Don't assume I have...

t0neg0d · Jul 19, 2008

Don't assume I have some hidden agenda behind this... I am just curious.

The other day, my family and I went to the beach. While walking down the shore, I happened upon a watch. I picked it up and look at it; it was still working. I looked at the face, it had Timex written across it. I got curious about how it worked, so when I got home I opened it up and started looking through all the gears and springs. Pretty flippin' cool!

Then it occurred to me, exactly how amazing the watch was--it had randomly taken form the from the sands on the beach. Each gear and spring formed by itself out of random chance. And then, those gears and spring came together to form a working time piece--all by chance.

So, my question is this: Would you believe me if I told you that this is how the watch had come to be? By random chance? And if you wouldn't believe me, how can someone believe that a cat or dog or horse or plant or etc, etc came into being the same way. A person is infinitely more complex than a watch. A person is not only infinitely more complex, it is self-repairing.

Help me understand this! It's always confused me...

Marian Perera · Jul 19, 2008

t0neg0d said:
Don't assume I have some hidden agenda behind this

Not the first time I've come across this analogy, but OK.

So, my question is this: Would you believe me if I told you that this is how the watch had come to be? By random chance? And if you wouldn't believe me, how can someone believe that a cat or dog or horse or plant or etc, etc came into being the same way.

No one believes that evolution happened only through random chance, so that's where the argument falls flat. Natural selection is not the same as random chance. There are other problems with the analogy, and if you go to Google and put in "Paley" (this is the guy who found a watch on the beach before you did) and "watchmaker", you'll be able to read more about them.

I really should go to the beach more, by the way. Maybe I could find a Rolex.

HeronW · Jul 19, 2008

>Then it occurred to me, exactly how amazing the watch was--it had randomly taken form the from the sands on the beach. Each gear and spring formed by itself out of random chance. And then, those gears and spring came together to form a working time piece--all by chance.

Not really 'by chance': glass is melted from sand to form the face, this is done by a person. Others make the gears etc and a 3rd puts them together inside a case that held off the water and the sand for the short period of time until you found it.

The chance or randomness or free will is a multiple factor of: the person who bought the watch, the one who wore it, the carelessness of losing it though that can also depend on the band breaking which goes back to a 3rd mfgr, or the person wearing it dropped it intentionally because of some dislike of the object based on emotion or a physical flaw.

Then you were the one who picked it up after seeing it, or you could have not seen it, or have walked by after seeing it and not picked it up, picked it up and tossed it aside again, any number of options.

A large 'chance' is actually thousands or more factors of free will.

zornhau · Jul 19, 2008

t0neg0d said:
Help me understand this! It's always confused me...

There's two factors here: stickiness and scale.

Only some mutations stick.

Think of it this way; there are only so many ways to assemble the watch. Each piece can only actually fit in one way.

So, imagine you tried to assemble it randomly - took one cog and drew pieces out of a sack until your found one that fitted. Then you repeated the process for each stage of the assembly.

It would take a long time, but eventually you'd have a fully working watch.

In the same way, only some mutations fit the mutant's environment. The others - if they have any effect - just reduce its lifespan or make it harder for it to mate.

And that leads us onto scale. You have, e.g., millions of fish over millions of years. One of them is bound to have mutated fins that just happen to help it get further up the beach where it can glut on unsuspecting insects, thus increasing its chance at breeding and propagating the mutation.

So, this is merely natural selection over almost mind blowing periods of time involving awesome numbers of creatures.

t0neg0d · Jul 19, 2008

Queen of Swords said:
Not the first time I've come across this analogy, but OK.

No one believes that evolution happened only through random chance, so that's where the argument falls flat. Natural selection is not the same as random chance. There are other problems with the analogy, and if you go to Google and put in "Paley" (this is the guy who found a watch on the beach before you did) and "watchmaker", you'll be able to read more about them.

I really should go to the beach more, by the way. Maybe I could find a Rolex.

Definition of an amino acid:

In chemistry, an amino acid is a molecule containing both amine and carboxyl functional groups. In biochemistry, this term refers to alpha-amino acids with the general formula H2NCHRCOOH, where R is an organic substituent.

Amino acids are the basics of a protein, and proteins are the foundation for all life. This has to happen (form, become) before there is life, so natural selection has nothing to do with my question. The elements that make up an amino acid had to have randomly come together into a usable form for anything else to happen.

My question is stated above. I am not looking for an argument, I am looking for an answer to help me understand. Natural selection avoids the question, does not answer it. I have heard the analogy before as well... but I have never heard the response to the analogy, so I ask here.

t0neg0d · Jul 19, 2008

zornhau said:
So, imagine you tried to assemble it randomly - took one cog and drew pieces out of a sack until you found one that fitted. Then you repeated the process for each stage of the assembly.

What I can't help but see here is this: Someone was there to try and piece it together until it worked. Who was there? Why use an analogy that involves a creator to disprove a creator?

t0neg0d · Jul 19, 2008

HeronW said:
>Then it occurred to me, exactly how amazing the watch was--it had randomly taken form the from the sands on the beach. Each gear and spring formed by itself out of random chance. And then, those gears and spring came together to form a working time piece--all by chance.

Not really 'by chance': glass is melted from sand to form the face, this is done by a person. Others make the gears etc and a 3rd puts them together inside a case that held off the water and the sand for the short period of time until you found it.

The chance or randomness or free will is a multiple factor of: the person who bought the watch, the one who wore it, the carelessness of losing it though that can also depend on the band breaking which goes back to a 3rd mfgr, or the person wearing it dropped it intentionally because of some dislike of the object based on emotion or a physical flaw.

Then you were the one who picked it up after seeing it, or you could have not seen it, or have walked by after seeing it and not picked it up, picked it up and tossed it aside again, any number of options.

A large 'chance' is actually thousands or more factors of free will.

So your telling me that it is ridiculous to believe that the watch could have formed by itself? That I am a fool to believe it wasn't created?

Not slighting you for this, just what I get from it. Am I wrong in what I see here?

zornhau · Jul 19, 2008

t0neg0d said:
Definition of an amino acid:
The elements that make up an amino acid had to have randomly come together into a usable form for anything else to happen.

Yes they do. But they only have to do it once in the entire history of the entire cosmos.

zornhau · Jul 19, 2008

t0neg0d said:
What I can't help but see here is this: Someone was there to try and piece it together until it worked. Who was there? Why use an analogy that involves a creator to disprove a creator?

I'm not, the experimentor is standing for "the environment".

t0neg0d · Jul 19, 2008

zornhau said:
I'm not, the experimentor is standing for "the environment".

An expirimentor has the ability to reason and change his/her choices based on prior attempts. Learn from his/her mistakes. The environment does not. Therefor, the environment would continue to make the same mistake over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over (I think you get the idea). So, it is random luck not natural selection?

t0neg0d · Jul 19, 2008

zornhau said:
Yes they do. But they only have to do it once in the entire history of the entire cosmos.

This is not true. It takes thousands of amino acids to create a usable segment of DNA. Amino Acids are not self-propagating. It would have had to have happened thousands upon thousands of times. And since this is fact, we should be able to reproduce this in a controlled environment. This is not taking into consideration the random factor of the amino acids forming properly to create a segment of DNA.

oscuridad · Jul 19, 2008

t0neg0d said:
Don't assume I have some hidden agenda behind this...

no assumption required.

Here is an answer - it is possible that the watch could come together randomly, but it is highly improbable. Probabilities are the answer here, I think.

t0neg0d · Jul 19, 2008

oscuridad said:
no assumption required.

Here is an answer - it is possible that the watch could come together randomly, but it is highly improbable. Probabilities are the answer here, I think.

I could not agree more and I guess that is what makes me ask the initial question.

1. There is so much involved in creating/randomly forming the basic building-blocks of life that the probability of this happening without intelligent design is so small that it becomes staggering to even think about.

2. It seems to me that believing in randomness over intelligent design would take a greater leap of faith.

Yes? No? And why/why not?

t0neg0d · Jul 19, 2008

Just for the sake of conversation, I thought I would post a simple definition of DNA. Wow, just think about the complexities... simply amazing:

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and some viruses. The main role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage of information. DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints or a recipe, since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules. The DNA segments that carry this genetic information are called genes, but other DNA sequences have structural purposes, or are involved in regulating the use of this genetic information.

Chemically, DNA consists of two long polymers of simple units called nucleotides, with backbones made of sugars and phosphate groups joined by ester bonds. These two strands run in opposite directions to each other and are therefore anti-parallel. Attached to each sugar is one of four types of molecules called bases. It is the sequence of these four bases along the backbone that encodes information. This information is read using the genetic code, which specifies the sequence of the amino acids within proteins. The code is read by copying stretches of DNA into the related nucleic acid RNA, in a process called transcription.

Within cells, DNA is organized into structures called chromosomes. These chromosomes are duplicated before cells divide, in a process called DNA replication. Eukaryotic organisms (animals, plants, and fungi) store their DNA inside the cell nucleus, while in prokaryotes (bacteria and archae) it is found in the cell's cytoplasm. Within the chromosomes, chromatin proteins such as histones compact and organize DNA. These compact structures guide the interactions between DNA and other proteins, helping control which parts of the DNA are transcribed.

Thinking that this could happen by chance, is like thinking an operating system could have programmed its self (in my opinion). DNA is a set of instructions... instructions! It takes intelligence to instruct, doesn't it?

Wow, just an amazing thing. Why does the idea of a watch forming by itself sound so silly, when we take something like DNA for granted?

veinglory · Jul 19, 2008

Hi guys, if the original poster wants to continue this thread in another appropriate forum of their choice they can drop me a PM and I will be happy to move and reopen it. I will be posting a new forum sticky to clarify my reasons, and open them for discussion, soon.

Don't assume I have...

t0neg0d

Marian Perera

starting over

HeronW

Down Under Fan

zornhau

Swordsman

t0neg0d

t0neg0d

t0neg0d

zornhau

Swordsman

zornhau

Swordsman

t0neg0d

t0neg0d

oscuridad

t0neg0d

t0neg0d

veinglory

volitare nequeo