Has nature ever created a code?

744 posts / 0 new
Last post
Randomhero1982's picture
I can't get the image out of

I can't get the image out of my head of you sniffing dog urine and the avatar is the aftermath with the owner. Lol

Nevertheless, brilliantly put.

David Killens's picture
I owe it all to my dog with

I owe it all to my dog with the cold wet nose.

Tin-Man's picture
@Random and David Re:

@Random and David Re: Sniffing dog urine

STOP!!!... You guys are killing me!!!..... Bwaaaaa-haaaaa-haaaaa-haaaa...!!!

Cognostic's picture
8fn 4f k85j5 75k jf cfe7

8fn 4f k85j5 75k jf cfe7 5m5n 16k5i k85 nfi4 3f54 81j 255e 2c51icp 945ek9g954?

Sheldon's picture
Talking of codes.

Talking of codes.

Did you know there are 10 kinds of people in the world?

Those who understand binary code, and those that don't.

Tin-Man's picture
@Sheldon Re: 10 kinds of

@Sheldon Re: 10 kinds of people

Now THAT was cool. *chuckle*

Cognostic's picture
What did he say?

What did he say?

Tin-Man's picture
@Cog Re: "What did he say?"

@Cog Re: "What did he say?"

LMAO.... Well, apparently you are one of those who don't.... *still laughing*....

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
In communications and

In communications and information processing, code is a system of rules to convert information—such as a letter, word, sound, image, or gesture—into another form or representation, sometimes shortened or secret, for communication through a communication channel or storage in a storage medium.

DNA Fits this definition

Nyarlathotep's picture
J N Vanderbilt III - ...code

J N Vanderbilt III - ...code is a system of rules to convert information...into another form or representation...

It seems you want to have your cake and eat it too. If you use a narrow definition of code, DNA won't qualify for the reasons many people have cited above. If you use a wide definition, all kind of stuff (like rocks) will qualify. Both cases ruin your original argument.

This seems to leave you the option of trying to thread the needle, by making a consistent definition that admits DNA but rejects rocks. I don't think that is possible; and even if you are successful, it will reek of special pleading: it isn't going to convince anyone who doesn't already believe in god.

David Killens's picture
@J N Vanderbilt III

@J N Vanderbilt III

In your original post the sole definition you offered was "a code". I even requested a definition of "code". And only now do you come up with any kind of definition. IMO you are changing the rules to favor your argument. I do not consider this as honest.

Oh, and by the way, RNA still fits within your new definition, and it definitely is not DNA.

And even then, rocks can still fall within your definition. The data in DNA can be expressed as C, G, A, or T. In a rock it can be N or S.

Nyarlathotep's picture
It's even worse. A rock in

It's even worse. A rock in flight contains the information of whether or not it will strike a target. That information is in the form of it's position and moment; which we can then use kinematics/dynamics to "decode it" to see if it will strike a target. If DNA is a code, then everything is a code; making the word totally meaningless.

Sheldon's picture
How does this evidence design

How does this evidence design?

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
Oh and dna transcription even

Oh and dna transcription even comes w error correction. Still waiting for an example of nature creating a code

Sheldon's picture
" dna transcription even

" dna transcription even comes w error correction. Still waiting for an example of nature creating a code"

Well according to you DNA is a code, so you've already given one? Unless of course you have evidence it isn't natural?

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
But can you give an example.

But can you give an example. ??
Since we know codes that provide instructions when decoded ONLY come from intelligence, then DNA has mostl likely emanated from intelligence.

LogicFTW's picture
@J N Vanderbilt III

@J N Vanderbilt III

You are trying so hard, you are like the little engine that could story. Except, unfortunately, the track ended before the "hill" even started, the wheels have fallen off, and the "fuel" is popcorn instead of what is needed.

To any outside observer that actually studies reality, code, dna and not trying to rationalize their particular "god idea" can easily see that your attempted argument for god existing because of "outside intelligence is the only thing that explains dna" can be best described as trying to fit an elephant into a round half inch pipe. Sure after enough ridiculous effort you could get the elephant to fit, but do you even have an elephant anymore fitting in that pipe?

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          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.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

David Killens's picture
@J N Vanderbilt III

@J N Vanderbilt III

"Since we know codes that provide instructions when decoded ONLY come from intelligence, then DNA has mostl likely emanated from intelligence."

Unfortunately this is the crux of your argument, and it is full of holes. We cannot assert with 100% confidence that coding comes only from intelligence. Many have offered many examples of coding. Based on the method in how you are now offering definitions that are eliminating other possibilities, you are like the snake eating it's tail, and your circular argument is now ...

"Only code that comes from intelligence most likely comes from intelligence."

You are now just eliminating any "code" that does not support your position.

Sheldon's picture
YOU "Still waiting for an

YOU "Still waiting for an example of nature creating a code"

ME "Well according to you DNA is a code, so you've already given one? "

YOU "But can you give an example. ??"

I'll try again then *you claimed DNA is a code, so that would be an example of nature producing a code if you believe your own claim.

Sheldon's picture
"A computer code is a set of

"A computer code is a set of numerical values sufficient and necessary to the production of an end state from an initial state.

DNA is necessary but not sufficient to the production of an end state from an initial state.

To claim that computer code and DNA are both codes is an abuse of the power of words. It is decidedly not scientific."

https://www.science20.com/chatter_box/dna_when_code_not_code

That was in response to a creationist book making the same claim J N Vanderbilt III is making.

However I have simple question for him, if you are correct why doesn't current scientific thinking agree? Only if it does, everyone seems to have missed it, barring a few creationists that is.

Sapporo's picture
@J N Vanderbilt III keeps

@J N Vanderbilt III keeps going on about DNA transcription having error correction, but the truth is, if it was 100% successful, there'd only be one species at most around today. It is only because of mutations in the DNA that we have ended up with the varieties of life we have today, rather than because of some intelligent designer.

David Killens's picture
Although there is a form of

Although there is a form of error correcting in DNA replication, it is obviously imperfect. I also wonder why he harps on this subject because anyone exposed to cancer knows full well that cancer is cells gone wild, that the DNA error correcting failed.

Very early in the history of life a few characteristics had to be quickly adopted, many that still carry on to this day. One good example is the ability for the animal to heal itself. If you cannot heal yourself, you do not live long, not long enough to propagate.

Algebe's picture
@J N Vanderbilt III: Still

@J N Vanderbilt III: Still waiting for an example of nature creating a code

Human language.

That's a coding system created through the natural processes of evolution. It is the result of changes in our brains and throats, and the development of our instincts as social animals.

Language is a natural process. We encode information in our brains and decode it again via our speech mechanisms (larynx, tongue, lips, teeth, etc.) or writing. We obtain language input through our sensory organs and encode again in our brains.

If any of the natural physical elements involved are damaged, such as through a stroke, brain injury, or throat cancer, we lose that capacity. For example, a deaf infant will have serious language learning problems.

David Killens's picture
"In communications and

"In communications and information processing, code is a system of rules to convert information—such as a letter, word, sound, image, or gesture—into another form or representation, sometimes shortened or secret, for communication through a communication channel or storage in a storage medium."

White rhino poop.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ2ebYNtFUA

David Killens's picture
And no, I do not intend to do

And no, I do not intend to do any white rhino poop sniffing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsgP5DouB2M

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
What a wonderful thread,

What a wonderful thread,

'I've found a code in nature, it must be from god! I bet you can't find a code in nature.'

Umm.. yeah, funnily enough.. the same one.

The only difference is, I don't think it was poofed into existence by a magical bearded wizard.

But for the recorded, you are poorly using the terminology for code as i'm sure everyone has mentioned.

Senta Christine's picture
There is no one in the world

There is no one in the world who believes in a magical bearded wizard. We believe in higher intelligence. And you do think it magically poofed into existence because you deny higher intelligence than mere humans even exists.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Senta

@ Senta

"There is no one in the world who believes in a magical bearded wizard.

Another sweeping unevidenced generality. I know several people who believe in a physical, male, bearded god, in fact I would hazard a guess there are millions of them. There are also conventions where many people gather who, on questioning tell you that Gandalf is real....
as I said before Please stop with the stupid, my wall has dents now.

Senta Christine's picture
I would need actual proof

I would need actual proof that there is anyone who believes that. There are definitely not millions of them, No one even thinks God is male besides maybe some Christians who believe Jesus is God.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Senta Christine - No one even

Senta Christine - No one even thinks God is male.

Senta Christine - God is not male, not even according to Christians or Jews or Muslims. "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."

Troll, imo.

/e Oh I see you have gone back and edited your comment to remove your contradiction. Are you going to go back and edit it everywhere else you said it?

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.