The self replicating watch argument


#1

we know that a regular watch need a designer because its too complex to evolve naturally. so what if we will find a self replicating watch (lets say that even made from organic components like proteins). in this case we need to conclude that its just evolved because it can replicate itself with small changes. at least according to evolution. but we know that its impossible even in this case because any watch (with hands and digits) is evidence for design. by the way english isnt my native so i may not understand some words here and there .


#2

We know a watch needs a designer because a watch can not reproduce.

We know a brick needs a designer because a brick can not reproduce.

Complexity is not the reason.


(Matthew Pevarnik) #3

Here’s a naturally occurring watch:

Or an even better naturally occurring watch:



#4

so a watch that is able to reproduce isnt evidence for design?


#5

but they dont have 2 hands and 12 digits.


(Matthew Pevarnik) #6

Well the crazy part is that these naturally occurring clocks are far more accurate and precise than any clocks are watches that have been “intelligently designed.”


#7

It would depend on the reproducing watch. If there was a twin nested hierarchy for reproducing watches then this would support evolution of the watches from a common ancestor.


#8

You said

To which I replied

The need for a designer (or creator actually) is due to the fact that a watch can not reproduce itself. It has nothing to do with complexity so you can’t argue that complexity requires a designer in the case of a watch. All analogies break down at some point but this one is broken from the beginning. I don’t know why the ID folks like to use it.


#9

so a watch that is able to reproduce itself isnt evidence for design according to this criteria.


#10

so a watch doesnt need a designer.


#11

A watch would never be able to reproduce itself so it says nothing about design. Don’t try to argue using an analogy. A analogy is just an illustration of the point you are trying to make.


(Christy Hemphill) #12

Watches are not biological and cannot reproduce. Continuing to hammer on this thought experiment is a waste of people’'s time. Get to the point you would like to make and actually discuss some science or this thread will be closed.

I would also like to remind you, that users in the past have been banned for not being able to talk about anything other than self-replicating watches and flagella. @outrigger1 and @dcscccc had their accounts silenced. Gee, @outrigger I would think you would try a little harder to find some new discussion fodder and a better user name if you wanted to come back.


(Mark D.) #13

Most everyone here already shares your belief in design. The difference is that in most every case their evidence is theological, not based on science. They nearly all know more science than you or I and they reject your attempts to distort the science to support your belief. I can assure you if there was any reliable empirical evidence for design, they’d be with you. But there isn’t.


#14

Depends on which watch we are talking about. The watch that @pevaquark cited in post #3 doesn’t need a designer.


(Larry Bunce) #15

A watch is a manufactured product that is made of machined metal. Even if a watch contained a smelting plant and automated machine shop to reproduce itself, complete with smelter and machine shop so its offspring could reproduce, we would have to say it had been designed, since the watch’s basic components do not occur in nature.
With life, no matter how complicated it may become, all of its basic components have been found in nature. We can also see existing in nature (living or as fossils,) organisms that show the possible steps that led from viruses and bacteria to humans.
We who believe that God guided the process that created the world we see around us believe that life had a Designer, but we also can see how life could be interpreted as having come into existence by purely natural means.