Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Debate Info

Debate Score:20
Arguments:28
Total Votes:20
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Instead of complex life spontaneously evolving, why not a simpler analog clock? (19)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(37423) pic



Instead of complex life spontaneously evolving, why not a simpler analog clock?

Instead of complex life spontaneously evolving, why not a simpler analog clock?

An analog clock is a much simpler mechanism than a human being.  Hell, let's not take a whole human being.  Let's just take part of a human being.  Like the brain or... a single cell capable of reproducing by splitting in half.  If it took millions of years to produce a single cell organism at astronomical odds..., why not an analog clock?  And analog clock is way simpler.  The odds should have been better and it should have taken a lot less time to spontaneously evolve an analog clock.

Add New Argument

I don't have the answers. Theists are probably are asking themselves the same question right now. I'm willing to bet an atheist has the answer ;)

How about a life-form shaped like a ball. Walking on legs is more complicated than just rolling to your next destination.

Bettyjoe(399) Clarified
1 point

As evidenced by watching the people of Walmart.

Roblovesargu(61) Disputed
1 point

So why didn't a Devine creator do the same? He just thought legs were wicked cool looking?

Are you saying God is a leg man? Next thing you'll be telling me that He is also a boob man and that He likes big butts ;)

1 point

Even the simplest life form is more complicated than our most complicated systems.

1 point

Why aren't the atheists weighing in?

Roblovesargu(61) Disputed
2 points

Because its dumb. It neglects the very idea of evolution. Life started and nature effected the way it developed. There is no evolution of an analog clock. Unless you consider sweet face plates for them.

I read that as, you don't have an answer so discredit the debate as dumb ;)

Maybe they are too busy fighting other battles and putting out other fires ;)

Why don't animals recycle their methane? They should burn it, somehow, for energy. We need Hybrid humans ;)

1 point

Every life-form comes from (is created by) another life-form (reproduction). No life-form can arise from a sterile environment.

Clocks are notoriously bad at reproducing... .

If we could build robots that build themselves, would that make us Gods ;)

Correct me if I'm assuming to much, but it sounds to me like you are presenting a thinly veiled Payley's watchmaker analogy whose core argument comes down to "something complex can't exist without a creator"

First of all, it's a self-defeating argument. If something complex can't exist without a creator, then the creator can't exist because it too would have to be complex in order to create something. A being capable of creating an entire universe out of nothing is surely more complex than a common house fly.

Another problem with the watchmaker analogy is that it makes a false comparison. A watch or is not a natural biological organism, whereas life is a natural biological organism. A watch is something we know is crafted by a watchmaker though very specific processes. We know that you have to dig the ore from the ground, smelt it, craft the pieces, and put them all together in a very specific way that cannot happen through natural processes. Biological organisms, on the other hand, are things we know can go from simple to more complex over time through the process of mutation and natural selection. A very basic example of this is the flu virus. The reason you have to get a new flu shot every year is because the flu virus is constantly evolving and developing a resistance (becoming more complex) to the vaccine from previous years.

If life wasn't created, where did it come from?

Here is a brief overview of one hypothesis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3ceg--uQKM

Have scientists been able to create life?

Not yet, but they have made significant progress. They have been able to make amino acids, the building blocks of life, through processes that occur naturally [1]. They also recently succeeded in creating RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made [2]. Keep in mind that modern science is still in its infancy. Molecular biology didn't even exist until the 1930's. To expect scientists to be able to create life when they have only known what it is made of for less than a century is like expecting a 2 year old to be able to master the works for Mozart. Remember, we didn't even have personal computers until the 1980's. Scientists may not have hit a home run by creating life yet, but they are well on their way to 3rd base.

The chances of the specific conditions necessary to support life are so slim

Give this some thought. There are approximately 7 sextillion stars in the known universe. That's 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Astronomers estimate that there are probably just as many planets, most likely many more considering our sun alone has 8 planets around it, 9 if you still want to count Pluto. The first form of life is believed to have been a microscopic single-celled organism. Think of all the surface area of those planets, especially when you go down to a microscopic level. All of those planets have different chemical makeups and are different distances from stars. The variety of conditions on that many planets is astounding. Doesn't it seem plausible that at least one of those planets would have the right conditions to support life? Food for thought.

Sources:

[1] Creating Amino Acids http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey

[2] Creating RNA http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

Given enough years, a monkey can type a novel..., by accident. Why haven't any creatures evolved into a simpler form, like a wheel, by accident?. RNA is pretty complicated stuff. And scientists also tell us that matter just spontaneously sprang forward from the big bang in a matter of a fraction of a second. Like magic ;)

joecavalry(37423) Clarified
1 point

I think Mozart wrote his first symphony when he was five. I guess I can give our scientists 3 more years ;)

LittleMisfit(1748) Clarified
1 point

Why haven't any creatures evolved into a simpler form, like a wheel, by accident?

Keep in mind that a wheel doesn't move on its own, unless it's rolling down a hill. So from an evolutionary standpoint a wheel-shaped life form would be a poorly functioning design and would be weeded out by natural selection.

There are many simpler forms, such as viroids, mold, fungi, etc. Keep in mind that life on earth has been around for somewhere between 3.6 and 4.5 billion years, so it has had a LOT of time to evolve into more complex things.

You used the term "by accident" which indicates you may have common misunderstanding of how evolution works. Evolution is driven by natural selection, not accident. Perhaps you are referring to the process or random mutation, in which case "by accident" would be a fair assessment. I highly recommend watching this video that describes the process of natural selection and clears up some of the common misconceptions about evolution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcjgWov7mTM

RNA is pretty complicated stuff.

Yet scientists have been able to create it using processes that could happen naturally.

Scientists also tell us that matter just spontaneously sprang forward from the big bang in a matter of a fraction of a second. Like magic.

Yes, and they have evidence to back up that claim. They don't yet know what caused it or what was there before it. All they know is that there was a big bang. Maybe it was created by a god. Maybe it was an experiment by aliens. Maybe it was created by a giant cosmic bunny with explosive diarrhea. There is no way for us to know, so the most logical answer at this point in time is "we don't know what caused it, we just know it happened."

I think Mozart wrote his first symphony when he was five. I guess I can give our scientists 3 more years ;)

joecavalry(37423) Clarified
1 point

Given enough years, a monkey can type a novel..., by accident. Why haven't any creatures evolved into a simpler form, like a wheel, by accident?. RNA is pretty complicated stuff. And scientists also tell us that matter just spontaneously sprang forward from the big bang in a matter of a fraction of a second. Like magic ;)

1 point

I've asked these questions before and alas the answer is this:

Evolution does not take the simplest route, or the most efficient, it only deals with the present, it has no foresight and no reason, it simply reacts.

People are the way we are because we are best suited for our environment, the one we create wherever we are.

That must mean that we will eventually be "punished" by evolution for artificially keeping stupid people alive instead of letting them perish by the way side ;)

xBetzy(123) Disputed
1 point

if by punishment you mean the deterioration of ht species then yes and no. Natural selection plays a very reduced role as we have very little conflict with predatory and disease related activities, however sexual selection will prevail in creating the most sexually attractive species if nothing else, because of the very few selecting factors to eliminate "unfit" indivduals.