(March 12, 2016 at 2:45 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(March 11, 2016 at 7:41 pm)AJW333 Wrote: How about the fact that that random = disordered and code = ordered. A random code is an oxymoron. Can you show me a scientific proof that codes form through random activity?
So, the more I think about this, the more I find new ways that your argument here is horrible: the DNA that you see in extant organisms today is not exactly random. There is a non-random filter applied strictly to every iteration of DNA in the form of the environment. Mutations are random, but natural selection is not: every organism enters into an environment, and that environment applies its conditions to the organism in a non-random fashion. Those that survive this process, the ones that you have to investigate, are the ones that are ordered and functional enough to exist in the world. There are countless examples of less functional "codes" that either died very quickly, were stillborn, or just plain not viable as a pregnancy.
What you see as a code is not delivered randomly, it's the result of millions of years and potentially trillions of iterations, with the non-functional and failed instances of it filtered out. You're only seeing the successes: it's like firing at a wall at random, painting bullseyes around your bullet holes, and then claiming that the shots could not have been random because they all hit the bullseye!
My comment regarding "random code" is directed to the origin of DNA. What I'm saying is that codes do not naturally form through random activity, especially self-repairing, self-replicating ones that control complex processes such as protein formation.