message that is independent of the communication medium"

We have the observational evidence of DNA encoding information without violation of any known law of nature. It merely obeys the rules of chemistry.

Yockey writes: The reason that there are principles of biology that cannot be derived from the laws of physics and chemistry lies simply in the fact that the genetic information content of the genome for constructing even the simplest organisms is much larger than the information content of these laws. The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from nonliving matter. There is nothing in the physico-chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences.

Son writes:Those are the ones you should try to rebute by explaining why they are impossible.

Dr writes:Show me one thing in the replication, transcription, and translation of DNA that is not explicable in terms of the chemistry of the molecules involved.

That doesn't answer my question. Read it carefully. Note the word "agreed" in your definition, and the word "sentient" in the lines you quote from me. Computers do not "agree" to anything. Life forms do not "agree" to read the code in DNA.

pmarshall writes:"You could say the same thing about a computer, where the ability to interpret instructions also depends on instructions. There’s nothing fundamentally mysterious about how the instructions are followed, the only puzzle about any of this is the question of where the instructions came from in the first place. Nobody puzzles over the computer because we know it’s designed."

Bluejay writes:Right. And, the medium in the DNA code is different from the medium of all the human-made codes. The medium of the DNA code is the same as the medium of the pebble code and the gravity code: inherent physical/chemical properties that line up according to "laws of nature."

Michamus writes:The huge difference here is you can arbitrarily change those words anyway you want, and it not affect the message at all. An example would be if you read the words "Sit down". You then write the words as 'Kehna'. If a person who understands English and Pashtu read the words you wrote, he would know that it meant the same thing as 'Sit down', and thus nothing has really changed. The communication is independent of the medium completely.
Whereas with DNA, things change completely. If you decide to change the symbols being used for DNA, you haven't actually changed the DNA itself. DNA requires that the molecular structure be a certain way, for it to function a certain way. Change the molecules, and you change the message entirely. As an example, if you were to change ACACGT to ACGTAC the entire function has changed. DNA is not independent of the medium, as it IS the medium.