:-)

you are mixing things here. you have to realize that a word has different meanings. not just one meaning. what you are just saying that all those other meaning are metaphors. one word in the English language has many meanings. anyone studies the language knows this. now guinea pigs are not pigs because obviously this is a metaphor. guinea pigs are species of rodents that also called cavy.
now can you describe what is DNA and how protein being produced without metaphors?

[You kept just saying any phenomena can be discribed differently then other. Well that just stating the obvious. I have been talking all this time about pattern that can be converted into meaningful output (protein).

What is the meaning of protein then?


You say no need to translate this language. Well it is already translated and the translation is protein
You are just playing with words. Again. Splendid.

Don't confuse books translation with protein translation. Translation generally would mean expressing something into a different way. This is not a metaphor. Keep reading in all resources about this and you would find these terms such as transcription and translation are being used a lot to discribe the protein synthesis .

[/COLOR]We also use the word PIG a lot when we talk about GUINEA PIGS, even though it has nothing to do with actual pigs apart from their resemblance of pigs.
When choosing expressions to describe something, we often pay more attention to how popular they already are and how convenient it is to use them rather than to how accurately they describe reality.

If you don't like the word translation then what you would suggest then to avoid metaphors? I wonder if you can you discribe the protein synthesis without using what you claim as metaphors? I would really like to see that.
But you already did that for me, you used words such as SYNTHESIS and PRODUCE. I can also add FORM, CREATE or even MAKE and COMBINE.

Well its not only me who means what I mean. Take anotny flew for example; the former leading athiest philosopher said :
‘almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It’s the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence’
Again, popularity doesn't grant you any credibility, and even if you introduced a thousand new converts to Islam from atheism, with such logic they represent nothing.

I did not say it was translated by someone. You dont need someone to translate the binary language for us. You can build a software that will decode the computer language for us. I dont think that you also think I am using metaphors when I am talking about the computer here.

--------------------------------
My argument is simple. I am claiming DNA is smilar to a book. Why? Because both have a meaningful pattern. And these pattern is being read and translated into meaningful thing. If you think this is totally wrong please show me why.

Not just pattern but purpose also. DNA pattern produce protein. And 0s and 1s pattern produces an output in a computer software.


You kept just saying any phenomena can be discribed differently then other. Well that just stating the obvious. I have been talking all this time about pattern that can be converted into meaningful output (protein).

You say no need to translate this language. Well it is already translated and the translation is protein
Don't confuse books translation with protein translation. Translation generally would mean expressing something into a different way. This is not a metaphor. Keep reading in all resources about this and you would find these terms such as transcription and translation are being used a lot to discribe the protein synthesis . If you don't like the word translation then what you would suggest then to avoid metaphors? I wonder if you can you discribe the protein synthesis without using what you claim as metaphors? I would really like to see that.

Well its not only me who means what I mean. Take anotny flew for example; the former leading athiest philosopher said :
‘almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It’s the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence’ (p. 75).

Well it can be true that they meant that we can study DNA and form conclusions to find information.
- It is true.

But what was really meant with the quotations I provided earlier that DNA is similar to books/language in its nature.
- It has only patterns which are natural, apart from patterns there are no similarities. No intention and no message.
And no need for us to translate this "language" or understand what it means.

It really holds information and this is not just a metaphor. Maybe is it a metaphor when we say it is a library or it is a book. Because DNA have a pattern of chemicals and those pattern is translated by other biological device and converted into protein production.
- .You just used a metaphor again in your argument. You said the pattern is translated. No, it is not.

I think you need to watch some videos to get what I mean. Take your time to understand the system before replying.
- You should take your time to understand that nobody means what you mean and there is no evidence for what you are implying.

Notice that that process includes steps like transcription (copying) and translating.
- No, it involves processes which are just called transcription and translation. Nobody means anything was transcribed or translated by someone. This is just a name people gave to it.
You are trying to prove DNA information is not just a metaphor with use of more metaphors. Your approach is not scientific.

So when we realize that there is copying and translation. This first thing we think about is books.
- But there isn't any translation. And you can think of whatever you like, it still won't be accurate if you keep using symbols to try to prove your claims.
When will you realize that?

So DNA is for real is an information storage system.
No, it isn't.

No biological system has been described the same way as DNA.
You can take any phenomenon and see how it is differently described in comparison to other phenomenons. It doesn't prove a thing.

But at least now I know you fancy metaphors. That's nice.

Oh okay; so that how you were seeing my argument the whole time. And that is why we have this discussion of difinitions. You really need to read more about the argument of DNA as you completely misundetstood it with your assumptions. Scientists discribed natural world as "it gives information" when they mean we can study the world and make conclusions. You equated this statement with our discussion of the DNA and thought they meant the same thing. Well it can be true that they meant that we can study DNA and form conclusions to find information. But what was really meant with the quotations I provided earlier that DNA is similar to books/language in its nature. It really holds information and this is not just a metaphor. Maybe is it a metaphor when we say it is a library or it is a book. Because DNA have a pattern of chemicals and those pattern is translated by other biological device and converted into protein production. I think you need to watch some videos to get what I mean. Take your time to understand the system before replying.

Watch "Protein Synthesis" on YouTube - https://youtu.be/2zAGAmTkZNY

Watch "From DNA to protein - 3D" on YouTube - https://youtu.be/gG7uCskUOrA

Notice that that process includes steps like transcription (copying) and translating. First a copy is made of part of the DNA. then this copy will be translated by into its equivalents amino acids. Ptotein by difinition is a chain of amino acids.

So when we realize that there is copying and translation. This first thing we think about is books. So DNA is for real is an information storage system. No biological system has been described the same way as DNA. I mean in a way that involves copying and translation.

[Well I did not claim that ANY object will hold information. That is obvious. But we know from our experience what type of things will hold information like books for example. I talked earlier about the common features of languages which are pattern and purpose (output). If we found something in nature that resembles the work of human designers then we are justified to infer that it was designed.
- Not really, it depends what similarities it shares with our designs, sharing just some is not enough. Plus similarities can be illusory. You can feel justified to infer anything you want, but that's just how you feel and it is not objective.

Notice that I am talking about DNA only here. Not any random phenomenon will contain the same pattern as found in DNA.
- Of course, and if you take another phenomenon, it will contain a pattern DNA doesn't. The argument works both ways.

Scientists as well talked about DNA resembling information or a library.
Even it was a metaphor, these metaphors was meant to describe how DNA is similar to the information storage systems
- That's right, and by calling guinea pigs guinea pigs someone meant they are similar to pigs, but the name is not accurate from the scientific perspective so whatever. Same story with DNA.
Plus I am wondering how you are admitting it is all allegorical/symbolic yet you are using it as an argument here.
It is really like calling pigeons true birds of peace because they are peaceful and some people even started to call them symbols of peace.

.The scientists did not describe any other phenomena as it was described for DNA. So we have unique case here. DNA is not just some random natural phenomena that scientists described being information arbitrarily. We never heard scientists say that thunders contain pattern of signals and therefore it metaphorically an information storage systems. So here we can see why we are justified to infer that this pattern of chemicals resembles a pattern found in languages created
by human being. And therefore, we can infer that it was designed.
I read many times that certain behaviors and things in the natural world "give us information". So this is nothing really original.
It doesn't matter someone uses terms like DNA information as long as they are just figures of speech.
It seems DNA is more important to us than thunders nowadays. We definitely feel like needing information about DNA more than about thunders. So the reason is again subjective.

Well that's your belief. If your belief tells you that all explanations must be naturalistic, than that is another issue.
It is not a belief, it is a lack of the belief you treat seriously even though you don't have evidence for. The very fact that you rely on something metaphorical makes it all not credible at all.

There is always a POSSIBILITY that not all studied process/systems must have naturalistic explanations.
Here I can agree.
Hypothetically, lots of things are a possibility. Crazy people from mental institutions could be the sanest of us all.
Also, if god really exists, there is at least 50% chance that Islam has nothing to do with that god.
Possibilities are all around us, but that can serve as an argument for just anything.

Information would require thinking, intention and message.
- It would, but DNA doesn't hold any of those so whatever.

Well I did not claim that ANY object will hold information. That is obvious. But we know from our experience what type of things will hold information like books for example. I talked earlier about the common features of languages which are pattern and purpose (output). If we found something in nature that resembles the work of human designers then we are justified to infer that it was designed. Even if we do not know where it comes from and how it happened. Notice that I am talking about DNA only here. Not any random phenomenon will contain the same pattern as found in DNA. Scientists as well talked about DNA resembling information or a library. Even it was a metaphor, these metaphors was meant to describe how DNA is similar to the information storage systems .The scientists did not describe any other phenomena as it was described for DNA. So we have unique case here. DNA is not just some random natural phenomena that scientists described being information arbitrarily. We never heard scientists say that thunders contain pattern of signals and therefore it metaphorically an information storage systems. So here we can see why we are justified to infer that this pattern of chemicals resembles a pattern found in languages created by human being. And therefore, we can infer that it was designed.

Well that's your belief. If your belief tells you that all explanations must be naturalistic, than that is another issue. You are free to believe whatever you want. There is always a POSSIBILITY that not all studied process/systems must have naturalistic explanations. Yea information would require thinking, intention and message. And the designer of DNA is capable of doing that and encoding this information into a pattern of chemicals.

Because you agreed earlier that coded information found from studying some natural phenomenon is still an information.
- yes, but I don't believe any natural phenomenon holds coded information or information in the sense you are looking for.

Yes, I started to avoid this word, because I really didn't want confusion here. To us many things can serve as something they were not designed for. Even things which were man-made, I can treat my TV as a bookshelf. It is possible for me to do it. But that doesn't mean TVs are meant to be bookshelves. I can treat a cave as a house, even though, it wasn't meant to be one. If I give it such a role/meaning, it is totally subjective.

We call natural things sources of information, but we don't mean they were designed to hold any.
From what we know objectively, information appears only when something is studied and then conclusions are made.
Unless this is a human product. But even then, some objects, like a chair, do not hold information. You may analyze them and draw conclusions which will become information, but that is completely different.

And I don't believe natural objects which appear in patterns are enough to say they are composed as some sort of a language or information, because that would require thinking, intention and message.

Okay we know that pattern in characters in human languages and the computer language are made by human beings. But what's the common thing about them? Is not that both patterns are chosen properly and it gives an output? That is my focus point here. Whether we know it was made by human beings or not,we would still know the common features of any language. You would agree with both difinitions for what we already know but you don't want to generalize it. Correct me if I am wrong. Because you agreed earlier that coded information found from studying some natural phenomenon is still an information. Yea I know that not everything we hear and see is an information. And I understand as well that features of the process are not NECESSARILY an information.

No, I don't agree. It depends what it is.
Not everything we hear or see is information, it undoubtedly appears in the form of our conclusions/statements once we understand what something is and how it works, but its components and features do not need to be information.

All the examples you gave: computer messages and instructions, patterns of words in various human languages, etc., are obviously filled with information. We know someone put it there for a reason.
But objects from the natural world do not contain information, and there is no proven intention to them.
DNA is filled with components which are not information, we study DNA and our results are interpreted into claims which are information about DNA. People use the term "DNA information/language/code" but they do not mean what you mean.
The term is really used just metaphorically.

Well if thats the case. Then you would agree with both difinition of information. If we find information about something or we got informed about something then we convert this information into something else it would be still information in its origin. We usually get informed by hearing the information ( pattern in human voice ) or by reading ( pattern in words and letter) . If we would want to transmit those information to a computer program. We would need to encode it so that a computer could understands the pattern of 0s and 1s. So no matter how we get information. It will still be defined as information. I think I know why there is a misunderstanding in this issue. It's because we have not talked about the receiver and the transmitter. From the transmitter we require an intention to convey an information but from the receiver we dont require that

I do.

Great. Now we can move on from this point. If we encode information.; we have a code. And this code is still an information if we decode it. It was just in different from. We have a computer code. This code contains an information that was designed by the user. You agree with me here?

Yes, we can do it.