Has nature ever created a code?

1352 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon's picture
You're saying all living

You're saying all living things evolved as an objective fact and they all contain DNA, but DNA didn't evolve? I think the burden of proof is yours, as science has evidenced evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.

"Our experience tells us that codes only come from intelligence, but am waiting to hear otherwise."

Our experience tells us people don't raise from the dead, or get impregnated by ghosts and have virgin births. You can't set a standard for belief and then break it, that's a special pleading fallacy.

" Sounds like an evolution of the gaps syndrome. "

Not really since we know evolution exists as an objective fact, other than organic life can demonstrate any objective evidence for the creation of codes? We all know you're pointing to what you think is a gap in current scientific knowledge, and then insisting goddidit, so your claim here is pretty ironic.

"You weren’t around when it originated "

Were you around when a deity created DNA? If not that's a pretty hilarious argument to use.

"cannot explain how the complex specified arrangement of nucleotides fell into place. "

So a gap in our knowledge then, that you're trying to use an argument for a creator, that you can demonstrate no objective evidence for. You're making this too easy now, and yes I am going to quote this from you again...

"" Sounds like an evolution of the gaps syndrome. "

Now see if you can work out which of these can we objectively evidence, evolution or a creator deity? Do take your time.

" The sequences, again, are not a property of chemical interactions."

Fine, so you will have no problem explaining how they evidence a deity creator, without using the argument from ignorance fallacy that WE DON'T CURRENTLY KNOW.

dear oh dear...

aperez241's picture
J N Vanderbilt III:

J N Vanderbilt III:

I repeat it again...

I already gave you an example of a code (as by your definition of code) that is created by nature. RNA. So, your question is answered. Now what?

Randomhero1982's picture
Codes are abstracts.. they

Codes are abstracts.. they are only called 'Codes' because we are pattern seeking primates that like to make order of all we see.

There is no actual 'codes'.

Otherwise literally everything we comprehend that conforms to a pattern is technically a code and we would be hear all day trying to list them.

Still, I'm sure this is an attempt to essentially say an intelligence must have created codes in nature... which is bollocks.

And again I'd ask for someone to demonstrate a causal link in nature that leads from natural phenomena to supernatural and is evidenced.

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
There is eyewitness to

There is eyewitness to raising of the dead as promulgated in the Bible, that lends to observable experience.

The difference in any old patterns you speak of is that they do not get translated as instructions to build something and w error correction. Do you really not see the difference between arrangements of nucleotides and something like simple snowflakes or anything the physical world throws at you ? Snowflakes are results of physical property of nature only.

Sheldon's picture
Wed, 11/14/2018 - 10:48

Wed, 11/14/2018 - 10:48
J N Vanderbilt III " Sounds like an evolution of the gaps syndrome. You weren’t around when it originated"

J N Vanderbilt III "There is eyewitness to raising of the dead as promulgated in the Bible, that lends to observable experience"

Firstly there are anonymous claims, nothing more, and secondly that's an hilarious double standard you have used there, where someone has to have personally witnessed something you donlt want to believe, but you don't have to witness something you want to believe.

Incidentally speciation has been observed in real time, so species evolution as well being evidenced through natural selection has been observed in a laboratory. No one has ever observed anyone rise from the dead, though the bible does make this risible claim.

Now, what objective evidence can you demonstrate that DNA was designed by a sentient being? Other than the argument from ignorance fallacy you're using to try and reverse the burden of proof for your superstitious belief?

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
I’d say the evidence is that

I’d say the evidence is that we know codes only come from intelligence just like we know that 2+2=4. Any code you can refer to ALWAYS comes from intelligence
As for speciation witnessed, what exactly would that be? It wouldn’t be fruit flies would it?

Sheldon's picture
I said what objective

I said what objective evidence can you demonstrate **beyond an argument from ignorance fallacy.** All you have done is repeat your original argument from ignorance fallacy.

"Any code you can refer to ALWAYS comes from intelligence"

Do you have any examples where this "intelligence" isn't human? Otherwise you're creating a rule from examples that don't support your conclusion.

"As for speciation witnessed, what exactly would that be?"

noun BIOLOGY
the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.

Chicken's picture
2+2=4 will still be an

2+2=4 will still be an objective fact even without intelligence to understand it, that doesn’t mean intelligence created it. It’s a mathematical truth that we discovered, and that’s typically how it works in science. If you want to believe that something creates DNA or invented mathematics, you can do so, just know that I believe you are horribly misguided.

Edited for spelling

Sapporo's picture
J N Vanderbilt III: Any code

J N Vanderbilt III: Any code you can refer to ALWAYS comes from intelligence

That is not a falsifiable statement.

Your claim is essentially that a transcendental intelligence is needed to create a code, rather than a mechanism defined by the laws of nature. As you do not transcend nature, you cannot prove your statement to be true.

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
It’s merely stating the

It’s merely stating the obvious aka , law of deduction , rather elimination, perfectly logical.

What new species have you witnessed evolving?
Again fruitflies ?

Sheldon's picture
It is an argument from

It is an argument from ignorance fallacy, as you were told on the first page, and therefor by definition it cannot be asserted as rational, as you were also told on the first page. No amount of repetition will change this.

Now what objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity, or for any code produced by anything super-natural?

Oh yeah none, just the same tedious argument from ignorance fallacy you have doggedly refused to accept is fallacious.
----------------------------------------------------

"What new species have you witnessed evolving?"

None, I never claimed I had witnessed anything, only that scientists had witnessed speciation in a laboratory.

"Biologists Watch Speciation in a Laboratory Flask"

https://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/biologists_watch_speciation_in_a_...

arakish's picture
jnv3: "What new species have

jnv3: "What new species have you witnessed evolving?"

In my lifetime I know of one: Marbled Crayfish in Europe. It is now sold in the pet trade. It evolved when it had no males to mate with and evolved to produce clones of themselves.

rmfr

aperez241's picture
JN Vanderbilt.

JN Vanderbilt.

Not only fruit flies, which will be enough to prove evolution but also on birds, fish and plants

A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen

https://www.sciencealert.com/darwin-s-finches-evolve-into-new-species-in...

Extraordinarily rapid speciation in a marine fish

http://www.pnas.org/content/114/23/6074

Observed Instances of Speciation

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Anyway, I repeat myself again,

I showed you that RNA (which has a code as per your definition) can emerge without any intelligence involved. This would be a code created by nature. It answers the question in your OP. Now what?

Chicken's picture
Not to forget the rapid

Not to forget the rapid changes in bacterial and viral DNA that keeps our vaccine creators on their toes!

Sapporo's picture
J N Vanderbilt III: It’s

J N Vanderbilt III: It’s merely stating the obvious aka , law of deduction , rather elimination, perfectly logical.

Before you were making a claim you said was based on observation, now you are saying it was based on what you think is obvious.

J N Vanderbilt III: What new species have you witnessed evolving?
Again fruitflies ?

You've been given links that document numerous cases of speciation. If you want one example to prove you wrong, this includes species of fruit flies. But it also includes bacteria, plants, and animals, whether over hundred of years or twenty minutes. It includes cases of new species arising that are not just a different species from their immediate ancestor, but from a different domain (in terms of classification): for example, the evolution of multi-cellular lifeforms from single-celled lifeforms.

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
Oh so citing the process of

Oh so citing the process of elimination is an ignorant fallacy? I beg to differ

Funny you claim evolution , but any species you claim that has evolved, is guess what, still the same species. Fruit flies which have under gone a gargantuan slew of generations are still fruit flies, any bacterial changes you can site are genes w switches modified is all. Micro evolution is at play, not macro

Sheldon's picture
I never metioned an "ignorant

I never mentioned an "ignorant fallacy", in fact I have no idea what that is. Christ I pointed out it was an argument from ignorance fallacy on the first page, and you still haven't Googled argumentum ad ignorantiam. It's as if you enjoy embarrassing yourself.

"Funny you claim evolution , but any species you claim that has evolved, is guess what, still the same species."

What?

"Fruit flies which have under gone a gargantuan slew of generations are still fruit flies, "

What the fuck are you talking about? Tephritidae is a family of insects that includes large fruit flies. It does not include the biological model organism of the genus Drosophila, which is often called the common fruit fly. There are nearly five thousand described species of tephritid fruit fly, categorized in almost five hundred genera.

"any bacterial changes you can site are genes w switches modified is all."

Cite ffs not site, and I linked an article showing that scientists have viewed speciation in real time, as per your request.

"Micro evolution is at play, not macro"

They're the same thing on different time scales, and again speciation is an observed fact.
-------------------------------------------------------------
You still haven't given a single example of a code created by anything super natural?

Humans are natural, we create codes, that's one for nature and the material universe.

xenoview's picture
JNV 3

JNV 3
So you believe in micro evolution?

You do know that macro evolution is tons of micro evolution over time.

Sapporo's picture
Oh so citing the process of

Oh so citing the process of elimination is an ignorant fallacy? I beg to differ

Funny you claim evolution , but any species you claim that has evolved, is guess what, still the same species. Fruit flies which have under gone a gargantuan slew of generations are still fruit flies, any bacterial changes you can site are genes w switches modified is all. Micro evolution is at play, not macro

The arising of new species incapable of interbreeding with ancestral strains has been repeatedly observed.

arakish's picture
@ jnv3

@ jnv3

jnv3: "Oh so citing the process of elimination is an ignorant fallacy? I beg to differ"

Beg all you want. Here is a partial list you have done:

Ad Hoc Rescue (slide 28)
Begging the Question (slide 29)
Biased Generalization (slide 30)
Confirmation Bias (slide 31)
Lie (slide 33)
Red Herring (slide 35)
Suppressed Evidence (slide 37)
Unfalsifiability (slide 38)
Design Fallacy (slide 43)
Jumping to Conclusions (slide 46)
Perfectionist Fallacy (slide 48)
Sweeping Generalization (slide 51)
Affirming the Consequent (slide 54)
Circular Logic (slide 55)
Ad Hominem (slide 62)
Burden of Proof (slide 63)
Straw Man (slide 67)
Evidence (slide 68)

Check it out: Rhetological Fallacies

rmfr

EDIT: The list I made is only partial because I ain't feeling well (extreme pain) and am tired.

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
Speciation of fruit flies

Speciation of fruit flies amounts to micro changes but still the same creature remains intact. No macro evolution has been observed. Even after a million human-years worth of mutations, fruit flies remain fruit flies, next thing you’ll tell me that fish took to land and became philosophers, crazy thinking

Sheldon's picture
You don't know what

You don't know what speciation means do you?

" No macro evolution has been observed."

Speciation has been observed, and you were provided with several links that you have ignored, you;re a liar pure and simple.

The rest of your post is too stupid and ill informed for me to believe you're not trolling. There are nearly five thousand described species of tephritid fruit fly, so your moronic claim makes no sense.

"Biologists have discovered that the evolution of a new species can occur rapidly enough for them to observe the process in a simple laboratory flask.

In a month-long experiment using a virus harmless to humans, biologists working at the University of California San Diego and at Michigan State University documented the evolution of a virus into two incipient species—a process known as speciation that Charles Darwin proposed to explain the branching in the tree of life, where one species splits into two distinct species during evolution."

https://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/biologists_watch_speciation_in_a_...

It never ceases to amaze me how wilfully ignorant creationists are.

There is no argument here, species evolution is a scientific fact, it's risible to deny it.

Whats more you can demonstrate not one shred of objective for any deity, all you have produced is an endless repetition of your original argument form ignorance fallacy. Best of all you don't know what argumentum ad ignorantiam means, and you've had weeks to Google it.

http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm

Note that the definition of argument ad ignorantiam fallacy uses your risible "no one was there to observe evolution" argument as an example of the fallacy.

Sheldon's picture
"No macro evolution has been

"No macro evolution has been observed. "

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree

Human evolution ancestry, lineage and evidence - The Smithsonian Institute.

Now for speciation in real time, observed in a lab, and you've been shown this twice already so are a bare faced liar.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161129152743.htm

"Biologists watch speciation in a laboratory flask"

Now please demonstrate objective evidence for a single code created by anything supernatural?

Each time you dodge this question your mendacity becomes more manifest, and I am so sick of you tedious and dishonest repetition that I am going to pose this question every single time you repeat yours, that we have all answered repeatedly.

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
It’s funny how you harp on

It’s funny how you harp on speciation as be all for your declining theory of evolution and you can’t come to grips w the fact that any creature that undergoes speciation is STILL the same creature. The little dog you bring on the plane is still a dog like the mastiff you left at home, how bout that?

LostLocke's picture
Kudos on a great example of a

Kudos on a great example of a straw man! :D

Sapporo's picture
It’s funny how you harp on

J N Vanderbilt III: It’s funny how you harp on speciation as be all for your declining theory of evolution and you can’t come to grips w the fact that any creature that undergoes speciation is STILL the same creature. The little dog you bring on the plane is still a dog like the mastiff you left at home, how bout that?

If this was true, then would be no instances of cousin species being unable to interbreed with each other. This is not the case: there are numerous cases of speciation where cousin species have been unable to interbreed with each other, including cases where archived ancestral species have been unable to interbreed with new descendant species.

Sapporo's picture
J N Vanderbilt III: It’s

J N Vanderbilt III: It’s funny how you harp on speciation as be all for your declining theory of evolution and you can’t come to grips w the fact that any creature that undergoes speciation is STILL the same creature. The little dog you bring on the plane is still a dog like the mastiff you left at home, how bout that?

Give your definition of "species".

arakish's picture
@ jnv3

@ jnv3

jnv3: "It’s funny how you harp on speciation as be all for your declining theory of evolution and you can’t come to grips w the fact that any creature that undergoes speciation is STILL the same creature. The little dog you bring on the plane is still a dog like the mastiff you left at home, how bout that?"

Keep begging. I love it when a Religious Absolutist grovels...

Ad Hoc Rescue (slide 28)
Begging the Question (slide 29)
Biased Generalization (slide 30)
Confirmation Bias (slide 31)
Lie (slide 33)
Red Herring (slide 35)
Suppressed Evidence (slide 37)
Unfalsifiability (slide 38)
Design Fallacy (slide 43)
Jumping to Conclusions (slide 46)
Perfectionist Fallacy (slide 48)
Sweeping Generalization (slide 51)
Affirming the Consequent (slide 54)
Circular Logic (slide 55)
Ad Hominem (slide 62)
Burden of Proof (slide 63)
Straw Man (slide 67)
Evidence (slide 68)

Check it out: Rhetological Fallacies

rmfr

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
A million years worth of

A million years worth of accelerated mutations and mr fruit fly is still mr fruit fly. Thats evolution for ya

arakish's picture
@ jnv3

@ jnv3

Is logical fallacies the only means of communication you are capable of?

rmfr

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.