I’m not an evo, and not a theist, but I don’t buy the digital nature of DNA as an information carrier. It’s direct chemical behavior may be digital, or at least determined chemically (which is not quite the same as digital). See, in digital operations, the same digital code always produces the same results. DNA seems to work that way in some very small scale cases, but completely fails in large scale cases. Clones are never identical, neither are “identical” twins.
Perhaps if I say what I mean is that DNA does not digitally determine what a cell does the way a digital program determines what an image will be on a computer screen would be clearer. I don’t doubt the “digital” aspects of the chemical nature of DNA, but know it is not a digital program that determines an organism’s total nature.
Hank
==See, in digital operations, the same digital code always produces the same results.
That all depends, doesn’t it? If the genome is comprised of multiply systems, then DNA can be interpreted in different ways by each system. And that seems to be the case, because the same stretches of DNA (and, as we are finding, any part thereof) can have multiple functions. That seems to suggest that DNA is polyfunctional, and therefore polyconstrained, which would render evolution via random mutations impossible.
Unless it is written to not produce the same results. GW scientists have perfected getting digital code to produce the same desired results regardless to the data used.
DNA seems to work that way in some very small scale cases, but completely fails in large scale cases.
Please offer an example. What 'failure' ?
Clones are never identical, neither are “identical” twins.
Yet one cannot say that either of the 'identical' twins 'failed'.