Simple primary and secondary structure of DNA hold the information needed to code?

B. The base sequence of DNA (those A, G, T, C letters you see thrown around) code for certain amino acids. A chain of those amino acids form a protein. Proteins are needed for everything your body does.

B.) The base sequence of DNA carries all the information needed to code for proteins.

omfg you're splitting hairs right here. "Language" is a term so loosely utilized in time-honored use... Following your precise definition, "programming languages" are not languages the two. neither is what's in lots of situations reported as "laptop language", a binary sequence (wager what else is binary... DNA!) that represents instructions and information. If DNA isn't a language, then neither is binary laptop language. for this reason your argument is basically one in each of semantics. Why you may flow with the aid of plenty worry to differentiate the distinction between a spoken human language and the "language" of DNA? of direction, for the reason which you're attempting to intend that creationists are idiots. nicely if so, might I advise attempting to hire somewhat rational thinking of your guy or woman? case in point, claiming DNA is extra like a cipher sounds exceptionally stupid to all and sundry who's truthfully-known with what a cipher is. On that observe, so does misspelling the be conscious cipher. yet another ingredient that comes for the duration of as customarily irrational is the very lifestyles of your argument. i understand: you're peeved that somebody in comparison DNA to a language and used that as info that it grow to be designed with the aid of a techniques. nicely do no longer argue with the evaluation, argue with the theory that languages are in basic terms designed with the aid of unsleeping entities. All languages evolve, and probable progressed from grunts. additionally some languages have been created with the aid of computers (regardless of the incontrovertible fact that, that's decrease than the looser definition of language). that ought to have been your argument. The arguments you rather gave have been quite vulnerable (and calling Zipf's regulation rather made me chuckle, yet i assume i won't be in a position to fault you for that. some idiots in the previous you referenced it, too).