Was the "Genetic Code" Intelligently Designed?

Introduction.

Intelligent designer spotters believe that the world was designed by some unidentified intelligence. Unidentified, because one of the aims of the ID movement was to try and circumvent the Separation Principle in the U.S. Constitution which is broadly understood to mean that the state, and its institutions, must not favour any particular theological perspective. The Principle can be traced back to the period when immigrants were fleeing religious persecution in Europe and wanted to be free of its re-emergence in the new world. ID tried to circumvent this Principle in its aim to undermine science education in U.S. state schools, by keeping schtum about any possible connection with gods. The strategy failed when it was put on trial in the courts. See the "Dover" trial, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

In order to promote its agenda, ID enthusiasts often point to what is called the "genetic code", insinuating that such a code is strong evidence for having been designed by some (again, for political reasons, unidentifiable,) intelligence. 

We need to examine this insinuation armed with a couple of considerations concerning metaphor and analogy.

Metaphor.

There are a number of the these in biology. They are a convenient mental shorthand for a number of concepts, but if they are not understood to be metaphors they can, and do, lead our thinking astray. The main consideration is that they are not to be taken literally.

"Natural selection". We see people asking what is doing the selection, thinking that it means that there is some element in nature that is actively selecting (or deselecting) heritable traits. The truth is that traits will naturally result in increasing in frequency in a population, stay relatively stable, or be eliminated due their own contribution to reproductive fitness.

"Central dogma". This is not a dogma in the politically ideological, philosophical or theological sense. It is a tongue-in cheek label for the universally accepted fact that DNA determines RNA which determines amino acid sequences (proteins). Yet people will still try to liken it to the types of ideology just mentioned.

"Genetic code". Nucleotides and amino acids are given labels, but people often loose sight of the fact that they are labels applied by humans, and have no intrinsic reality. They are not letters. They are molecules, or components of molecules.

Analogy.

Arguments by analogy have well known weaknesses. Even a good analogy will not provide a conclusion as a logical necessity.

From Wikipedia: 
Several factors affect the strength of the argument from analogy:
* The relevance (positive or negative) of the known similarities to the similarity inferred in the conclusion.
* The degree of relevant similarity (or dissimilarity) between the two objects.
* The amount and variety of instances that form the basis of the analogy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy

We shall be examining the analogy between the "genetic code" and a human designed and specified code below.

A Note About Language usage.

ID enthusiasts like to talk about "specified complexity" and "complex specified information". Here the insinuation is that "specified", being a verb, is the result of something doing the specifying, and that that something is the unidentifiable intelligent designer. The use of the word begs the question. For the unidentifiable intelligent designer can be undeniably said to have specified anything, we would need to see a specification. "Specific" is a far less loaded, neutral term. It would be far more honest to use it in place of "specified".

BTW, "irreducible complexity" is a concept stolen from the Nobel prizewinner H.J. Müller, who put it forward as "interlocking complexity", early in the 20th century, as a prediction of evolutionary theory.

Comparison of the genetic and morse code. Is it a good analogy?

The Morse Code was intelligently designed by Samuel Morse, who published a specification. The specification was separate from - independent of, the Morse code.

There is no specification available for the genetic code. There is a description, produced upon its discovery, but no design specification.

The Morse code is abstract in the sense that it is independent of the of medium being used. This can be radio dahs and dits, sound, light, marks on paper, whatever.

The genetic code is rigidly fixed. It uses specific chemicals for which there are no substitutes. It is chemical. Not abstract.

The Morse code is used for communicating information between intelligent entities.

The genetic code involves mindless, deterministic chemical processes.

The Morse code was created in its entirety, in one go, from the mind of Samuel Morse.

The Genetic code, from all the current evidence appears to have developed over a period, and involves the natural formation of many of its significant components (RNAs, amino-acids, proteins).

Another point where the analogy is very weak is to note that human-designed codes are essentially arbitrary, being matters of agreed-upon convention. They can, in principle, be anything whatsoever. This cannot be said about the chemistry involved in transcription and translation. 

We can see that the basic differences between the genetic code and the Morse code make inferences from the analogy rather less than convincing. When it comes to the third criterion the Wikipedia article states, we see yet another weakness in the analogy. There are no other instances of deterministic, purely chemical based 'codes' that form the basis of the analogy, unless you want to say that all of chemistry is governed by specified 'codes'. Viewing the properties of hydrogen and oxygen as being a code for water, for example, would, I hope, be regarded as ludicrous, dear reader. There is no paucity, on the other hand, of various instances of real, human-specified, designed and implemented codes.

That the vast majority of people in the field of microbiology do not regard the genetic code as an actual intelligently specified, designed and implemented code is significant. Not to commit the argumentum ad populum fallacy, but if the case for the genetic code being a genuine code in the full sense had any merit, you would have expected a significant number of people to have at least take it seriously, as opposed to just a highly partisan fringe.  It's not an appeal to authority fallacy either. I'm talking about relevant authority.

But at the end of the day, "intelligent design" was conceived as a wedge to be driven into the heart of "materialistic" evolutionary biology. The irony is that even if the specification and implementation of the "genetic code" could be convincingly sourced to a little green man or some other imagined intelligent designer, it would have no impact on evolution whatsoever, as evolution is what happens only once we have replication with heritable variations.

URL: https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/was-genetic-code-intelligently-designed.html