Atheists, is there a language that does not come from a mind?

Question

Our DNA and the DNA of all other living organisms is in the form of a code or language, is it not? Do languages spontaneously develop, or do they always have intent and an idea to communicate from some source behind them?

To understand the entire question and its complexity, please see

http://cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

This in not religious spam, it a scientific look at information systems theory as relates to pattern vs. design in language. It is a lot to read, so I broke it down in my question, but it is well worth reading for anyone interested in evolution, from any viewpoint.

Please, I'm not looking for dogmatic answers of any persuasion, but a thoughtful response to a challenging question.

Sorry if you considered the link religious spam. I thought he made an interesting argument about the nature of language and how it relates to DNA. I wish someone would address that idea more fully.

Vorenhutz- The author of this paper discusses the whole design vs. pattern concept as it applies to DNA. It is too long to quote here, but I'd love it if you'd take a look at his argument and then give your thoughts. You can scroll to the part that has the heading of "Is DNA a language?" if you don't want to read the whole thing.

Novangelis- Please see the author in question's reference to this as he discusses the difference between pattern and design. I'd love to here your comments.

Can you refute the idea that all languages have alphabet, grammar, meaning and intent as does the DNA code?

Or the idea that matter and energy all by themselves cannot produce information?

This question is also posted in the biology section for those interested in more comments.

Purple-The author maintains that DNA is a language due to the fact that it exhibits the four qualities of language mentioned above. He quotes Watson as referring to it as a code, but maintains that a code and a language are the same thing. Can you show how they may not be?

Answer 1

there is a pattern in DNA, which helps to determine the pattern of the organism it's part of. DNA itself is the thing 'communicating'. no minds are required, either on the sending or recieving end. this analogy is terribly silly.

perhaps you think my answer overly dogmatic - i just don't agree that this is a challenging question. it's sophistry. DNA does what it does according to natural laws. now perhaps we can't explain how it got there in a lot of detail, but that is no good reason to conclude it had to come from a mind. besides, how does this hypothetical mind act, where is its body?

edit:
the natural pattern in DNA is rather unusual because it can produce copies itself. it is this capacity i think that invites the analogy with language, but still there is no need for a mind, the origin of a particular molecule of DNA can be traced back to the previous molecule of DNA, and before that probably RNA, and before that? well who knows but it was probably some simple replicating molecule that formed spontaneously in a relatively simple chemical system. again marshall here will simply demand that the origin be a mind (by which he means, god) because he can think of no other alternative, indeed doesn't care about any other alternative. he is after all engaging in religious apologetics, not science.

Answer 2

Here is the "proof" (argument, that is) that is presented by your linked source: (1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. (2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind. (3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the existence of a Superintelligence. The second premise is false. There is no evidence that animal languages are designed . . . they evolve to enhance survival and increase reproductive success of organisms that use them. Humans are able to design their own languages, if only computer languages. Although I'm no linguist, I'd say that the rest come about through gradual changes over time (eg, Germanic, Arabic, and Romantic languages) and probably not through any sudden, major, or intentional modification. That says nothing of the design or evolution of other languages in the animal kingdom. Therefore the argument does not prove (or even strongly suggest) that God exists. That is an interesting question. It is a little philosophical for the Biology section, but I guess that's where you're most likely to find well-adjusted and knowledgeable atheists. Good night!

Answer 3

DNA is a molecule with a genetic code. I was going to give a reasonable answer until I clicked on your link and saw nothing more than more Intelligent Design propaganda. DNA's code was built through millions of years of evolution. Therefore a code does not need a designer. If DNA was designed, there would not be any flaws in it, and there are plenty of flaws in DNA...including inherited disease and birth defects.

By the way...that WAS religious SPAM.

atheist

Answer 4

DNA is not language. We represent it with language, but confusing its representation with what it is creates a false analogy.

DNA does contain information. Many systems contain information, but do not depend on language. Tree rings come to mind, but because they are living, their use begs the question.

I'll go to a classic -- snowflakes. Under different temperature and water vapor conditions, ice crystals grow differently. In the lab, identical snowflakes can be grown, since the variations within a cloud can be negated. Each snowflake grows in a fashion that tells of the conditions it experienced. That information requires no intelligence or language.

Answer 5

"Our DNA and the DNA of all other living organisms is in the form of a code or language, is it not?"

Actually, no. This concept is a creationist invention--that analogy does not fit well at all.

There is a huge difference between the method of verbal communication we call "language" and DNA. The way they come about, the way they develop, and the way they change have absolutely NOTHING in common, and are not analogous in any way. No dogma, just fact. You'd do best to abandon this old argument (no creationist seems to have come up with any new/unique argument in the past decade).

Answer 6

We call DNA a code because that is how the human mind can best percieve it. Nature had no such plan or definition, and to call it a language is to simply anthropomorphize an inanimate object, albeit one that makes animation possible.

Answer 7

Rather depends how you define language. I'd have a look at The Language Instinct by Pinker to get a rather less complex view.

Answer 8

Do any actual biologists say that DNA is a language?

Answer 9

*if you can read this, I can prove god exists*?????
*We have proof that life on planet earth was designed by a mind* <---ya, such proof that it's on a page no ones heard of or ever will hear of

whatever

Answer 10

some people want to teach ducks baby's swimming