Has nature ever created a code?

744 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tin-Man's picture
Re: Senta

Re: Senta

Uh, Arakish?... Uh, would you mind if I borrow your hands for a moment? I suddenly have an overpowering urge to do that quadruple face palm you invented.... *groan*....

arakish's picture
@ Tin-Man

@ Tin-Man

Of course. I've already had to borrow yours twice or thrice already. Think I need to again.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
"In order for there to even

"In order for there to even be hit or miss, an intelligent agent would be required."

No it wouldn't, Hitchens's razor applied - slash.

"The fact that a bunch of mold spores, plants, bugs and some other animals went extinct means nothing. It all probably happened for a very good reason"

Seriously you're being facetious right? How the fuck can something both have no meaning and happen for a good reason, christ you're dumb.

"Again, because you are unaware of the reasoning of the intelligence behind RNA, you are pretending it doesn't exist. That is a logical fallacy."

No it isn't, wtf are you talking about? You've just made that up, and it's abundantly clear that you haven't a clue what logical fallacies are, or what they mean. Here's a clue for you, making a claim that complexity requires a designer or creator, then arguing that no one can evidence or explain how complexity originated is a common logical fallacy, it's called argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Cognostic's picture
Ahh... I see.... The

Ahh... I see.... The argument from animism. There is a reason, we just don't know it. Well, it is Halloween season after all. A few ghost stories now and then are to be expected.

No one is unaware of the intelligence behind RNA. If there is intelligence behind RNA it is your job to prove it. Please demonstrate your claim.

Algebe's picture
Fibonacci sequences in

Fibonacci sequences in nautilus shells, sunflower seeds, spiral galaxies.

Fractals.

Human languages.

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
what are the instructions

what are the instructions that are coded and then decoded in a fractal or spiral galaxy?

Algebe's picture
In the patterns themselves,

@J N Vanderbilt III: what are the instructions that are coded and then decoded in a fractal or spiral galaxy?

In the patterns themselves, none. They are the cumulative results of various natural forces. The only coding of instructions is the repetitive determination of the size and shape of the next stage of growth by what has gone before.

However, they appeal to our pattern-seeking instincts, and in that sense, the instructions, coding, and decoding occur in our brains, in our imaginations. As a result, these phenomena are seen by the gullible as evidence of the hand of a designing deity.

It's a pity, because trivial myths about designer gods blind us to the beauty and grandeur of reality.

David Killens's picture
@J N Vanderbilt III

@J N Vanderbilt III

"what are the instructions that are coded and then decoded in a fractal or spiral galaxy?"

Gravity, pressure waves, radiation, dark matter, dark energy.

chimp3's picture
"Code" is a human construct.

"Code" is a human construct. We are pattern seeking animals.

Senta Christine's picture
We are not animals. We are

We are not animals. We are human beings. I think you all need to appreciate being human a little more. We are different from the animals and that is ok. Are you attracted to other humans? If so, why do you think that is?

Tin-Man's picture
@Senta Re: "We are not

@Senta Re: "We are not animals."

Yep. It's confirmed. You should DEFINITELY get a refund on your "college education."

Sheldon's picture
"We are not animals. We are

"We are not animals. We are human beings."

Animal
noun
1. a living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialised sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Try again...

"Are you attracted to other humans? If so, why do you think that is?"

Evolution...

Senta Christine's picture
You think evolution is the

You think evolution is the reason that you are attracted to other people? Can you justify that claim?

Sheldon's picture
"You think evolution is the

"You think evolution is the reason that you are attracted to other people? Can you justify that claim?"

Yes, of course. Traits that are attractive are demonstrably more likely to win a mate, species who didn't find each other attractive wouldn't last very long would they, again I must ask are you being deliberately obtuse?

However I'd rather focus on your latest gem, that humans are not animals. You do know that humans are primates, a member of an evolved family of great apes, including humans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans.

https://australianmuseum.net.au/humans-are-apes-great-apes

When did humans evolve into non animals? Was Australopithecus an animal? This is priceless, what college did you say you'd attended? My own formal education was fairly mediocre, and went to work at 16, so that must be why I missed this paradigm shifting biological revelation that humans are not part of the animal kingdom.

Algebe's picture
@Senta Christine: We are not

@Senta Christine: We are not animals. We are human beings.

That's interesting. Where do you draw the dividing line? Australopithecus? Homo Erectus? Neanderthals?

I think the attraction to members of our species is an evolutionary mechanism. If deer suddenly became attracted to horses, pretty soon there'd be no deer.

Senta Christine's picture
That's good to know. Animals

That's good to know. Animals don't have mirrors, yet they know who to mate with and who they are attracted to.

CyberLN's picture
What on earth does a mirror

What on earth does a mirror have to do with recognizing a member of one’s species?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Santa

@ Santa

We are not animals

Please stop I am getting a headache banging my head against the wall. Please make the stupid stop......Of course it would be easier if everyone doesn't keep borrowing my arms and hands to collectively facepalm.

College? What was your major? Hair and makeup? Choosing shoes? Sports stats? Real Estate? It certainly could not have been anything requiring critical thinking by what you have posted thus far.

arakish's picture
@ Old Man

@ Old Man

***tree rumbles up handing a twig with some leaves***

Here. Chew the leaves for an hour. But do not swallow the leaves, just the juice. Should make your head feel better.

***tree rumbles off a ways, then stops***

You know, it might be better you wore your tricycle helmet more often also.

***tree continues off into the forest***

rmfr

Tin-Man's picture
Re: Senta

Re: Senta

I'm calling TROLL! Listen, I happen to be pretty damn good at playing dumb and being a difficult pain in the ass. Matter of fact, I have spent many years honing those skills. As a result, I'm pretty good at recognizing it when I see it being used by others. And, yes, we all know there are some truly brain-dead cretins out there who grace us with their presence from time to time. No doubt. However, "Miss" Senta here is not such a brain-dead moron as "she" is trying to portray. "Her" responses are far too calculated and controlled. "She" is answering and responding in much the same ways I would answer and respond to people if I were intentionally trying to annoy them. Spotted it early on, but was just wondering how long "she" would continue. Apparently, "she" is having an absolute blast, and - in all fairness - "she" is pretty good at it. Just sayin'.....

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ arakish

@ arakish

Nearly broke the Third on that one!

Cognostic's picture
Well, some of us appear to be

Well, some of us appear to be more human than others. How are you different from animals? Please explain? Do you have anything at all you can point to that is a tangible difference?

Sapporo's picture
@J N Vanderbilt III

@J N Vanderbilt III
Your contention is that codes created by the rules that define nature must have been designed by some intelligence.

My view is that such codes are created by the rules that define nature.

What the argument is really about is whether or not we believe nature to have been created by some intelligence.

Any system is defined by its rules - it would be wrong to infer intelligence based purely on your aesthetic appreciation of one permutation over another.

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
what is the rule of the order

what is the rule of the order of nucleotides that nature governs?
Fact: there is NO chemical property that governs the specific order of nucleotides.
So the big question is, what ordered the nucleotides in the particular sequences that they are in that constructs proteins which are highly functional?

Sapporo's picture
J N Vanderbilt III: what is

J N Vanderbilt III: what is the rule of the order of nucleotides that nature governs?
Fact: there is NO chemical property that governs the specific order of nucleotides.
So the big question is, what ordered the nucleotides in the particular sequences that they are in that constructs proteins which are highly functional?

It is the distinct chemical properties of compounds that allow sequences to be replicated.

David Killens's picture
@J N Vanderbilt III

@J N Vanderbilt III

"So the big question is, what ordered the nucleotides in the particular sequences that they are in that constructs proteins which are highly functional?"

Trial and error created these orders. When life first appeared, it was very simple. Over the aeons, mutation and growth brought about change. If a mutation/change was not harmful to the odds for survival and reproduction, it survived. The more beneficial that change was for survival, the more likely it would survive and propagate. If that change was not beneficial, the creature probably died or did not propagate.

It took a lot of time and a heck of a lot of generations. But when you consider that life has approximately four billion years to develop and each year could deliver hundreds of generations, those numbers add up.

So there was a "rule" directing change and evolution. But it was not a deity, it was, as many have said, "natural selection"

Senta Christine's picture
Define natural in that

Define natural in that context.

arakish's picture
NATURAL

NATURAL

My definitions:
adjective

  1. existing in or formed by nature.
  2. based on the state of things in nature.
  3. of or relating to nature or the universe.

Good enough for you?

rmfr

Senta Christine's picture
No, none of them are even

No, none of them are even close to adequate, especially used in that context. It is vague and it means nothing. I envision a group of male stoners sitting around high saying "Duuuude, it just happened naturally" Yeah sure it did.

arakish's picture
Then I guess you are a

Then I guess you are a hopelessly lost cause. If the actual definition as the word was is not sufficient, then I guess that the definition you have is "Whatever I want anything to be."

I would still look into getting a refund for the degree. They taught you nothing and you ain't learned nothing. Damned shame.

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.