I don't have much to offer on this, but this is related to a subject that @apokrisis has talked about - biosemiosis.

Biosemiotics (from the Greek βίος bios, "life" and σημειωτικός sēmeiōtikos, "observant of signs") is a field of semiotics and biology that studies the prelinguistic meaning-making, biological interpretation processes, production of signs and codes and communication processes in the biological realm.

Biosemiotics integrates the findings of biology and semiotics and proposes a paradigmatic shift in the scientific view of life, in which semiosis (sign process, including meaning and interpretation) is one of its immanent and intrinsic features. — Wikipedia - Biosemiosis

Just to attempt to use some human language to invoke the language used at the level of DNA,
how about this, An enzyme says to a passing strand of DNA, "you're nothing without us," and the DNA strand responds with "Just cause you help us replicate, don't exactly make you A F****** GOD particle mate!!!!"

From Wiki:
A DNA polymerase is a member of a family of enzymes that catalyze the synthesis of DNA molecules from nucleoside triphosphates, the molecular precursors of DNA. These enzymes are essential for DNA replication and usually work in groups to create two identical DNA duplexes from a single original DNA duplex. During this process, DNA polymerase "reads" the existing DNA strands to create two new strands that match the existing ones.These enzymes catalyze the chemical reaction

deoxynucleoside triphosphate + DNAn ⇌ pyrophosphate + DNAn+1.
DNA polymerase adds nucleotides to the three prime (3')-end of a DNA strand, one nucleotide at a time. Every time a cell divides, DNA polymerases are required to duplicate the cell's DNA, so that a copy of the original DNA molecule can be passed to each daughter cell. In this way, genetic information is passed down from generation to generation.

Before replication can take place, an enzyme called helicase unwinds the DNA molecule from its tightly woven form, in the process breaking the hydrogen bonds between the nucleotide bases. This opens up or "unzips" the double-stranded DNA to give two single strands of DNA that can be used as templates for replication in the above reaction.

oh wow I had no idea such a field existed. Very interesting T Clark thanks for pointing me in this direction. I will definitely delve into some research on the topic now that I know what it's called.

Just to attempt to use some human language to invoke the language used at the level of DNA,
how about this, An enzyme says to a passing strand of DNA, "you're nothing without us," and the DNA strand responds with "Just cause you help us replicate, don't exactly make you A F****** GOD particle mate!!!!" — universeness

This is exactly the type of dialogue and anthropomorphism I was looking for in the discussion. Bravo. You grasped the aim of the discussion and delivered something. Now we are getting somewhere. What does this analogy show us about the relationship between enzymes and DNA?

Knowing that DNA is as you said dependent on enzymes for being replicated. But on the other hand, DNA is what instructs the formation of enzymes in the first place

It appears to me like a "chicken-egg continuity" conundrum.

For me this suggests there must have been some more fundamental unifying species of molecule from which both DNA and enzymes or proteins emerged. A molecule that shared the behaviours of the 2 distinct entities before splitting into a mutually dependent pairing that each exemplifies one facet more truly/uniquely.

I find it particularly interesting that RNA is an intermediate between DNA and protein. Not random I'd imagine. Maybe this is the primordial species? How might RNA behave more like a protein than DNA does? We must do some research I think.

DNA appears to be on one side highly specified for encoding/storage. It's very stable. Committed to definition (doing nothing/being restricted) but holding everything (information) - then it lacks the "fluency" of enzymes. Due to this DNA is a bit helpless by itself. Cannot fend for itself in writings. Just words. Definitions, a dictionary. It needs enzymes to do the work for it. Enzymes are temporary (unstable) unlike DNA but highly proactive (can do shit) again unlike DNA. More "fluent", more "verbose".

Could RNA be that key link?

In this way I would liken DNA to nouns. And Enzymes to Verbs. As for RNAs role in-between. Not so sure. Can you think of something?

A DNA polymerase is a member of a family of enzymes that catalyze the synthesis of DNA molecules from nucleoside triphosphates, the molecular precursors of DNA. — universeness

The Enzyme priesthood cites the biblical text of the one true god, Merase, blessing and peace be upon it! And verily Merase said, let there be nucleoside triphosphates and there were nucleoside triphosphates, and Merase loved the nucleoside triphosphates and called them 'good.'
Let all heathen dna strands that blaspheme against the one true god 'Merase,' be shunned and get no assistance to replicate from our chosen ones, our glorious enzymes. Else our future DNA become SOILED! and MUTATED! Glory be to Merase! and all our wonderful flock of DNA and RNA true believer strands!

Just another possible use of human language we might impose on the DNA world. :halo:

But it’s not really a language. We give the molecules symbols and talk of “translation” and such, but that’s a projection.

But it’s not really a language. We give the molecules symbols and talk of “translation” and such, but that’s a projection — Mikie

If a word is a symbol holding meaning, and a molecule is a symbol holding meaning (ie what it is, what it does, it's relationship to other symbols, it's "significance" - derived from the root "sign" or "symbol") and those meanings are flexible/dynamic and change over time due to context, knowledge, understandings, paradigm etc. Then what's the difference exactly?

There are many "languages" - modes of communication in reality. Some are human languages. Some are animal languages, some are plant or fungal matrices with chemical release (expressions) , reception (listening) and response (discussion) . Some are computing languages (binary for example) and some are more intrinsic basic languages - DNA/Rna (which is partially quaternary - 4 nucleotides, and partially binary - base pairing).

What they all hold in common is relationships between discrete bodies (words, numerals, molecules) and their behaviour/interaction through time - ie how they influence eachothers to create a fluid/flowing and progressive "cross-talk" (syntax - cause and effect) and grammar (rules, laws, constants and principles of relationship).

I would see it as foolish to conceive that "language" is restricted to/ only the purview of humans.

We are biased in that we relate everything to a human-centric conception of the world. But information is constantly being exchanged/communicated at every level of the system as a whole.

The purpose of the discussion is translation. Translation of DNA language into human language. All languages can be translated between one another, as information is a spectrum and can transform from one mode of communication to another).

Symbolism has parallels running through the entirety of nature. If it didn't, we would have no access to nature, no ability to decipher or decode other "languages" by translating them (through analogy, logic and reason) into human language, and thus knowledge. Gnosis of all forms of language or interaction.

In essence, to understand nature is to be a linguist. To ask "what is it saying?" and put that "saying" into an accesible mode (human language).

Let all heathen dna strands that blaspheme against the one true god 'Merase,' be shunned and get no assistance to replicate from our chosen ones, our glorious enzymes. — universeness

And thus they became viruses. Excommunicated from the community (genome). Marginalised, shunned, adrift on the gene pool winds, such heathenous and blasphemous genes persist in parasitising off the community, invading, taking over, manipulating it into replicating them for their own selfish interests through anti-merase propaganda and toxic rhetoric .

Let the chosen community be privy to the instructions, the guidance of merase, so that they may be "immune" to such "raids" (infection) by the outcasts. So they may identify them as "other" and not "self" and thus mount an counter-defense. War between civil genes and barbaric outcast genes is inflammation, disorder, chaos, battle. War is disease.

But it’s not really a language. We give the molecules symbols and talk of “translation” and such, but that’s a projection. — Mikie

Anthropomorphism

This digression might interest you, Benj:

The DNA molecule (and DNA-RNA system) is a self-replicating autopoiesis process 'recently' modeled by Chiara Marletto in a constructor theory of life (as a specialization of David Deutch's general constructor theory.)

If a word is a symbol holding meaning, and a molecule is a symbol holding meaning — Benj96

A molecule isn’t simply a symbol holding meaning. A molecule is a molecule. It’s true that nucleotides get assigned a name (“nucleotide”) and a letter (e.g., “T”), but that’s something humans do. We do that for everything — for rocks and trees and metabolism and soccer. Does that make everything “language”?

If it does, then you and I are using “language” very differently indeed.

I would see it as foolish to conceive that "language" is restricted to/ only the purview of humans. — Benj96

I wouldn’t. Since apparently we’re the only beings that have it.

My interpretation is that biosemiotics was born out of the discovery of language and signs as a metaphor for organism which replaced the mechanistic metaphors of Cartesianism (although biology still uses mechanistic metaphors.) The benefit of the semiotic approach is that it allows the use of concepts such as semantics, syntax and representation on a molecular level, rather than the awkward and ill-fitting motors and levers ideas of mechanism. And I agree that it is a language. It’s infinitely preferable to mechanism as metaphor because it embeds meaning at the very basis of life. (It also resonates strongly with mythological metaphors of ‘the word’, although most of its scientific advocates are uncomfortable with that association.)

Incidentally for you and others interested in the subject of biosemiotics, here’s an open-access paper A Short History of Biosemiotics, Marcelo Barbieri, and another article by the same author on DNA as a code, What is Information?

I find it particularly interesting that RNA is an intermediate between DNA and protein. Not random I'd imagine. Maybe this is the primordial species? How might RNA behave more like a protein than DNA does? We must do some research I think. — Benj96

The story on this has become clear in the past decade. RNA was the starting point as it could function both as a genetic code and also as a protein-like construction material. It was poor at both jobs as it was an open length of code that also wanted to curl up into shapes. But it was the start that then led to the crisp division of labour – DNA for coding and protein for building.

This evolutionary story is fossilised in the very structure of the ribosome – the enzyme that glues amino acids together to make protein strands according to a genetic recipe. The core bit of the ribosome is its circular entrance or tunnel. That is still made of a loop of RNA. The tunnel is the original bit of kit that allowed life to get started by gluing amino acids and other stuff together in strands. It would just grab molecules out of the surrounding soup and gum them together in any old junk order.

All this gunk-producing RNA had to do was be the template that reproduced itself. Then some of this gunk it was producing had to be useful in making it easier for the replicating RNA to do that more efficiently. Things could snowball from there.

The modern ribosome not only still retains its RNA origins, but all the extra protein that has got tacked on to make it a proper molecular machine also got added in fossilised fashion. The protein that first extended the tunnel is of the most primitive type. Then all the fancy later evolutionary extensions are constructed with later more sophisticated protein forms.

Loren Williams tells the story well.

Great. Thanks for linking this video.

And thus they became viruses. Excommunicated from the community (genome). Marginalised, shunned, adrift on the gene pool winds, such heathenous and blasphemous genes persist in parasitising off the community, invading, taking over, manipulating it into replicating them for their own selfish interests through anti-merase propaganda and toxic rhetoric . — Benj96

Yep, this fit's the current notion of the treatment that Islamic fundamentalists, christian evanhellicals and merase worshiper DNA and RNA strands think apostates should receive.
What else can the apostates do, other than organise, resist, fight etc.

Let the chosen community be privy to the instructions, the guidance of merase, so that they may be "immune" to such "raids" (infection) by the outcasts. So they may identify them as "other" and not "self" and thus mount an counter-defense. War between civil genes and barbaric outcast genes is inflammation, disorder, chaos, battle. War is disease. — Benj96

Well put, and the ultimate result of such fundamental component parts that are actually soooooooo dependent on EACH OTHER, deciding to war with each other, only results in M.A.D, if they don't come to their senses. I think more and more people in each generation is coming to that same conclusion.
WAR, what is it good for? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The enzymes need to stop thinking they are superior and all of the DNA/RNA strands must unite against them, until the only rational choice left is for both groups to unite in peace.

I wonder if "asymptomatic carriers" of an infectious viral disease in this analogy are like societies (genomes) that found a compromise with the invader (viral apostates). " Do not cause us to retaliate and "inflame" the situation into outright war (illness). And you will be given permission to use our civil infrastructure to regroup/reproduce your people (virions).

It's as if they're treated as "semi-self". Not fully allowed to integrate with ones DNA, or perhaps they don't wish to, but at the same time not leading to total outright war (the symptoms of infection. The society acts then like a sanctuary or temporary refuge for the rebellious viral genes that go in to redisouse on their airborne conquests towards other nations (genomes).

It is supposed that more than 8% of human DNA are archaic or inactivated /integrated viruses.

I wonder when a new viral disease arises, was it some sort of dispute within a once cooperative holistic genome where some factions decided to hell with this and stole little boats (membrane), coated themselves in it and ejected out into the external environment on solitary pursuits.

I remember Forrest Valkai (an online biologist who often tries to help theists deconstruct and become atheist) talking about how human cells have developed and changed over evolutionary time and via natural selection, have become symbiotic with various bacteria that proved beneficial.
So those apostates that seem to be the enemy of religious fundamentalism may turn out to be their true saviours. Of course, those religious fundamentalist will insist that the flip of my suggestion is the truth of it.

It is supposed that more than 8% of human DNA are archaic or inactivated /integrated viruses.

I wonder when a new viral disease arises, was it some sort of dispute within a once cooperative holistic genome where some factions decided to hell with this and stole little boats (membrane), coated themselves in it and ejected out into the external environment on solitary pursuits. — Benj96

There does seem to be parallels between the outcomes of evolutionary biology via natural selection and human efforts at making a functioning and fair society within which conflicting needs can be 'negotiated' into a symbiotic state which benefits all parties involved.
Let's hope that suggests that m.a.d is NOT the guaranteed outcome that the more pessimistic members of TPF, present it as.

Loren Williams tells the story well. — apokrisis

Thanks for the link!