Has nature ever created a code? DNA is a code that gets coded and translated and has error correction. I challenge anyone to point out a code, other then DNA, that is created by nature. The point here is that codes are ONLY created by intelligence.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
DNA is not a code per say, it is not like the words you see in this writing, or binary code.
DNA is an example of complexity in nature based on chemistry which gives the appearance of being intelligently designed.
DNA is extremely complex. To try to say that it is not is foolishness. I feel we should agree on this, so where does ShaMan say it comes from
complexity is certainly in nature because it is intelligently designed. Tell me how DNA formed naturally. I am very interested
"DNA is an example of complexity in nature based on chemistry"
Yes I agree.
"which gives the appearance of being intelligently designed."
No I don't agree, that sounds like a begging the question fallacy to me.
Then why do scientistists always refer to the genetic code as a code with 64 letter alphabet called codons? And what about the second language that code uses that they discovered in 2013 hidden on top of the other code? You think that all came about from nothing? Was it atheist magic perhaps? Higher intelligence than mere humans is glaringly obvious. Do you really think humans are the highest form of intelligence in hundreds of billions of galaxies? https://phys.org/news/2013-12-scientists-genetic-code.html
First off, although your last, you would do well to stay away from phys.org. That is NOT science web site. They are a disiminator of pseudoscience. NOT real science. I am a field scientist (volcanologist) at Yellowstone. I would never trust phys.org to ever print a word of truth.
Now to your questions:
The genetic code has only 4 letters ATCG. I do not know where you are coming up with this 64 letter bullshit. As I said in another post, Nature NEVER creates any code. Man applies the code to provide a framework to better describe how something works. Nature just is.
What second language?
Yep. It is called the "Something from Nothing" phenomenon.
Yep. Us atheists are the greatest magicians aren't we?
Ain't no intelligence higher than that of us atheist magicians and wizards.
You don't trust phys.org huh? What about The University of Washington where it was discovered by scientists? https://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-discover-double-me... It is also on literally hundreds of other edu and science news websites, so I guess you were wrong. Apparently you know nothing about genetics either because DNA consists of four different bases, and because there are three bases in a codon, and because 4 * 4 * 4 = 64, there are 64 possible patterns for a codon. Since there are only 20 possible amino acids, this means that there is some redundancy -- several different codons can encode for the same amino acid. And claiming there is no higher intelligence than mere humans in hundreds of billions of galaxies- and when humans are still striving to understand an already existing and operating universe- well it's totally illogical, but most atheists lack the ability to use any logic.
@Senta Re: "...well it's totally illogical, but most atheists lack the ability to use any logic."
And I stand corrected. However, I shall not change about phys.org. They largely disseminate pseudoscience. Yes, they may link to some science articles, but largely, they are no better than the grocery store news rags.
"And claiming there is no higher intelligence than mere humans in hundreds of billions of galaxies- and when humans are still striving to understand an already existing and operating universe- well it's totally illogical, but most atheists lack the ability to use any logic."
And I see you fell for that hook, line, and sinker. However, prove there is other life out there. Until you can provide irrefutable objective hard empirical evidence that there is life other than here on Earth, Hitchens' Razor.
There probably is life out there, on other worlds. There just might be on Europa and Callisto, for example, and there is good reason to think this would be the case. Some kind of primitive, deep sea ecosystem akin to those at our ocean floor, which exists in close proximity to and dependent of the hydrothermal vents. As for intelligent life and civilisation at the level of human beings or beyond, I'd be a lot more skeptical. The Great Filter is an eerie thing.
The OP cites a code that is created by nature, and then says their point is that codes are only created by intelligence and not by nature.
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.
And yes, DNA is a code because it fits the definition.
"To claim that computer code and DNA are both codes is an abuse of the power of words. It is decidedly not scientific."
Why don't you people read. It takes 10 seconds on google to debunk the claim that DNA is a code.
The natural world is full of 'codes'. Chemical, biological, human behaviour etc. However it might be better to think of the natural world as chemistry based in which different programs (codes) are developed & applied by natural selection.
DNA is not an actual code in the same way the laws of physics are not actually laws. No one created the laws of physics they are just simply the limits of what is physically possible due to the structure of the universe. We humans have only labelled them as laws because they are similar to rules that a government would set out. In the same sense DNA is not really a code. It dosnt contain any intrinsic information. It is a series of similar acids (letters) that react with proteins to carry out a function. It looks like a code because if certain acids (letters) are used a certain function will be carried out. DNA is purley a result of nature. There is no need for divine intervention
DNA is a bunch of acids and proteins that carry out a function in a very specific and intentional way. It even corrects itself with tiny bioeditors that run up and down strands. A code is something that is put together in a specific way to contain meaning and purpose, thus it is a code. If new atheism's best defense against intelligent design, as we were intelligently designed, is to downplay the significance of the complexity of DNA, you're not even worth talking to. The information that makes up the dumbass that posted what I'm responding to is encoded in his DNA, regardless of how he wants to interpret its significance.
I didn't downplay the significance of the complexity of DNA. The fact that I don't believe it was designed actually increses its significance to me. But nevertheless you have not explained why DNA is a code. You have defined DNA as something put together in a specific way to contain meaning and purpose, so in what sense does that apply to DNA. DNA works on chemical reactions. The proteins react to the acid to build a body. The DNA does not have an intrinsic puropse. The same way that if a stone falls due to gravity, gravity does not have a purpose that is to make stones fall. What makes DNA special is that it can make copies of itself when the double helix shape spilts. Then the genes are recreated again in a new body, but spliced with someone ales genes. It still dosn't give DNA any meaning or purpose other than the meaning we can give it. Those tiny bioeditors by the way, are the result of 3,500 million years of natural selection, which not only created DNA but every single living thing that ever existed on earth. I believe that you downplay the significance of evolution by invoking an intelligent designer. And if you think my post was new atheism's best rebuttal to intelligent design then you don't know what new atheism is. If you think this post is getting slightly personal its because I don't appreciate being called a dumbass.
" A code is something that is put together in a specific way to contain meaning and purpose, "
Not even close...
1. a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy.
Also you just assumed that DNA was designed by using the phrase "put together in a certain way"
Evidence that please?
"best defense against intelligent design,"
Defence not defense (sic) and no one needs to defend disbelief in creationism even if creationists are attempting to re-brand it as ID, because there is no objective evidence for it, and all the objective evidence indicates unequivocally that we evolved. Moving the unevidenced belief back to how DNA formed is just a god of the gaps argument, an appeal to ignorance fallacy. Either way DNA is demonstrably not a code.
"DNA is a bunch of acids and proteins that carry out a function in a very specific and intentional way. "
Again this is nonsense unless you can show intent, as that implies a sentient process, can you demonstrate any objective evidence for this claim? Your rhetoric is riddled with begging the question fallacies, and creation and religious apologists always do this in their arguments.
I was going to say something, but you totally nailed it.
I think this comment reveals how ironically delicious the OP is.
One can tell the OP probably didn't think things through nearly thoroughly as one may think things through.
"One can tell the OP probably didn't think things through nearly thoroughly as one may think things through."
That is painfully obvious. I made one of the early posts, and asked the OP to define "code" because I understood that it had to be defined from the very beginning. That did not happen soon enough, and the thread quickly became a quagmire.
But personally I am not as concerned by the OP's lack of foresight but rather the blatant dishonesty.
Please define "code".
DNA is code-like, but basically it is a string of instructions. "Code" infers intent, and based on the random way DNA and mutations work, as well as the simple fact that 99% of all species are extinct, that implies more hit-and-miss than any plan by any intelligence.
RNA was the first molecule of heredity, until DNA showed up. So that little fact also negates any intelligent creation theory. Why would any intelligence smart enough to create DNA first try RNA?
obviously the intent is to form proteins, that is what the code exists for.
What is the intent of puddle-shaped holes, in your view?
Nonsensical comparison. We are conscious intelligent life. Water is not comparable to us and a hole in the ground is not comparable to a planet with an enormous amount of useful materials and resources. And in addition to that comfortable weather patterns and the sun and moon and placement of our planet... And why do we have food for the approx 11.7 million different species of life on this planet? Do you think that was just by sheer luck?
First, welcome to the boards.
Second: many many species and populations have died out when their food source was disrupted.
In addition we are seeing the biggest mass extinction since the dinosaurs right now with mankind's changes to habitat, raping of food sources, and poisons.
Hardly the outcome desired by an 'intelligent designer'.
I disagree. I think the approx 11.7 million different species of life on this planet are what are supposed to be here now. If some mold spores or bugs or plants or animals go extinct, then that is the way it is supposed to be and there is probably a very good reason for it that we are just unaware of.
Sent a, what does “suppose to be” mean?