Has nature ever created a code?

744 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon's picture
natural

natural
adjective
1. existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.

You know you can Google word definitions, right?

Senta Christine's picture
That is still not an adequate

That is still not an adequate definition for something you are claiming is the cause of literally everything.

Stone Jade's picture
"I said that because I

"I said that because I assumed you would say DNA is created by nature. But if it is, then surely there must be some other code that is created by nature as well, that is what I am asserting." "The point here is that codes are ONLY created by intelligence."

I don't see any actual argument that you're making, here. Couldn't I just as easily say "If only intelligence creates codes, wouldn't an intelligent creator have made far more than 1 or 2 examples of it in the universe? Wouldn't we see codes all over nature? But we don't, so obviously the few examples we have were actually nature-made." How does the number of codes seen in nature have any bearing on how they came about?

Nyarlathotep's picture
When we represent DNA like:

When we represent DNA like: C,G,A,T; that is a code designed to represent 4 distinct molecules. The molecules themselves are not a code.

Randomhero1982's picture
Exactly, We primates are the

Exactly, We primates are the ones that decided to call these molecules adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine...

We could have just as easily had called them Dave, Rupert, Lister and Smeghead.

Grinseed's picture
"The point here is that codes

"The point here is that codes are ONLY created by intelligence."

The real point here is that recurring and repeating sequences,even of slightly variable consistency, can be identified and interpretated, as a code, BUT only by intelligence.

RNA and DNA do not interpret code, they replicate sequences.

edited

Kataclismic's picture
Only garden fairies can

Only garden fairies can create tomatoes.

Sheldon's picture
"Only garden fairies can

"Only garden fairies can create tomatoes."

Brilliant. I'll lay odds he has no idea why it's brilliant though.

Tin-Man's picture
@Kat Re: "Only garden

@Kat Re: "Only garden fairies can create tomatoes."

Ah-haaaaaa...... So THAT explains all the fairy poop around the base of my wife's tomato plants!.... *snaps fingers*... Mystery solved! Thanks, Kat!

blinknight's picture
The more we learn about DNA

The more we learn about DNA the more we realize that the people who think it was made that way on purpose by a 'designer'... Don't think very highly of the competence or intelligence of this designer.

Basically you want to say a god made DNA this way on purpose, you're saying that god is a complete moron.

Tin-Man's picture
@Blinknight Re: "Basically

@Blinknight Re: "Basically you want to say a god made DNA this way on purpose, you're saying that god is a complete moron."

Blink wins!..... *handing over a blue Ribbon*....

Senta Christine's picture
Explain in what way

Explain in what way specifically that you think anyone is saying that God is a complete moron for making DNA this way.

Sheldon's picture
Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Again.

Nature exists, and the physical material universe exists, so if you're going to add a fictional deity using unexplained magic then you have the burden of proof.

You've also contradicted yourself, by claiming nature doesn't create codes, then immediately say except DNA. Though strictly speaking DNA isn't a code.

"The point here is that codes are ONLY created by intelligence."

Except for DNA you mean, as you claimed in your OP? Explanations of how the universe functions ONLY show natural causes, never supernatural. Again if you're going to add a deity to what we can objectively evidence, then you will have to demonstrate objective evidence for it, argument form ignorance fallacies won't do I'm afraid.

Senta Christine's picture
Conscious higher intelligence

Conscious higher intelligence does not require magic. What would require magic is everything appearing out of nothing without the use of any intelligence.

arakish's picture
More proof of you are a

More proof of you are a Religious Absolutist.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
"Conscious higher

"Conscious higher intelligence does not require magic. "

Oh good, then you can accurately explain how you are calming it created everything?

"What would require magic is everything appearing out of nothing without the use of any intelligence."

I have no idea if something can come from nothing, I don't even know if nothing is possible, but I would love to hear your explanation of how you claim to know that exactly? You are claiming to know what all the best experts in the related fields of science don't, you're just a less literate version of Breezy.

Senta Christine's picture
A lot of them do know it,

A lot of them do know it, they just can't prove it.

Cognostic's picture
The Absolute Secret to DNA:

The Absolute Secret to DNA: "Yet, it’s the same process. This molecule, when in the presence of that molecule, will bond and make this new molecule." It’s just chemistry and nothing more.

DNA is not an arbitrary set of symbols that “stand for” something else that will be interpreted through some kind of a legend. It is a set of chemicals which are nonthinking, and have no choice but to do what they do, in the same way that a crystal has no choice but to grow when in the presence of the appropriate aqueous solution. DNA is just a very, very, very complicated molecule that happens to be capable of facilitating incredibly complex sets of chemical reactions.

DNA is not a “code” in the normal sense of the word. We call it a code because doing so gives us an easy way to think of the process by which a strand of DNA is responsible for the building of a living thing.

https://livinglifewithoutanet.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/dna-is-not-a-code/

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
“It is the distinct chemical

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

You do see that you are either missing my point or avoiding it. I stated that there is no chemical properties in dna that govern the highly ordered sequences. So the puzzle is how we’re they arranged? And if you can, point out where nature has rendered a code that gets translated.

David Killens's picture
@J N Vanderbilt III

@J N Vanderbilt III

"And if you can, point out where nature has rendered a code that gets translated."

The Atlantic mid-ocean ridge. On each side are mirror images of the magnetic polarities imprinted when the lava cooled. When those magnetic polarities get translated, they yield a wealth of information.

LogicFTW's picture
@J N Vanderbilt III

@J N Vanderbilt III
You are still abusing commonly accepted word definitions. It is okay all of us do it all the time, but when you are asking for precise definitions and explanations you need to use very precise wording and definitions.

You cant demand example of "code" in nature after erroneously defining dna as "code." You essentially created a new use for the word code that is not the commonly accepted definition of code, then challenged us to find other examples of "code" within nature using the original definition as it is commonly understood.

Beyond this, while DNA is amazing, and still not fully understood even though great advancements have been made in understanding, it is not the most spectacular form of complexity. The human brain takes complexity to a whole new much greater level, if you wanted to make an argument about complexity = intelligent design, (btw one of the most tired and oldest religious apologist argument that we see time and time again around here.)

When you consider we have RNA and other signs of a more simple forms of dna that preceded it, the answer here is actually well understood and obvious to anyone not trying to make the "god lie" work. A billion plus years of evolution pushed by efficiency getting countless trillions of chances to evolve to be better and you realize pretty quick that the "intelligent design" seeming aspect of dna is simply the forces of efficiency given enormous amount of tries and trial and error to get right. If DNA suddenly appeared with no precursor in the space of a few years, that would be an argument for some sort of outside intelligent design, a billion plus years of evolution not so much.
 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Sapporo's picture
J N Vanderbilt III: You do

J N Vanderbilt III: You do see that you are either missing my point or avoiding it. I stated that there is no chemical properties in dna that govern the highly ordered sequences. So the puzzle is how we’re they arranged? And if you can, point out where nature has rendered a code that gets translated.

Things that are good at replicating tend to prosper. It isn't mysterious that compounds that are good at replicating continue to do so.

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
How do the magnetic

How do the magnetic polarities get translated?
Are they coded?

David Killens's picture
@J N Vanderbilt III

@J N Vanderbilt III

"How do the magnetic polarities get translated?
Are they coded?"

Day 1 I asked you to define "code". Since you did not, I use my definition.

The magnetic signatures are imprinted into the rock as it cools, similar to data input.
The code is that there is data that can be extracted using specialized tools and training.

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
You are minimizing what coded

You are minimizing what coded information is. According to you, a rock or anything else would be considered information. What you fail to grasp is that coded information (nucleotides) are highly ordered sequences that contain assemblage
instructions for a final product (functional proteins) . Can you demonstrate this with a rock?

Nyarlathotep's picture
J N Vanderbilt III -

J N Vanderbilt III - According to you, a rock or anything else would be considered information.

All objects are information, even rocks.

David Killens's picture
I shall not, because only now

I shall not, because only now you are finally offering a vague description of "code". Since you did not, I am using my own definition, which is "information imprinted onto a medium that requires special tools or knowledge to extract".

By injecting a definition at this late phase you are altering a debate where you can roll back anyone's argument by changing the rules. Sorry, too late, I do not cater to such dishonest practices.

Tin-Man's picture
@JNV Re: Codes

@JNV Re: Codes

Just out of curiosity, are you really not understanding what David and Nyar are telling you, or are you just being deliberately difficult? C'mon, man! Dang, even my rusted brain with blown fuses and stripped gears can follow what they are telling you. It really ain't all that complicated.

Sheldon's picture
So forgetting your misnomer

So forgetting your misnomer about codes for a moment. You seem to be implying that complexity infers design, is that what you believe?

David Killens's picture
I am sure anyone who owns a

I am sure anyone who owns a dog knows that they stop and smell everything. Dog urine can also be considered a code since it carries information that is extracted by another dog that smells that urine.

I can't read the code, when I sniff dog urine I can't tell if it is an immature female or a dominant male.

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.