Can’t say the evos are comfortable with the implications of this, but...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6921/full/nature01410.html
No problem at all.. seeing it is an opinion, like an analogy, not some scientific fact. Describing something has having a “digital nature” does not in fact make something “digital”, but you knew that, and posted it anyway.
“Sound, may be digital or analog, just as light may be a particle or a wave, but what the eye and the ear perceive is entirely analog, no matter how you slice it”
I’m not an evo, and not a theist, but I don’t buy the digital nature of DNA as an information carrier. It’s direct chemical behavior may be digital, or at least determined chemically (which is not quite the same as digital). See, in digital operations, the same digital code always produces the same results. DNA seems to work that way in some very small scale cases, but completely fails in large scale cases. Clones are never identical, neither are “identical” twins.
Perhaps if I say what I mean is that DNA does not digitally determine what a cell does the way a digital program determines what an image will be on a computer screen would be clearer. I don’t doubt the “digital” aspects of the chemical nature of DNA, but know it is not a digital program that determines an organism’s total nature.
Hank