[[But successful communication by conveying molecular “messages” is EXACTLY what proteins are capable of. Your suggestion that they are unable to convey a message shows that you know very little about protein signal transduction and have not even attempted to deal with it in an intelligent fashion.]]
Once again allmen- you are misunderstandign the point- they ARE icnapable of conveying hte message until acted on by outside influence- the message itself is worthless unless there is some kind of action- You are tryign to make it seem as though the point is ismply about a message when it is not- it is about hte message being useless in and of itself- it NEEDS governing action from without in order to be useful, and that is hte whole point of htis article- there HAS to be a governing system of metainfo alreadt present before any message can be useful. A sealed letter sitting on a desk instrucitng someone to take some action is useless UNLESS it is acted upon and delivered to the other person- IF there is no outside intelligently controlled agent of action, the letter has no meaning to those it is intended for- it is only when htta letter is delivered, opened, understood, and finally acted upon that it has any meaning.
DNA also cannot convey the message until acted upon by an outside influence. Often that “outside influence” is the message conveyed by a signal transduction pathway involving proteins CONVEYING A MESSAGE, that leads to the activation of a protein transcription factor that allows for a particular DNA gene to be able to convey its message.
So your “point”, to grant it more credibility than it deserves as it is rather obtuse to be called a ‘point’, is completely off base.
DNA doesn’t, in and of itself, contain any information. It needs to exist and be acted upon within a context of proteins that contain and convey messages in order for its information to have any value.