Could a harrier evolved from junks in a junk yard in a long period of time like the human being has evolved?

Answer 1

This "counter-argument" to evolution offered by creationists comes in many forms (harrier or 747 in a junkyard, a watch or calculator on the moon, an explosion at a type factory, etc. etc.)

... and they ALL have the same fatal flaw that makes them completely unlike anything that evolves.

harriers, 747s, watches, calculators, type factories all are missing an essential ingredient that makes them completely unlike anything that can increase complexity through evolution:

NONE of these things REPRODUCE WITH INHERITANCE.

Reproduction with inheritance is an absolutely essential ingredient for natural selection. Without it, the answer is of course NO, a harrier cannot evolve. I.e. the bits and pieces in a junkyard aren't making babies. So there is no gradual change from generation to generation. So no, this has no similarity whatsoever with how life, or evolution, works. (Duh?)

But human beings, and the ancestors to human beings all the way back to the first life forms all *do* REPRODUCE WITH INHERITANCE. That is why the junkyard analogy is absolutely *nothing* like the way "the human being has evolved" ... not even close.

It is precisely because of that reproduction with inheritance that EVOLUTION IS *NOT* LUCK. It is not pieces randomly assembling in a junk yard ... not even close.

So it is a valid question to ask how replication-with-inheritance first arose in organic molecules ... but that is a *MUCH* more isolated question than how humans arose once that replication-with-inheritance was in effect.

The fact that many creationists still make this long-refuted and rather silly argument (comparing humans to harriers) just shows that they haven't really thought about these questions very hard.

Answer 2

Ah. This will be based on the argument that evolution can't occur, because it would be like a tornado going through a junkyard, and creating a Harrier jet, yes?

Well - obviously that couldn't occur. Or at least, the odds against it are stupendously huge.
But evolution *doesn't* work like that.
A better anaolgy would be sending the tornado through an almost infinitely-large junkyard, and then sifting through the products to see if there was anything that looked a bit like any parts of a Harrier. Keep those that do, disassemble the rest, and then send the tornado through again.
Check again - some of the bits that were Harrier-like will be even more Harrier-like, and you will have new bits that look like Harriers. Keep those, junk the rest, and start again.

If you do this for long enough (and evolution has had millions of years), you will end up with something that is pretty damn close to a Harrier ;-)

Answer 3

For an excellent analysis of this question, I would recommend reading Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion. Specifically chapter 4 where he refutes Fred Hoyle's original Boeing 747 argument (which is stated almost the same as your harrier argument).

He further goes on to show how the fallacies in the comparison of a plane being randomly assembled in a junkyard by a tornado or hurricane or whatever to evolution of higher lifeforms by natural selection. The idea of irreducible complexity does not hold true to evolution of complex biological parts.

However since I am nowhere near as learned, erudite, or gifted with words as Dawkins nor have I finished his book, I will simply refer you to it so you can read it for yourself.

Answer 4

The scientifically fair way of asking this question would be:

"Could an entire hammer evolve from a bunch of hammer heads and hammer handles floating around in free space?"

The answer is obviously "yes".

Critics of evolution tend to view the process in terms of the book of Genesis. The earth was created from nothing in six days, but according to evolution, God wasn't involved. God didn't exist. Hence, the crux of the objection.

Life did not spontaneously happen all of a sudden. It probably took half a billion years before anything organized enough to be concidered alive to evolve. Before this, there were dozens of self sustaining chemical processes which appeared very lifelike, but still lacked all the prerequisites to be truly alive. No heart. No brain. No courage. Despite this, they still had the potential to be what they assumed they were not. Call the discovery of this faith in ones self God, if you like. Of course everyone knows the Wizzard of Oz was a fake, so the problem with evolution remains.

Answer 5

possibly. if someone was working on it. like the humans. :D

Answer 6

No.