Is DNA a Code? A Debate | Stated Clearly Jon Perry ft. Shannon Q.

Is DNA a code? Or is it just a bad way to describe the role DNA plays in genetics? Stated Clearly's Jon Perry joins us to debate this question with Steve Mcrae, while Shannon Q. guest co-hosts!
Subscribe to Jon Perry’s Channels!
Stated Clearly:

Stated Casually:

Subscribe to Shannon Q:

Donate to Booleanenator here:

[Altitudes]

I remember someone asking my physics teacher "So do you think an electron is a wave or a particle?" and he said "No. All that's real is the electron. Anything else is a way of trying to understand it".

It was a long time before I understood how good a principle that was. You can call DNA a code if that helps you understand it better, but all it is is chemical(s).

If I call hydrogen H and oxygen O then whether you consider that a "code" for water is up to you, but I don't think it's particularly useful and I don't hear people describe hydrogen and oxygen that way. You can call H20 a code, and that has some scope in common meaning, but all that really exists is the water.

Don't mistake the map for the territory.

[TegukiSix]

I would understand the distinction between burning hydrogen and DNA to be this: when hydrogen and oxygen fuse to make water, the water is the final result. The chain of events ends there. That is not communication (or if it is, it's meaningless communication). However, when DNA communicates the structure of a protein, the information is then used by the receiver to create that protein.

Because the information received is used as the basis for further action, it is called a communication system. Since the reaction between hydrogen and oxygen does not trigger further action in either reactant (unless you want to define the state change from gas to liquid as "further action") burning hydrogen is not, by itself, a communication system. Therefore, even though the reaction has rules governing it, those rules are not code.

Now, whether DNA itself is a code is something I'm not sure about, and I could argue in either direction:
On one hand, DNA could be described as not a code, but instead the information being communicated, which the ribosome interprets. In this case, the laws of physics would be the "code" governing that communication. However, that description would render the word "code" meaningless, since all communication systems are, ultimately, governed by the laws of physics.
On the other hand, since the information being conveyed is a set of simple instructions which combine to make more complex idea, the word "code" could be made synonymous with "format". However, it could be argued that the "format" would be the three-line grouping, not the DNA itself, and therefore DNA would still be information and not code.
But on the third hand sprouting from my stomach, if the proteins created by the ribosome are then transmitted to something else which reacts to them and performs further action, that would make the protein creation a communication system, which would be governed by the information receIved by the ribosome. So if we define DNA as the information communicated to the ribosome, it would not be code for that communication system, but WOULD be the code for any communication system between the ribosome and the rest of the cell.

I lean more towards DNA being a code, but I can also see Steve's argument...
...kinda.

[MatthewDeanIreland]

Yes, DNA is a code, just as dots, dashes, and blanks are a code named after some guy named Morse or bits and bytes on an electronic computer. What none of these things are is a message. Messages are "encoded" into dots, dashes, and blanks. Instructions and data are "encoded" into bits and bytes. And proteins are encoded into DNA. Decoding is the process of turning the code back into meaningful information. DNA is a medium for encoding biological information into a form that can be used (multiple times) to create the message of proteins.

[sphericalchess]

One of the worst arguments is ‘argument by definition’, used by both sides. “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” ...and... “DNA named code or cypher will continue to do what it does to make the rose smell sweet!” Still very interesting to listen to. Now, everyone please just kiss and make up! x

[ShannonQ]

I don't even know what a code is anymore lol

[Virtualblueart]

It's always annoying when people hitch their carts to words that have been used incorrectly for so long that we essentially got used to seeing them in that context and now use them incorrectly regardless.

But when you then get people trying to use those words in their new adopted extra meaning to try and describe what those same words actually meant originally you get confusion.

Be careful with words people, always check if you are using them correctly in the context : )

[sabin]

that depends on how you define dna....and code....and is....
but no, it's not a code as the expression of a computer program.
if you want to call dna a code in that sense, then EVERYTHING is a code....which means the word code just became

[jacobwilliams]

I'm sorry, but Steve is probably the most pedantic person in the Non Seq sphere of influence. It seems whenever he is losing a discussion he falls back on strict definitions to justify his faulty argument.

This happened a while back when Kyle mentioned humans are responsible for climate change. He nailed Steve trying to take a contrary position, so Steve compensated by changing the argument to "no paper has said humans are primarily responsible for climate change". It's kind of annoy. Like Wotan level of annoying...

[areliablesource]

I little disappointed that we just spent 2 1/2 hours on discussion of what the word "code" means. I came expecting something else; maybe more of a discussion about how to build mechanical probes to detect "life" within environments that are very different from what exists on earth.

[anssisorvisto]

There are many meanings for lots of word. That's why there is a reason for field definitions. That quoted paper has working application for biology. Steve is argumenting purely semantics. Using one field definition of a word and trying to say that their applied usage is wrong. Communication theory can be applied to biology. There is reason why some papers use lots of definitions or reference applied definitions frameworks.

[lynnwilhelm]

So, before watching this, I thought I was with Steve, but now I'm totally with John that communication of information is, essentially, a code. The system that translates DNA/RNA into proteins is a way to get information from the DNA molecule to the ribosome to build and operate organisms. John's examples of signalling, another way to transmit information, was great, I like the way he started with the Shannon model of communication systems really helped.
I still love you Steve, but you've got to accept that a code doesn't have to come from a mind!

[DeviantincTV]

A really fun discussion, and I have a lot of sympathy for both PoVs

Steve - seemed to be arguing from a mathematical standpoint, and having studied encryption and codes for my degree means I understand where he is coming from with his definition and to this respect he is entirely correct; in mathematics a code is different from a cipher. Genetic 'code' is not a true code, but our symbolism is. However...

Jon - made an extremely cogent argument that also seems very convincing to me, however does so using a much more everyday (broader) understanding of what a code is. So he is also correct.

It actually (now I think about it) reminds me a lot of arguments about whether white people can be racist. When you did down what you find is it boils down to a specialist use of 'racist' vs and everyday use of 'racist'...

[Animuldok]

A code requires an abstract step.  There is no abstract step between the sequence of nucleosides of in DNA and the final AA sequence in the assembled protein. This is the most simple way to explain this.

[TheHelleri]

28:50 It may be worth noting that materials and their assemblage can simultaneously be the carrier and the code. It's not theoretical either. Such things exist. For instance core rope memory. It's constituent parts are the rope (1 or more wires) and the core (A magnetic washer of sorts). A wire passing through a core is 1 and a core not intersected is 0. The information is physically the pattern of the weave and it's parts. It's very much fixed (and sometimes called fixed memory). You can't change a 1 to a 0 or a 0 to a 1 without manually changing the position of a wire to physically run through or outside of a core. It's viable as well. It was even used on the Apollo missions for the guidance systems.

[Ryan-rqdx]

This is.... Bizarre... I dont even feel safe in my own house anymore... I mean... What if it isnt actually a house...

[infinitemonkey]

This is ridiculous. Geneticists call DNA a code. Why try arguing that it isn't ? You are turning Biology into a Philosophical debate. How is that different than Peterson creating new definitions for religion?

[borisbauwens]

The "central dogma of molecular biology" is not "DNA to RNA to protein. Not in the way it was originally formulated.

It is "once sequence information has gone from nucleic acid to protein, it can't flow back".

Somehow, people stopped using that version, which is still correct, and started to use the DNA to RNA to protein one, which has many exceptions.

[norberto]

Im glad i finally got to watch a steve debate.

[kyriadespoinaki]

Jon, you’re correct and you stuck to the correct biological definitions ‘genetic code’ is not the same as ‘genome’ or ‘DNA’. That’s the most important lesson here. Steve might have a hand-wavey philosophical point about semantics but there’s no platonic form of code. Language evolves and the definition of ‘code’ includes our usage in biology of ‘genetic code’.

[spacedoohicky]

Computer code is both a code, and a cipher (analogous to). It's a code to the machine in the sense of one to one symbol correspondence to instructions. It's a cipher to the machine in the sense that there is a parsing algorithm that turns the code into something consumable to the computer. The thing about computers is that the traditional idea of code breaks down. A computer can encode a string, and a receptive computer can decipher that string using an algorithm. It's more obvious with speech to text. A computer doesn't hear sound, but translates wave forms to bytes using an algorithm for speech to text. So human speech itself becomes a cipher to a computer. This is true even though the user has no intent for their speech to be a cipher.

This brings up questions about what a code actually is. Like is language a cipher because the brain uses algorithms to decipher language, or is language a code because it is used to transmit representative symbols to a brain. It could be that all codes are ciphers, and vise versa dependent on modes.

I think that the distinction between cypher, and code is still important. But how a certain symbol system is interpreted to be code, or cypher might be more dependent on environmental states that influence modes vs the specific intention of an inventor, or user.

Also the argument that code requires sentient intent is going to change as artificial intelligence grows. Two machines communicating with no people around is either coding, or not coding. It will be interesting to see what happens.