{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/1/2015 9:37:28 PM
475
Evolution is often called a "mechanism" of nature (that's how I was told in school anyways). So let's compare it to a mechanical watch. Just for fun. Take a mechanical watch apart, put all its pieces in a box, and shake that box. No matter how long or how many tines you shake that box, the watch will never come out put together and functioning properly. Is there a chance? Sure, as the basic principle of probability is that there is [i]always[/i] a chance. But the chances are so small that its basically impossible. Same with evolution. Is there a chance? Sure. There's also technically a chance I'll grow wings in 10 seconds and fly away. But the chances are so small that its basically impossible.
Just a thought.
English
-
Because you seem to think the watch analogy actually makes sense.
-
Where does it not
-
I've already explained why this is a terrible analogy for evolution, but I'll do it again because you seem a bit slow. 1) There's only one combination of parts that will make a functioning watch. There are hundreds of trillions of combinations to make functioning organisms. 2) Evolution doesn't have the most complex organisms simply coming into existence, as in the watch analogy. Evolution describes how simple organisms grew into more complex organisms. 3) Evolution isn't entirely random. Shaking the watch pieces is completely random. Evolution has random components such as mutation and genetic drift, but natural selection, the most important factor, is anything but random. If you think the watch analogy makes any sense at all in regards to evolution, you clearly don't understand the subject. I'm guessing this is the case, because you have yet to respond using any logic or science, even bad logic or science. You just keep dodging all my points. In your next reply, please make it clear that you both read and understood my explanations, and give logical arguments of your own.
-
Ok I see how it is a poor analogy for evolution it would have better been used in response to the creation of life
-
A bit better, but still not perfect. Besides, science doesn't have a clear answer as to the origin of life. Evolution describes how existing life changed over time.
-
Hmm at least your not as bad as purse
-
but it's not a good analogy, it's highly flawed and a terrible "answer" it only further proves the point that you don't know what you're talking about.
-
After reading your replies I can see that you believe that evolution should be able to explain why there are still monkeys if we evolved from them, when it needs to do nothing of the sort. Evolution doesn't say we evolved from monkeys, it says we have a common ancestor. Also, natural selection is not for getting rid of mutations. Natural Selection is the process by which something more adapted to its environment will survive to reproduce than something else, if a mutation allows them to survive better, it will be more likely to reproduce.
-
This... This doesn't work... Evolution has an ordered process which reduces the odds of randomness while your watch analogy has exponentially lower odds due to no logical processes being present to mitigate the ratio
-
Evolution is orderly?
-
The odds of that are smaller than the odds of the watch being assembled.
-
423 comments! Congratz
-
[quote]423 comments! Congratz[/quote]
-
Wow. That's way too much for a video game forum.
-
[quote]video game forum[/quote] This is #Offtopic. You just lost the game.
-
I just want to point out again that these two sentence are in direct conflict with each other. " No matter how long or how many tines you shake that box, the watch will never come out put together and functioning properly. Is there a chance? Sure, " Your entire point revolves around this mistake, and it renders your whole argument unsound. You can't state something is impossible, and then point out it is possible in the next sentence if you want us to take you seriously.
-
Well you clearly missed the point. I didn't say the word impossible, because its not impossible. The chances are just so astronomically low that it won't matter how much you shake the box. Say there are 50 parts in the watch (which is a simple watch BTW). That means each part has a 1/50 chance of fitting back where it needs to (for simplicity's sake). According to probability, each pieces chances must be multiplied with the other ones. So, 1/50 * 1/50 *1/50...... And so on eventually get you the odds of 1.1258999e-85, which is 1.1258999 preceded by 85 zeros. Is it technically possible? Sure. Technically anything is possible. Is it [i]actually[/i] possible? No.
-
I didn't say the word impossible, because its not impossible [quote]No matter how long or how many tines you shake that box,[u] the watch will never come out put together and functioning properly[/u]. [/quote]um... "never" is pretty clear...
-
So do you think that God is possible?
-
how did you get that from what i said?
-
If it is technically possible, it is possible. That's pretty basic stuff.
-
Possible and realistically feasible are two different things is the point he was trying to make, I believe.
-
Only when you take into account how many chances you get to repeat it. If you conduct the watch experiment enough times it will happen eventually.
-
But the most likely outcome is that anyone who cared enough to continue the experiment would have died out before it generated the particular outcome. Moving back into the topic of evolution, the idea is that it would be highly unlikely that those conditions would be satisfied before the heat death of the universe or what not. That isn't necessarily what I believe, just trying to shed some light on his original statement.
-
Without knowing the actual chance of evolution occuring, their stance is just speculation. I don't think they understand the amount of times living things have reproduced. It would be such a massive number we couldn't write it down, and it would need to be a part of the calculation.
