qcmbr:
>Actually it is a language by one definition - for something to be a language requires a repeatable ruleset, a rule user and a rule interpreter -normally that means a >speaker and a listener.
You are making a huge assumption that individual atoms in the DNA are being told to perform a function, as opposed to reacting to stimuli.
>I work with code every day and its garbage to the non-programmer but to the compiler on the pc it means something (what I'm saying is it hasn't lost its language >status because there isn't a human listener) and likewise dna is an encoded message that can be read by the listening organic material
Absolutely, however, you are using a metaphor for the source code and compiler. Do not dismiss crystal formation as anything other than what you have described in you example. The molecules that form the crystals are communicating in a language. The language of crystal formation.
(what I'm saying is it hasn't lost its language status because there isn't a human listener) .
>There is nothing else in our human experience that is like it except human constructs spoken language, written language, maths, most thought (try thinking >without words) and recently computer language.
Human Experience, exactly. We use metaphor, example, illustration, and waving are arms about if necessary, to communicate. Is pointing at a food stuff in a foreign cafe so I can get some food stimulating a response from the shop owner or are we speaking a language?
>No where else is information purposefully encoded in such a way as to be meaningful to the listener - this is precisely why it is nothing like the simple patterns >found in such natural features as crystallization. Life is inherently different
Purposefully? That is one huge leap of faith my friend. DNA IS simple. Otherwise it would not work. You're a coder. You know that the language of the CPU is the simplest language of all. It's a bunch of switches that are either ON or OFF. Imaging trying to reengineer Windows XP operating system purely from the binary interaction of switches in the CPU. That's what decoding the 'language' of DNA is all about. Complex in the whole picture, simplest in the language. (metaphor intentionally used)
>I see dna as absolute proof of design despite sceptic viewpoints. The reference made to maths doesn't add up because maths is a simple generalisation , an >approximation of reality which isn't true (when I get the 'stupid creationist' flames I may even attempt to expand on this) wheras dna is real and concrete - there is >no approximation of reality at all.
No generalization in the language of math. Try telling the IRS that the math in calculating your tax can only be a generalization. You both communicate with the taxes paid, and amount owed. You react to the language, get a return, and take the wife out for a meal to celebrate.
I understand your point of view, but as an old coding hack myself, just because the overall complexity of a system seems daunting at first, doesn't mean that at its base isn't a very simple sent of reactions giving to stimuli. It is impossible to prove that God exists. In the same way you describe the existence of math. The existence of God is a personal belief, faith, feeling or trust.
steve
