Has nature ever created a code?
Donating = Loving
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.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
I’m still wondering did both eyes appear simultaneously or did just part of one eye appear that bestowed some advantage? Gee even if it did, what are the chances another eye would show up at all? And in just the right spot??
I can’t stop laughing that you would buy into this
It’s enough to stop evolution in its tracks
@ J N Vanderbilt III
Then please astound with your OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.
I'll still be here when you get it together.
I imagine a moth having two eyespots would be more advantageous than having one.
But as has been said, "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read."
You're not wondering anything, you are typically closed minded, as all creationists are. If you were interested you would have followed the many links to scientific explanations people have offered. Again it's scientific facts you're denying, not atheism or atheists.
"I can’t stop laughing that you would buy into this..."
Laugh all you want, laughing at objectively evidenced scientific facts doesn't change them. Though the irony you'd believe completely unevidenced bronze age creation myths about magic apples and talking snakes is as palpable as ever.
Do a little less laughing and a little more reading would be my advice, but sadly you are only interested in blind belief in myths and fantasies, and blind denials of objective scientific facts.
Sapporo, judging from your extremely tepid response, it seems to be palpable that the ridiculousness of the probability of the moth eyes debacle is finding a home in your brain
You still haven't presented any evidence that your position is correct. I therefore have no reason to change my mind.
You're claiming it's more probably that moth was zapped into existence by an unevidenced deity, using magic, based on bronze age superstition, than by an objectively evidenced and observed scientific fact of species evolution?
As I said you don't understand what probability means, let alone how it functions. Here's a clue creationism has no more evidence to support it than Zeus, evolution is supported by all the scientific evidence, which is why it is supported by the entire scientific world, barring a few creatards.
All medical research is based on the fact of species evolution for a start. Indeed R & D in major American pharmaceutical companies is being hampered by the creationists attempts to ruin children's education with their creationist myths, the companies are lamenting the fact they cannot properly recruit enough personnel because of it. As a result the concern is that America is already starting to loose ground to other developed countries in this field of research.
Next time someone claims religious beliefs are innocuous they might bear that in mind. I mean look how thoroughly this teenage boys education has been ruined. It's very sad really.
Just the statement of my position should give any reasoning person serious pause, of which you are not one I suspect
Are you not curious which false eye mutated into existence first and how it ended up with two?
You act as though you are curious, but it is clear that you have not read any scientific research on the subject.
I find it rather disingenuous that you inquire into my state of mind on the subject when you have done nothing to satiate your own feigned curiosity. If you are not even interested in the subject, why do you expect others to engage you in discussion?
Here's a video for you. It is pitched at High School Level, so you stand a slight chance of comprehension. Do try and pay more than 30 seconds attention you will learn something iof you actually pay some attention.
There will be a test later so watch it. It explains your immature questions...
"Just the statement of my position should give any reasoning person serious pause,"
Unlike risible bronze age creations myths about talking snakes you mean? You are funny.
Your position is directly opposing a scientific fact, no reasonable person would do anything but laugh at it, and you, as of course we have been so for many weeks.
You've been told again and again that mutations occur at the genetic level, things only morph into existence instantly in your risible religious fantasy in the bible.
Why canot codes come about by them selves in biology and evolution look how humans evoled to make langage a code I sugest you read into the hypothesis surrounding abiogenisis and dna orgins nature makes pattrens look at snow flakes looking desined but are just water crystals nature makes pattrens dna is a pattren made by nature
And like our friend jnv3, you also fail to understand the definition of "code" vs "sequence"
Someone did not read...
J N Vanderbilt III: "Just the statement of my position..."
A statement is NOT evidence.
Sapporo Do you mean the scientific research that says mutations are totally random, oh I know about that so your invoking “scientific research “ is flaccidly impotent in this regard. So did the other eye mutate separately at another time?
snowflakes are just physical patterns dictated by physics, it’s a very tired evolutionist talk point and what’s glaringly false about it is snowflakes hold no information nor do they get translated, have no error correction
He didn't say snowflakes were codes, you really have a very remedial reading comprehension for a teenager.
Hey Sheldon, are you getting jittery about which mutated first, the right owl eye, part of the second owl eye, part of either pupil or the iris formation on the left eye?
My hunch is this shakes up your atheism to its core
Evolution has nothing to do with with my Atheism. You do know what Atheism is?
"Evolution has nothing to do with with my Atheism. You do know what Atheism is?"
No, he clearly does not.
No I am not "getting jittery" about yet another of your creatard misrepresentations of evolution, why on earth would I? You might as well be claiming to be incredulous that the earth is not in the centre of the universe, as your religion of course claimed it was, until someone used the scientific method to objectively falsify this claim.
Now, do you have any objective evidence for a deity yet? Or is it still just an argument from ignorance fallacy?
"My hunch is this shakes up your atheism to its core"
Why on earth would my atheism be shaken by your ignorance of a scientific fact that has nothing at all to do with my atheism? That's truly bizarre, even by your standards.
I am an atheist because there is no objective evidence for any deity, evolution could be falsified tomorrow and deities would remain unevidenced. Can you really be so stupid as to not have grasped this yet?
@J N Vanderbilt III you are just making it clear that you are attacking a strawman, rather than any specific observations. If you could cite the references you dispute, then perhaps we could have a meaningful conversation. As it is, you are only confirming you have not read any scientific literature on the subject.
My questions are clear, and simple, if you are unwilling to take a stab at them, so be it
You have not made it clear which observations you are offering a rebuttal of, by citing your references.
You have only made it clear that you have not read any scientific research on the subject, because you would not be asking the questions you are if you had done so, unless you were disingenuously trying to make your opponents look absurd to a lay person who is ignorant of the subject.
I suggest that if you are unable to access scientific research on your alleged subject of interest that you see if you are able to do so at your local library. They may also have books that cover the subject.
Your question is both clear and simple, but it does not address Sapporo's point.
@ J N Vanderbilt III
Start here: arXiv
Pure science. No Creatard lies.
All macroscopic objects contain huge amounts of information.
Scientific literature does not apply any further than the random mutation effects for this particular discussion. Now i’m just asking for your opinion on which mutated first, the right owl eye, part of the second owl eye, part of either pupil or the iris formation on the left eye. Or did both eyes mutate into existence simultaneously? where do you stand on that?
If you had read the scientific literature, you would know it is possible for symmetrical features to be the result of one mutation. You would also know that there are instances of species with less than two and more than two eyespots. You would also know that there is a full spectrum in apparent complexity of eyespots. If you were genuinely interested in the subject, you may care to read about which genes have been shown to be responsible for such phenomena.
Did you watch the Khan video I linked to you? Was it a bit too hard to take in and understand?
I can find even simpler ones if that was just too much for you.
Apart from the example of the Pepper Moth (coloring changed due to human activity) he specifically addresses the Owl Moth.
Your persistent idiocy about this subject was debunked by the Khan video (the series is worth a watch, it might help you)
So we are know in a position that:
Your OP is completely debunked
We know you cannot correctly use the words "code" and "sequence"; this destroys your argument.
We know you plagiarise nonsensical articles without credit
We know you plagiarise arguments without credit.
We know you lie consistently and use lies of both commission and omission.
We know that you ignore all evidence to the contrary position of your argument, and seem to have comprehension difficulties even at High School Level.
Pretty sad example of a human. Hardly any sign of intelligent design in yourself is there? Tell me what formed first in your case? Intransigence or stupid?