Creation vs. Evolution

[MikeFerrara]

And what, pray tell, would be the "other ingredient". Life is simply complex chemistry, chemistry is a product of the physical laws of the universe. In the lab we can interfere with lifes chemistry, and the results of that are exactly what the laws of chemistry dictate. Individual components of living organisms can be isolated, purified, and their chemical functions monitored. There is even a new science called "systems biology" wherein the chemistry is modeled via computer, and amazingly, not only can this accurately reproduce many of life's functions, but it has actually lead to the discovery of new chemical processes.

The only significant difference between life and other complex chemical systems is the presence of heredity - and heredity is a direct product of the very chemistry life is based on.

Bryan

ok, so take a few shovels full of whatever stuff you want and bring it to life. A single cell would be impressive but it would be really great if we could bring your creation into the conversation and get it's perspective on all this.

 

[Soggy]

I think we really do need a watch maker to end up with a watch.

You "think" so, despite the overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary.

You are thinking of one watch worth of parts being thrown into the air. Consider that it's really billions and billions of watches worth of parts being thrown into the air over billions of years. You still don't think that one of those parts might end up putting the pin in the hole?

A watch is nothing more than the sum of its parts. Neither are we. We are physics and chemistry in action evolved by partially by chance mutation and by survivability.

Read the book, The Blind Watchmaker with an open mind. If you still believe that evolution didn't happen afterwards at least you are informed. It's really a good read and, despite Dawkins' reputation, he is quite non-confrontational in the book.

 

[Soggy]

ok, so take a few shovels full of whatever stuff you want and bring it to life. A single cell would be impressive but it would be really great if we could bring your creation into the conversation and get it's perspective on all this.

Do you have 14 billion years to spare? That's about how long it took (at least on this planet). What you aren't understanding is the time frame and quantity of mass and chemical interactions. It's not a "shovel full", it's trillions of tons of matter all over the planet. It only has to happen 'right' a few times in one place to get things kick started.

 

[Thalassamania]

It is a simple concept but...after 17 years of engineering experience in various manufacturing related areas, my money says you can't throw a bunch of watch parts up in the air or put them in a bag and shake them and end up with a watch, regardless of how many billions of years you allow for the process. The simple reason is that there are aspects of the assembly process not accounted for by a list of parts.

A watch is too complicated. Lets take something easier. Take a piece of metal (any metal) and put a hole in it. Take another and make a pin out of it. Size the pin for a press fit into the hole. Now put the two pieces in a bag and shake it or throw them into the air for 5, 10 or 20 billion years and see if a pin ever gets pressed into the hole. Put a bunch of those parts in a bag and shake it. I bet they abrade to dust before any pins get pressed into any holes.

I think we really do need a watch maker to end up with a watch.

What you're missing is the concept of infinity. If you put an infinite number of parts into an infinite number of bags, one of those bags will become a watch with the first shake, but we're permitting an infinite number of shakes.

 

[MikeFerrara]

You "think" so, despite the overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary.

You are thinking of one watch worth of parts being thrown into the air. Consider that it's really billions and billions of watches worth of parts being thrown into the air over billions of years. You still don't think that one of those parts might end up putting the pin in the hole?

A watch is nothing more than the sum of its parts. Neither are we. We are physics and chemistry in action evolved by partially by chance mutation and by survivability.

That's just it. The "creation" of a watch absolutely does involve more than the sum of the parts and time and chance alone aren't going to explain the process...no matter how much time we give it.

Read the book, The Blind Watchmaker with an open mind. If you still believe that evolution didn't happen afterwards at least you are informed. It's really a good read and, despite Dawkins' reputation, he is quite non-confrontational in the book.

No. I'm not thinking of one watch worth of parts. Take as many as you want and shake them up in a bag and let me know when you have a working watch. Heck, take a whole watch factory with all the tools and shake it all up. Let me know when the watch is running.

We don't need Dawkins to discuss watch making. Has he ever even made one? Forget all that complicated stuff like the origin of the universe or life. We don't even know how that all works. Lets focus on things like watches that we do completely understand and can create. We can go to the earth for the raw materials and make a watch or a car or a nuclear reactor or a childs yo-yo out of those raw materials. We do it every day. If time and chance can accomplish the same thing, it should be a simple matter to demonstrate it.

 

[MikeFerrara]

What you're missing is the concept of infinity. If you put an infinite number of parts into an infinite number of bags, one of those bags will become a watch with the first shake, but we're permitting an infinite number of shakes.

First of all we're not dealing with infinity. We're dealing with a finite amount of time and a finite number of parts.

What you may be missing is the fact that to press that pin into the hole requires an adequate amount of force. We didn't put anything in that bag capable of applying and directing that force. Time and shakes won't do it no matter how much time, how many shakes or how many parts.

Of course if we do the shaking at sufficient acceleration to bang those parts together with sufficient force to drive a pin into a hole we might have a chance but I just added that. ok, so we tailored the shake so that it would have a chance to get a pin press fit into a hole but we're still a long way from a watch. I wonder how many more "design" changes we'll have to make to our shake process before a watch is possible.

 

[Soggy]

If time and chance can accomplish the same thing, it should be a simple matter to demonstrate it.

Well, the difference between inanimate objects and life is that there is no selection. Meaning, 'functional' pieces don't have any survival benefit over non functional pieces. In the case of self-replicating molecules, only those that work and have a survival advantage will replicate. That we can (and have) reproduced in a lab, over and over and over again, decades ago.

As far as the watch analogy, you and I don't have the billions of years it might require nor the billions of pieces of raw material, but there is nothing special about a watch that makes it more than the sum of its parts. And, regardless of the truth of the watch analogy, the fact is that evolution indisputably happened. That's a fact.

 

[Soggy]

What you may be missing is the fact that to press that pin into the hole requires an adequate amount of force. We didn't put anything in that bag capable of applying and directing that force. Time and shakes won't do it no matter how much time, how many shakes or how many parts.

You don't think that if the pin found the hole, one iteration might land on the pin with sufficient force to drive it into the hole? I sure do.

Of course if we do the shaking at sufficient acceleration to bang those parts together with sufficient force to drive a pin into a hole we might have a chance but I just added that. ok, so we tailored the shake so that it would have a chance to get a pin press fit into a hole but we're still a long way from a watch. I wonder how many more "design" changes we'll have to make to our shake process before a watch is possible.

You say you added it, but it might have just been a feature of the environment the parts were being shaken in. You are providing design where there is none. Sure you could *intentionally* add this to the experiment, but it is not necessary that there be intention for that force to be prevalent.

This is the whole basis of the book.

Read it, and when you better understand what's going on, then we can talk again.

Let me ask you this.

Do you believe that a wolf can evolve into a dog? Or that a big dog can evolve into a small dog?

 

[Thalassamania]

First of all we're not dealing with infinity. We're dealing with a finite amount of time and a finite number of parts.

What you may be missing is the fact that to press that pin into the hole requires an adequate amount of force. We didn't put anything in that bag capable of applying and directing that force. Time and shakes won't do it no matter how much time, how many shakes or how many parts.

Of course if we do the shaking at sufficient acceleration to bang those parts together with sufficient force to drive a pin into a hole we might have a chance but I just added that. ok, so we tailored the shake so that it would have a chance to get a pin press fit into a hole but we're still a long way from a watch. I wonder how many more "design" changes we'll have to make to our shake process before a watch is possible.

It's an analogy, you know, like most of the bible.

 

[MikeFerrara]

As far as the watch analogy, you and I don't have the billions of years it might require nor the billions of pieces of raw material, but there is nothing special about a watch that makes it the sum of more than its parts.

What's special about the watch (or lots of other gismos that we could use) is the assembly process and tooling. I tried to use an example that would be clear and simple. The press fit pin. Without sufficient force applied to the pin, it just can't go in the hole no matter how long you wait. It's just physics. The force needed to drive the pin into the hole is necessary but doesn't show up in the list of parts. Time doesn't eliminate the need for sufficient force. We started without putting a source for the force into the bag. Hey, I made a rhyme! Anyway, we don't need millions of parts or millions of years to show that it's physically impossible to get that pin into the hole without sufficient force.

It's been lots of years since I took apart a mechanical watch. I don't even remember when I last saw one but I do remember opening one up as a kid and having the spring fly out sending watch parts sailing across the room. To get the thing back together, you have to coil up the spring, get it in just right and hold it in place while you get the other stuff in. I don't think shaking or throwing it in the air will do it...ever. Infinite number of parts, throws, no matter, it just isn't going to happen.