If the watchmaker analogy is false then why don’t we ever find a watch without a maker? In other words, why is there no example of a machine, with many parts working together efficiently for a specific purpose, which we have witnessed being created spontaneously? This leads me to assume that each organelle in every living cell had to have an intelligent designer.
Oh but I disagree that we do not see “machines with many parts working efficiently for a specific purpose”; we have so many examples of such around us each day we take them for granted as a part of nature.
The difference is that the machines in nature are made out of wood and meat (or similar squishy substances), instead of plastics and metals.
The chemistry necessary for spontaneously replicating molecules to form proteins and nucleotide sequences seems to be favorable to the types of materials we have classified as “organic” given the conditions here on this planet.
Because life appears to be based exclusively on organic chemistry, we need to look at the building blocks to see the flaws in the analogy more clearly.
Cells are self-contained machines of some considerable complexity with no apparent purpose if viewed without the context of a greater organism, or rather they are simply self-reproducing organic machines.
Blurring the line even further—Viruses are simply RNA code encapsulated in a protein sheath. They have no self-fulfilling purpose, and can only be reproduced in the presence of working cells—They are functionless spare parts if you will, that have the appearance of complicity and design.
How is the simple feedback mechanism of photo-receptors in certain cellular organisms different from an analogue circuit in a man-made machine that senses light levels and responds electronically?
It seems that the only remaining foothold of the design argument is that animals and to some degree plants also, have the ability to autonomously react to their immediate environments, and we do not see our simple machines doing so… yet—I can foresee the fields of robotics, artificial intelligence, and neuroscience becoming so inter-related that the line between animal and robot is ambiguous at best, and I can see it happening soon.
If you assume that the watchmaker’s analogy is true, you will only find machines that either have an obvious creator, or that you assume must have an obvious creator.
But someone who doesn’t believe the hypothesis by default can just as easily point to the organelle as evidence. They have evidence. You “assume.”
Go visit any machine shop. You’ll find tools there like lathes and mills which, given a supply of raw materials, can be used to manufacture another machine shop.
And yet… Where did the first lathe and mill come from if all lathes and mills are made using other lathes and mills? Obviously God created the first ones and gifted them to us, because nobody even knows how to make the high-precision slides and rods and threads needed for lathes and mills without lathes and mills to use for tools...
Oh… Wait… The first ones were made with tools other than lathes and mills via processes that we don’t use anymore because they really stink by comparison.
You can see some evidence of this in cellular machinery in places where cells have more than one way to perform some function. What the originals were… We’ll never know for sure without a time machine, there are several possibilities for each. But they all stink compared to what’s become ubiquitous now. But, like with the machine shop, they worked well enough to get the job done and pave the way for something better later.
Note that this doesn’t eliminate the possibility of some intelligent entity watching over the universe and tuning it to get some desired output according to some master plan. It just means that the watchmaker analogy is a bad argument for that. Just like the other common argument that evolution is a decrease in entropy, and therefore a violation of the laws of physics. Stupid, ridiculous arguments that don’t survive more than a cursory examination and, therefore, make all theists look bad via “guilt by association.” Stop it. Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive, and trying to deny that evolution happens as a way to discredit atheism is letting the atheists frame the argument in such a manner that they can’t possibly lose. Not a good strategy. If you’re going to waste time arguing something that neither side is likely to concede on regardless you should at least take pride in being good at it.
If watches reproduced and mutated randomly and were selected for accuracy then they most certainly would build themselves. Microsecond accuracy in just a few weeks, no watchmaker required.
It took as little as 100 generations to get clocks that are accurate to the second (3 handed clock), and depending on the initial conditions sub-second accuracy (4 handed clock) was possible within a few hundred more generations.
It’s pretty interesting, he got a series of “epochs”, like “the age of the pendulum”, where things didn’t change much. Then all of a sudden a random mutation would turn a series of neutral mutations (mutations that aren’t beneficial or harmful, and are therefore not selected for or against) into a beneficial mutation and a new type of clock would dominate almost immediately. The transition periods are so short compared to the stable periods that it really illustrates why we rarely find crazy transition species in nature—they simply weren’t around long enough compared to the stable species.
If the watchmaker analogy is false then why don’t we ever find a watch without a maker? In other words, why is there no example of a machine, with many parts working together efficiently for a specific purpose, which we have witnessed being created spontaneously? This leads me to assume that each organelle in every living cell had to have an intelligent designer.
Have you read a book on evolutionary biology yet?
Oh but I disagree that we do not see “machines with many parts working efficiently for a specific purpose”; we have so many examples of such around us each day we take them for granted as a part of nature.
The difference is that the machines in nature are made out of wood and meat (or similar squishy substances), instead of plastics and metals.
The chemistry necessary for spontaneously replicating molecules to form proteins and nucleotide sequences seems to be favorable to the types of materials we have classified as “organic” given the conditions here on this planet.
Because life appears to be based exclusively on organic chemistry, we need to look at the building blocks to see the flaws in the analogy more clearly.
Cells are self-contained machines of some considerable complexity with no apparent purpose if viewed without the context of a greater organism, or rather they are simply self-reproducing organic machines.
Blurring the line even further—Viruses are simply RNA code encapsulated in a protein sheath. They have no self-fulfilling purpose, and can only be reproduced in the presence of working cells—They are functionless spare parts if you will, that have the appearance of complicity and design.
How is the simple feedback mechanism of photo-receptors in certain cellular organisms different from an analogue circuit in a man-made machine that senses light levels and responds electronically?
It seems that the only remaining foothold of the design argument is that animals and to some degree plants also, have the ability to autonomously react to their immediate environments, and we do not see our simple machines doing so… yet—I can foresee the fields of robotics, artificial intelligence, and neuroscience becoming so inter-related that the line between animal and robot is ambiguous at best, and I can see it happening soon.
Fact check: viruses can have RNA or DNA genomes.
If you assume that the watchmaker’s analogy is true, you will only find machines that either have an obvious creator, or that you assume must have an obvious creator.
But someone who doesn’t believe the hypothesis by default can just as easily point to the organelle as evidence. They have evidence. You “assume.”
Go visit any machine shop. You’ll find tools there like lathes and mills which, given a supply of raw materials, can be used to manufacture another machine shop.
And yet… Where did the first lathe and mill come from if all lathes and mills are made using other lathes and mills? Obviously God created the first ones and gifted them to us, because nobody even knows how to make the high-precision slides and rods and threads needed for lathes and mills without lathes and mills to use for tools...
Oh… Wait… The first ones were made with tools other than lathes and mills via processes that we don’t use anymore because they really stink by comparison.
You can see some evidence of this in cellular machinery in places where cells have more than one way to perform some function. What the originals were… We’ll never know for sure without a time machine, there are several possibilities for each. But they all stink compared to what’s become ubiquitous now. But, like with the machine shop, they worked well enough to get the job done and pave the way for something better later.
Note that this doesn’t eliminate the possibility of some intelligent entity watching over the universe and tuning it to get some desired output according to some master plan. It just means that the watchmaker analogy is a bad argument for that. Just like the other common argument that evolution is a decrease in entropy, and therefore a violation of the laws of physics. Stupid, ridiculous arguments that don’t survive more than a cursory examination and, therefore, make all theists look bad via “guilt by association.” Stop it. Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive, and trying to deny that evolution happens as a way to discredit atheism is letting the atheists frame the argument in such a manner that they can’t possibly lose. Not a good strategy. If you’re going to waste time arguing something that neither side is likely to concede on regardless you should at least take pride in being good at it.
If watches reproduced and mutated randomly and were selected for accuracy then they most certainly would build themselves. Microsecond accuracy in just a few weeks, no watchmaker required.
See Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker.
It took as little as 100 generations to get clocks that are accurate to the second (3 handed clock), and depending on the initial conditions sub-second accuracy (4 handed clock) was possible within a few hundred more generations.
It’s pretty interesting, he got a series of “epochs”, like “the age of the pendulum”, where things didn’t change much. Then all of a sudden a random mutation would turn a series of neutral mutations (mutations that aren’t beneficial or harmful, and are therefore not selected for or against) into a beneficial mutation and a new type of clock would dominate almost immediately. The transition periods are so short compared to the stable periods that it really illustrates why we rarely find crazy transition species in nature—they simply weren’t around long enough compared to the stable species.
Just noticed Psy-Kosh posted the same video four years ago, back before the comments nested—oops!