Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

Originally posted by dragonridr

Since i was going to discuss semiosis with you early but couldn't even get you to talk any thing science. Where you aware there are problems with applying semiosis to cells it just doesn't exactly fit. But they dont tell you that on ID websites because its inconvenient. Now theres a couple of things wrong i was going to point out to you through the debate once we had a definition but i think you figured out it was a trap and disagreed with your diagram you posted.

It does fit, the biological study of semiosis is called biosemiosis. The majority of the information I have studied does not originate from ID. The field was well underway before modern ID. I am in full agreement with the diagram I posted. It represents what is well known and well established. A Trap? You have got to be kidding. I pointed out the very obvious errors in your interpretation of the diagram. Eg equating code evolution with genetic evolution and referring to a "code maker" in the cell. You then flew off the handle in a tantrum, and you have been laying the insults ever since. Not very scientific I think.

Just in relation to the word meaning, it is a loose term. The fact is a codon represents something other than itself. Meaning in biological terms equates to function. So yes the word meaning is somrwhat misleading I admit.

But lets examine genetic code for a minute will compare it morse code. Well these two codes can be described by a “transformation matrix” or a “conversion table” so there is similarities so far so good.

Agreed.

Now lets look at the code itself morse code is perfectly reversible, or invertible meaning that i can change morse code in to a language or a language into morse code doesnt matter. I can take an a and turn it in to dashes or i can take dashes and turn it into an a.In fact all man made codes can do this conversion doesn't matter which direction we chose.The reason is true code represents something else entirely.

Agreed.

However the genetic code is absolutely irreversible, or non-invertible. It is a process that goes from genes to proteins and absolutely not viceversa. The reverse transformation is not just avoided, it is physically impossible.And the other funny thing is cells interactions are strictly enforced by chemistry this is why genetic code doesnt stand for something else it is the only way chemistry can interpret it. This is why everyone says genetic code is like a code because in truth it isnt.

This is false, the genetic code can be transcribed into any medium. Here are the first 1000 lines of chromosome one in the human genome transcribed to the medium of letters.

www.sacred-texts.com...

It can be manipulated artificially. As I have posted a couple of times The parent of Craig Venters cell was in fact a computer network.
From the article I have already posted twice...

The digital and biological worlds are becoming interchangeable, he added, describing how scientists now simply send each other the information to make DIY biological material rather than sending the material itself.

What you are basically saying is that the genetic code is not a code. Your problem then lies with the scientific community and not me.

All of my information comes from science, these are not opinions of mine or things I have invented. On the other hand all the objections so far are in fact just opinions based on world view and a complete lack of comprehension on the issues.

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by dragonridr

Since i was going to discuss semiosis with you early but couldn't even get you to talk any thing science. Where you aware there are problems with applying semiosis to cells it just doesn't exactly fit. But they dont tell you that on ID websites because its inconvenient. Now theres a couple of things wrong i was going to point out to you through the debate once we had a definition but i think you figured out it was a trap and disagreed with your diagram you posted.

It does fit, the biological study of semiosis is called biosemiosis. The majority of the information I have studied does not originate from ID. The field was well underway before modern ID. I am in full agreement with the diagram I posted. It represents what is well known and well established. A Trap? You have got to be kidding. I pointed out the very obvious errors in your interpretation of the diagram. Eg equating code evolution with genetic evolution and referring to a "code maker" in the cell. You then flew off the handle in a tantrum, and you have been laying the insults ever since. Not very scientific I think.

Just in relation to the word meaning, it is a loose term. The fact is a codon represents something other than itself. Meaning in biological terms equates to function. So yes the word meaning is somrwhat misleading I admit.

But lets examine genetic code for a minute will compare it morse code. Well these two codes can be described by a “transformation matrix” or a “conversion table” so there is similarities so far so good.

Agreed.

Now lets look at the code itself morse code is perfectly reversible, or invertible meaning that i can change morse code in to a language or a language into morse code doesnt matter. I can take an a and turn it in to dashes or i can take dashes and turn it into an a.In fact all man made codes can do this conversion doesn't matter which direction we chose.The reason is true code represents something else entirely.

Agreed.

However the genetic code is absolutely irreversible, or non-invertible. It is a process that goes from genes to proteins and absolutely not viceversa. The reverse transformation is not just avoided, it is physically impossible.And the other funny thing is cells interactions are strictly enforced by chemistry this is why genetic code doesnt stand for something else it is the only way chemistry can interpret it. This is why everyone says genetic code is like a code because in truth it isnt.

This is false, the genetic code can be transcribed into any medium. Here are the first 1000 lines of chromosome one in the human genome transcribed to the medium of letters.

www.sacred-texts.com...

It can be manipulated artificially. As I have posted a couple of times The parent of Craig Venters cell was in fact a computer network.
From the article I have already posted twice...

The digital and biological worlds are becoming interchangeable, he added, describing how scientists now simply send each other the information to make DIY biological material rather than sending the material itself.

What you are basically saying is that the genetic code is not a code. Your problem then lies with the scientific community and not me.

All of my information comes from science, these are not opinions of mine or things I have invented. On the other hand all the objections so far are in fact just opinions based on world view and a complete lack of comprehension on the issues.

edit on 8-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)

Lets not go into the diagram because you didnt understand its about protein synthesis showing how the cell sends proteins to message areas of the cell. As for DNA using this process for us to store information is us coding not DNA. So using that example is laughable at best. We understand how to create chemical bonds weve been doing it for a long time. But let me ask you this if i have proteins sitting in my lab can i reverse the process and create DNA? No because DNA only codes what ever its connector allows it to its a chemical reaction and thats why it cant be reversed.

Now as far as DNA being a code a molecular biologist will say its like a code but for you that means it is a code you apparently cant understand the difference. Its like saying a lightbulb is like the sun they both produce light. But when you have differences in the two they are only like each other in certain aspects.

Originally posted by dragonridr

Lets not go into the diagram because you didnt understand its about protein synthesis showing how the cell sends proteins to message areas of the cell.

That is not what the diagram was showing at all, it was about the translation of codons to amino acids and nothing about what the proteins do after that. And you say I don't understand it, that sir is laughable in light of you comments about it.

As for DNA using this process for us to store information is us coding not DNA. So using that example is laughable at best.

What? that is completely incomprehensible.

But let me ask you this if i have proteins sitting in my lab can i reverse the process and create DNA? No because DNA only codes what ever its connector allows it to its a chemical reaction and thats why it cant be reversed.

Yes we could, we know which codons represent which amino acids. We could simply reverse engineer the nucleotide sequence based on the sequence of amino acids. Chemistry does not detrmine the sequence of nucleotides and it does not determine the mapping of codons to amino acids.

Stop just making stuff up, if you can support anything with actual scientific references then I am all ears but all you are doing is imposing your limited and erroneous knowledge.

The genetic code is a true code in every conceivable way. It is not sort of like a code. There is no sort of code. It is or it isn't. There is no room for code in a complete physical constrained chemical system and nor would there be any biological evolution.

reply to post by Barcs

So now the goalposts have been moved again and we are no longer talking about digital codes, which was part of your original argument. This is hilarious.

You are just repeating yourself and ignoring my responses. I have not backtracked, I have been trying to clarify and simplify because you keep twisting my words and still do. The fact that some aspects of genetics is digital was never part of my original argument. You denied it was digital. And you were proven wrong. The fact that it is digital only compounds the inference.

You are attempting to fine tune the definition to your worldview. I can't be bothered explaining debating, logic and science to somebody that has obviously never partaken in any of the 3 and won't even listen to reason. You have retracted from your 3 point inference and now only use the phrase 'interference to only known cause',

I have fine tuned the argument based on your misrepresentations of it. The inference has never changed. It is very simple. I have not retracted my three point syllogism. I stand by it. You make assumptions about my education and now are simply making things up. You have this self righteous attitude and think you are the judge of what logic and the scientific method entails.

when there has NEVER once EVER been anything determined to have been designed by an intelligent entity outside of ourselves and the world we live in. Stop confusing ID with human intelligence. The concepts are NOT the same. ID is not a known cause and will not be until the process is actually observed or the designer is discovered.

That is false, firstly specified complexity is defined simply as any structure that is defined by a plan or design rather than physical laws. There are hundreds of examples in the biological world of structures that organisms create, either by learned behaviour or being directly genetic. I mentioned a beehive before, this is a structure that owes it shape to a plan a design and not via physics. There are thousands of codes in biology that we did not create including DNA. Intelligent design exists empirically, we call it technology, art, etc... HUMAN CREATIONS ARE INTELLIGENT DESIGNS! ID is about detecting design and not about indentifying the designer. You just keep repeating the same strawman arguments that have been addressed.

The only known cause of anything in the universe outside of humans is naturalism.

This is an unsubstaniated claim and false anything an organism constructs owes its shape to a plan or design there are thousands of examples. If you call them natural then computers are also natural because we are part of nature. Also inferences are made in science constantly it is part and parcel of the scientific method.

Please provide the inference from the fossil record that they claim proves evolution. If you could cite the theory itself, that would be great. Please post the exact inference with the 3 points that comes directly from the theory of evolution (modern synthesis). Good luck.

Darwins theory was completely based on inference, I don't know what you are talking about. Phylogeny is an inference to common ancestry as is the fossil record. Extrapolating the weak experimental evidence to the construction of new organs and body plans is an inference. How can it not be? it has not been directly observed in the lab.

You have not referenced the actually theory of evolution once.

Because this is not about evolution. I have only used it to highlight your double standards, to say inference is not invoked in evolution is absurd.

Semiosis is a joke and that's not an argument. You are simply saying, "well I don't understand this part, or how xyz could have formed, therefor it's automatically wrong

Sweeping it under rug because it does not fit your world view is not an answer. It exists at the very fundamental level of life and is the very key problem defining the origin of life as well as the mind body problem in philosophy. We undersatnd how it works. It is language it is code, it is a fundamental aspect of mind.

****I actually just noticed you did decide to respond to them after this post. Couldn't you have just done that in the first place instead of all the weaving and dodging

Like I said, they were just repeats of what you have said over and over, as was this post. I did not think they were even worthy of response sorry, but I did anyway because of youf insistance that they actually had any relevance. You have not refuted anything Barcs and you never will until you provide an empirical demonstration of the emergence of code unguided through blind natural forces.

Hey Barcs, look what I found at your beloved Talk Origin link.

Science Provides Evidence for the Unobservable via Inference

The primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of phenomena that cannot be observed directly. Science is not needed to show us things we can see with our own eyes. Direct observation is not only unnecessary in science; direct observation is in fact usually impossible for the things that really matter. In fact, the most important discoveries of science have only be inferred via indirect observation. Familiar examples of unobservable scientific discoveries are atoms, electrons, viruses, bacteria, germs, radio-waves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, energy, entropy, enthalpy, solar fusion, genes, protein enzymes, and the DNA double-helix. The round earth was not observed directly by humans until 1961, yet this counterintuitive concept had been considered a scientific fact for over 2000 years. The Copernican hypothesis that the earth orbits the sun has been acknowledged virtually ever since the time of Galileo, even though no one has ever observed the process to this day. All of these "invisible" phenomena were elucidated using the scientific method of inference. When the term "evidence" is used in this article, it is used strictly with respect to this scientific method.

Oh man, that is just toooooo sweet.

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by dragonridr

Lets not go into the diagram because you didnt understand its about protein synthesis showing how the cell sends proteins to message areas of the cell.

That is not what the diagram was showing at all, it was about the translation of codons to amino acids and nothing about what the proteins do after that. And you say I don't understand it, that sir is laughable in light of you comments about it.

As for DNA using this process for us to store information is us coding not DNA. So using that example is laughable at best.

What? that is completely incomprehensible.

But let me ask you this if i have proteins sitting in my lab can i reverse the process and create DNA? No because DNA only codes what ever its connector allows it to its a chemical reaction and thats why it cant be reversed.

Yes we could, we know which codons represent which amino acids. We could simply reverse engineer the nucleotide sequence based on the sequence of amino acids. Chemistry does not detrmine the sequence of nucleotides and it does not determine the mapping of codons to amino acids.

Stop just making stuff up, if you can support anything with actual scientific references then I am all ears but all you are doing is imposing your limited and erroneous knowledge.

The genetic code is a true code in every conceivable way. It is not sort of like a code. There is no sort of code. It is or it isn't. There is no room for code in a complete physical constrained chemical system and nor would there be any biological evolution.

edit on 8-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)

Really so where dooes Serum albumin or mycin correlate on a DNA strand if its a true code should all ways be the same however its not changes from cell to cell but yet they all use DNA. In human dna INSULIN CAN BE FOUND IN A SPECIFIC PLACE WELL ACTUALLY A COUPLE OF PLACES. Yet other cells this same exact codon can be Keratin. Why because DNA is not the same between species, But Morse code is all ways morse code even if you code different words. DNA is not that flexible because it only acts like a code.

reply to post by dragonridr



Thank you, I was going to bring this up. It actually proves my point.
The fact that one codon codes for one amino acid in one organism and the same codon codes for something else in another organism empirically shows that the code is arbitrary and the mapping is not determined by chemistry. It is not fixed by any chemical means.

A true code is arbitrary it is defined by conventions. If we all agreed that the word cat represented a dog we could. Meaning real codes are arbitrary.

Very good point. Thanks you just refuted yourself and supported the fact it is a true code.

But really denying it is a code is very desperate, it has been firmly established as a code for around 60 years and amounts to scientific denial.

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Thank you, I was going to bring this up. It actually proves my point.
The fact that one codon codes for one amino acid in one organism and the same codon codes for something else in another organism empirically shows that the code is arbitrary and the mapping is not determined by chemistry. It is not fixed by any chemical means.

A true code is arbitrary it is defined by conventions. If we all agreed that the word cat represented a dog we could. Meaning real codes are arbitrary.

Very good point. Thanks you just refuted yourself and supported the fact it is a true code.

But really denying it is a code is very desperate, it has been firmly established as a code for around 60 years and amounts to scientific denial.

edit on 8-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)

Thats not true code is never arbitrary its exact .- = A morse code never changes period. Arbitrary things are created through random processes. However i am glad you finally admit DNA was created through random choices since you believe DNA is arbitrary shows you realize its random.

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Thank you, I was going to bring this up. It actually proves my point.
The fact that one codon codes for one amino acid in one organism and the same codon codes for something else in another organism empirically shows that the code is arbitrary and the mapping is not determined by chemistry. It is not fixed by any chemical means.

A true code is arbitrary it is defined by conventions. If we all agreed that the word cat represented a dog we could. Meaning real codes are arbitrary.

Very good point. Thanks you just refuted yourself and supported the fact it is a true code.

But really denying it is a code is very desperate, it has been firmly established as a code for around 60 years and amounts to scientific denial.

edit on 8-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)

Thats not true code is never arbitrary its exact .- = A morse code never changes period. Arbitrary things are created through random processes. However i am glad you finally admit DNA was created through random choices since you believe DNA is arbitrary shows you realize its random.

So wouldnt this be akin to DNA being the alphabet, and each organism having its own internal language, and communication with the external environment?

And your argument is that one organisms DNA processes do not equal another organism therefor DNA is not used as a code? Doesnt inter specie reproduction show that for a species the DNA code is transferable and interpretable?

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Thank you, I was going to bring this up. It actually proves my point.
The fact that one codon codes for one amino acid in one organism and the same codon codes for something else in another organism empirically shows that the code is arbitrary and the mapping is not determined by chemistry. It is not fixed by any chemical means.

A true code is arbitrary it is defined by conventions. If we all agreed that the word cat represented a dog we could. Meaning real codes are arbitrary.

Very good point. Thanks you just refuted yourself and supported the fact it is a true code.

But really denying it is a code is very desperate, it has been firmly established as a code for around 60 years and amounts to scientific denial.

edit on 8-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)

Thats not true code is never arbitrary its exact .- = A morse code never changes period. Arbitrary things are created through random processes. However i am glad you finally admit DNA was created through random choices since you believe DNA is arbitrary shows you realize its random.

So wouldnt this be akin to DNA being the alphabet, and each organism having its own internal language, and communication with the external environment?

And your argument is that one organisms DNA processes do not equal another organism therefor DNA is not used as a code? Doesnt inter specie reproduction show that for a species the DNA code is transferable and interpretable?

No if it was we wouldn't have the problem we do DNA is different between species So decoding the DNA for a rat the codons are in different locations and can produce different proteins. We can find correlations but this is because we understand the effects certain proteins have on cells. Geneticists don't read the DNA and go this regulated the circulatory system they look for proteins produced by the DNA . So if DNA were truly a code we would just be abled to read it instead of try to determine the reactions the DNA causes subtle difference. Look if i wrote a message in morse code doesnt matter what i write you can read it. DNA doesnt work that way To decode DNA we have to look at what it does when they part is used.

So DNA is very random because it all works differently depending on the species.But if god created a code why would he have it vary from one cell to another thats just all around silly. It be like a programer rewriting code he all ready created they wouldn't do this its a waist of time.

Originally posted by dragonridr

Thats not true code is never arbitrary its exact .- = A morse code never changes period. Arbitrary things are created through random processes.

Morse code is fixed because we as intelligent agents set the conventions, unless you think dots and dahes are physically determined. Which is of course ludicrous. We could easily alter the conventions as long as sender and receiver were in agreement on the protocols.

Arbitrariness is a term given to choices and actions subject to individual will, judgment or preference, based solely upon an individual's opinion or discretion.

Arbitrary decisions are not necessarily the same as random decisions.

You are showing desparation. all you are trying to do is deny it is a code because of the obvious implications.
Your problem then lies with the scientific community and not me.

Absurd argument Dragonridr. You were trying to say it was physicaly determined by chemistry, you refuted yourself and now you are more or less saying that morse code is fixed by physical law. Wow.

reply to post by HarryTZ


You are on track...keep the path. Learn as much as you can about physics, and the more your mind will be blown, particularly when you approach quantum and particle science stuff. Atheists cling to the concept of non-God, when the science they cite contradicts their position all the more, day by day, particularly when it comes to time/space and what we term to be existence.

I am a science lover first. I came to believe in God because of the research. Never before that.

Rock on.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


All that your figures and the pie chart are really saying is that the mass of normal (baryonic) matter is no longer thought to account for 100% of the mass of the universe, as this doesn't align with certain observations. So one idea put forth is that there must be "dark" matter and energy to account for this (though no one has ever found it, yet). It doesn't even mention how matter fits into such a vast space, nor does it imply how much of the universe exists at such low matter densities it is considered a vacuum, it is largely irrelevant to the quoted text. It is relevant to the energy/mass make up of the universe, not how this applies to it's volume.

Keep in mind re below, that known matter only makes up a small fraction of what would be needed to achieve "critical mass". So it seems, if the universe exists at critical density (which they think it is somewhere near), the matter that we know of (thought to account for 4-5 % of the required mass) would average out as being roughly equal one grain of sand distributed over 20-25 earth volumes. Even if you allow for the proposed "dark" mass as being real matter, it still seems remarkably empty.

The value of the critical density depends on the Hubble constant, since a faster expansion requires a larger density to overcome it. For an assumed value of H0 = 71 km/s/Mpc, the critical density is roughly 10-26 kg/m3. This tiny number is equivalent to 4 or 5 hydrogen atoms in a cubic meter of space, or, analogously, to the density of a grain of sand distributed over the volume of the Earth. The universe is fantastically empty!

m.teachastronomy.com...

When you further consider the following.....

Today's universe is highly structured. Matter -- at least visible matter -- is concentrated in stars, galaxies and clusters of galaxies, and the remaining space is just empty
www.actden.com...

Still don't find it possible the author of the text is correct....? The "remaining space" in the above quote is obviously where the "lethal, radiation filled vacuum" is. The rest of the 20-25 earth volumes (as an average), that the matter, equivalent to a grain of sand, doesn't occupy. For all practical purposes (in the context of the quote re biology), it is a vacuum.

He obviously is correct as these quotes suggest (though probably left all the rest of the decimal places out, for brevity). If you think he is incorrect, perhaps you could explain why? I'll re quote the text to make it easier, so we don't have to keep going back to refer to it.

[T]his universe is 99.99999 percent composed of lethal radiation-filled vacuum, and 99.99999 percent of all the material in the universe comprises stars and black holes on which nothing can ever live, and 99.99999 percent of all other material in the universe (all planets, moons, clouds, asteroids) is barren of life or even outright inhospitable to life. In other words, the universe we observe is extraordinarily inhospitable to life. Even what tiny inconsequential bits of it are at all hospitable are extremely inefficient at producing life—at all, but far more so intelligent life … ...in fact, if we put all the lethal vacuum of outer space swamped with deadly radiation into an area the size of a house, you would never find the comparably microscopic speck of area that sustains life (it would literally be smaller than a single proton). It’s exceedingly difficult to imagine a universe less conducive to life than that—indeed, that’s about as close to being completely incapable of producing life as any random universe can be expected to be, other than of course being completely incapable of producing life.

John W Loftus

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

What does he mean by "lethal radiation filled vacuum"??

The regions of space where matter density is so low it would be considered a vacuum for all practical purposes, particularly pertaining to biology(almost the entire universe by volume). Also containing harmful radiation. Quite lethal to us. What do you think might happen if our planet had no atmosphere or magnetosphere?

Why wouldn't I be? You do realize that we've been sending biological life into space to face the extreme conditions up there; i.e cold, vacuum, UV radiation (1000x stronger than on earth), cosmic radiation etc. Not only did they survive these conditions but they also were able to reproduce upon returning to earth.

Still, this fact doesn't necessarily imply that outer space is optimally designed to support life, much less intelligent life. Which is what the author of the text is saying. Where have we found life (intelligent or otherwise) thriving and evolving in the vacuum of outer space....?

You say that as if you know everything about the universe. Kepler is out there looking. Why don't you ask NASA if the discovery of biological life on other planets won't have meaningful impact.

Your ad hom type quip aside, I'm aware that panspermia is still a possibility. Yet I doubt we will find advanced life forms evolving and thriving in the area referred to as the "lethal radiation filled vacuum" of outer space. Who knows?

You've got to be kidding.

Not much of an argument. You may disagree personally with whether the universe is "fine tuned" for life like ours to exist, but that's irrelevant to what he has stated factually, unless you can disprove it.

reply to post by NaturalHealer


The Higgs Boson is shedding some new light also and it's rather ironic and synchronistic that it was called "the God particle" because that's what it's value points to.

The idea however that for all this fine tuning to occur, it must exist in the midst of an infinite ocean of absurdity, impossibility and failure, is about the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

Morse code is fixed because we as intelligent agents set the conventions, unless you think dots and dahes are physically determined. Which is of course ludicrous. We could easily alter the conventions as long as sender and receiver were in agreement on the protocols.

Thank you finally got you there your beginning to understand. Look the coder and the messenger are in the same cell no external coder needed. The cells themselves create their DNA according to their needs. You just proved the point nicely id say.

Arbitrariness is a term given to choices and actions subject to individual will, judgment or preference, based solely upon an individual's opinion or discretion.

Arbitrary decisions are not necessarily the same as random decisions.

Arbitrary does mean random it means no context it means some decision made by free will So if DNA is arbitrary like you stated that means each cell just decides what it wants to call insulin and goes with it the code is for the cell.

You are showing desparation. all you are trying to do is deny it is a code because of the obvious implications.
Your problem then lies with the scientific community and not me.

Absurd argument Dragonridr. You were trying to say it was physicaly determined by chemistry, you refuted yourself and now you are more or less saying that morse code is fixed by physical law. Wow.

edit on 8-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)

Glad to see you think im getting desperate the correct term is frustrated trying to show someone who is so entrenched in their beliefs the big picture. The scientific community agrees with me DNA is like a code not is a code. And no you said morse code is set by physical laws its called making an incorrect inference which you seem to do alot. Morse code is set through intelligence by the sender and the receiver. .- will all ways be A if it wasnt then its not morse code its what ever code you create.


PS in truth i wish we could prove there is a god because then that would help us answer alot of things and help some of my personal beliefs but i cant justify subverting science to do it if science proves me wrong well im wrong. I wont try to twist science to prove my beliefs. Science can however make me reevaluate them maybe its time you do the same.

Originally posted by dragonridr

Thank you finally got you there your beginning to understand. Look the coder and the messenger are in the same cell no external coder needed. The cells themselves create their DNA according to their needs. You just proved the point nicely id say.

You have got to be kidding. You do realise how anti darwinian that is right? I actually agree with that, the cell can rearange itself. This is precisely the gist of James Shapiro's theory that I subscibe to. But wait, you say it is chemically determined, then you refute yourself, then it is not a code, and now there is a coder in the cell?
You had better make up your mind. You are all over the place.

The scientific community agrees with me DNA is like a code not is a code. And no you said morse code is set by physical laws its called making an incorrect inference which you seem to do alot.

What? are you drunk or something? I said what?

Morse code is set through intelligence by the sender and the receiver. .- will all ways be A if it wasnt then its not morse code its what ever code you create.

Oh boy. yes it was set by convention.

I stand by my original statement you are not qualified to be even making an argument. DNA is semiotic get over it. you seem to be completely scientifically illiterate to be honest.