[ValenB4]

I disagree that there is a difference the DNA message and the DNA material. The information in DNA that is transcribed and then translated is only one component of DNA, the four bases, structurally supported by a non-coding backbone. You can write out a genetic sequence on a sheet of paper and it doesn't mean anything. Although we can figure out the amino acids products that make up a protein, there is no way to convert that information into a biological product. To say DNA is a language is only partly true. The usefulness of DNA being a message is entirely dependent on it being a material part of the cell.

To suggest that advances in the understanding of cell biology contradict evolution is ludicrous. Genetic analysis is helping in terms of categorizing the organizational hierarchy of species.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

Good post; you beat me to it. A genetic sequence written out on a piece of paper can't replicate, the biological one can. The medium is the message...

[DouglasKC]

I disagree that there is a difference the DNA message and the DNA material. The information in DNA that is transcribed and then translated is only one component of DNA, the four bases, structurally supported by a non-coding backbone. You can write out a genetic sequence on a sheet of paper and it doesn't mean anything. Although we can figure out the amino acids products that make up a protein, there is no way to convert that information into a biological product. To say DNA is a language is only partly true. The usefulness of DNA being a message is entirely dependent on it being a material part of the cell.

Isn't that kind of like saying that the usefulness of words and letters is entirely dependent on the words and letters being formed into coherent thoughts and put on paper?

[Fester Chugabrew]

To suggest that advances in the understanding of cell biology contradict evolution is ludicrous.

Actually, to suggest that information, DNA or otherwise, can be shared apart from intelligence and design is ludicrous.