Could an accurate watch really evolve?

Question

Here's how it might do it:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1322,Evolution-IS-a-Blind-Watchmaker,Chuck-Kopec-cdk007

(The spirits are telling me that a great number aren't going to get this...)

Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Zwink? This is a very good demonstration and simulation of how complex systems can evolve from simple bits. It's an analogy, but a good one. In real life the gears etc. are biochemical, and the watches are living organisms. Woss wrong wiv it?

Answer 1

This is brilliant and subtle.

I agree that it may be too subtle for most advocates of the watch straw man. ... You don't get to comparing evolution to shaking up watch parts in a box by being able to understand subtlety.

The entire straw man argument is destroyed in one sentence in one slide. The one early on where he lists 4 reasons why it is a straw man. Only the first one is needed.

"Clocks do not reproduce."

Simple. That's it.

All the ID analogies (watch or calculator parts, 747 in a junkyard, explosion in a type factory) all fail in this simple test: They DO NOT REPRODUCE WITH INHERITANCE. That is an absolutely essential ingredient for evolution. The others two ingredients are variation and competition ... but there's no point in even going there if you picture evolution as just "parts shaking up at random" and ignoring the essential role of INHERITANCE.

The rest of the video is an excellent illustration of how natural selection works ... and some of the tell tale signs it would produce:

First, unnecesarily complex structures that perform a simple function. If life were to have examples of this it would be a sure sign of evolution rather than intelligent design. (Whisper: Can you say "inner ear?")

Second, *diverse* structures that perform a single function. When he runs the simulation again you get *very* different structures that perform the same function. If life were to have many radically different designs to perform the same function that would be a sure sign of evolution (what we call convergent evolution) rather than intelligent design. (Whisper: Can you say "eye"?)

Third (as shown at timestamp -3:14 ... 3:14 from the end) ... you will find in the resulting structure, odd features that serve no function (gears that were neither harmful nor helpful). Can you say "vestigial structures"? How about "junk DNA"?

Fourth (as show at -1:04) if you look at the "fossil record" of the watches you will see a profile of long periods of stasis (the age of the pendulums, followed by one-handed clocks, then two-handed, etc., until the age of the true clocks) interrupted ("punctuated"?) by periods of rapid transitions between the two ... so rapid that the fossil record would show very few of those quick transitions. Why? Because the new feature provides a significant new advantage, so it spreads quickly into the population. If the real-life fossil record shows examples of this pattern, that would be evidence of evolution. (Whisper: can you say "Burgess shale", can you say "punctuated equilibrium".)

Nice video ... but again, will go right over the heads of most ID advocates.

Answer 2

If reproductive success depended on it, certainly.

All those dodgy timekeepers, despised by picky female watches, would struggle to produce offspring (watchsprings?) while, like a peacock's tail, the property that attracts females will tend to become more exaggerated.

I've no idea why they should select for timekeeping: females are a mystery to me, even notional female watches.

Mind you, perhaps at the same time females are competing to produce more decorative and delicate forms under similar pressures... To the point that while they are beautiful, the watch hands are so small no-one with normal eyesight would use them to tell the time! What logic would dictate to be the basic function of a watch could be almost lost in the pressure to produce a fine display.

Alternately it might be a predator/prey mechanism, and watches needed to catch very short-lived prey, or meet up with hosts they could parasitise (proto-buses?).

Assuming watches are alive.

Tanks, trains and aeroplanes only evolve in a metaphorical sense, but occasionally that gets forgotten in popular (and apologetic?) usage.

I don't care how closely a Comet rubs up against a Churchill, you don't get a Centurion.

Answer 3

That's a lovely little story, but I'm afraid your argument is flawed. You say everything must have a creator. God is included in everything. Therefore, by your own arguments, he must have a creator. You can't make an exception for yourself yet deny all other possible exceptions. Because what gives you the right to say that your god can be everlasting and infinite, but that's the only thing that can be everlasting and infinite? You have as much proof that he always existed, and actually exists, as I do of the existence of fluffy pink unicorns. And if he always existed, and was created by no one, how can he be so perfect as Christians claim him to be? Like you said, "if a watch tells accurate time we expect the manufacturer must be intelligent". So if your god supposedly has the ability to see, create, love, and think intelligently, you must expect that he must have an intelligent manufacturer. Sorry, better luck with your next theory attempting to prove the existence of god.

Answer 4

Beautiful presentation. The subtlety will definitely be lost on many IDer's.

Answer 5

state of the art presentation

Answer 6

The truth will set you free. Richard Dawkins is free and smarter than Jesus.

Answer 7

that is what we would call, religious propaganda. id advise you to not beleive anything anyone tells you about evolution without atleast a graduate title infront of their name.