I think we need to get clear about the what the code is for.
John Maynard Smith 1966What is transmitted from one generation to another is not the form and substance of a pterodactyl or a mammoth , but primarily the capacity to synthesize particular proteins. The development of specific form is a consequence of this capacity and the capacity itself depends on the self-replicating properties of DNA.
...it is thought that primary function of genes is to specify proteins.
dadman wrote:do you know anything about this "evolution coder/de-coder" ??
The cell is its own decoder. This is what I gleaned from JMS. The mechanism for decoding consists of three elements. There is a messenger RNA molecule is introduced to an amino acid in two stages. A transfer RNA molecule attaches to the amino acid and then attaches to the messenger RNA molecule. However there is also a need for an activating enzyme which ensures only one kind of amino acid attaches to the transfer molecule
dadman wrote:since all code derives from an intelligent source
How intelligent is intelligent? Do you mean an intelligences that selects one possibility in favour of another? Natural selection explains selection without intelligence.
Bees manage to perform a dance that is an instruction to other bees that informs them where to go find the nectar. Who worked out that code? The bees or some other intelligent source or something else again?
Poison dart frogs are brightly coloured signalling potential predators that the frog is poisonous to eat. Who worked that code out? The frog? Try explaining this code without recourse to natural selection.
Bacteria display rudimentary intelligence. Myxococcus Xanthus passing signals between themselves can club together as single predatory colony moving as one and operating collectively. From which intelligent source is the meaning of their signals derived?
In the last case which is the simplest organism it is possible to deduce that the signals the bacteria pass between themselves is not derived from bacteria intelligence. That would be a category mistake. Their behaviour and the signals that allow them to operate as one is their intelligence. Put simply there is no intelligent mind operating quietly in the background marshalling bacteria behaviour. The grouping behaviour and the method of singalling that behaviour emerges between bacteria with no help from outside intelligence. It is all down to the bacteria and their biology. Clever little critters.
What preserves the Myxococcus Xanthuscolonies or the bright yellow pigment of the dart frog or the bee dance is molecular biology and environment and natural selection. The repeatability of certain behaviours or skin colourings etc comes down to non intelligent physical conditions that allows some complex behaviours and interrupts others. The point is we do not have to look outside the molecular biology of the bees, frog and bacteria and their environments to explain the coder/decoder mechanisms. Similarly we do not have to look beyond molecular biology and environment to explain the code inherent in DNA molecular biology.
So no it is false to say all code derives from an intelligence source.
