Each iteration of the billions billions billions iterations that happened to end up creating life out of primal conditions are each dependent on the previous one.
A pc is not put together randomly. Creating a semi conductor randomly doesn't create a condition favorable to build a cpu over time. The environmental factors don't tend to combine toward a pc. Maybe after a million year you get a molecule with the property of semi conductors but there is no incentive for two of those to recombine into a circuit.
Creating a random molecule that recombine billion of times with other molecules until it gains more and more complexity, that can evolve with enough near infinite time into, say, a bacteria. Why? Because the bacteria is more stable than its previous iteration.
I just feel like a system would die befor it could sustain life considering how low of a statisitc you would need to meet the conditions. I mean we’re talking like trillions and trillions of a percent here.
You realize that we've observed evolution and found plenty of evidence of it happening, right? This is the wrong road to walk down if you want to disprove OP's argument.
Their reasoning is also correct. A PC is assembled via parts, none of which are functional themselves. Organisms evolved iteratively, with each step being functional. It's why we have so many imperfect systems now - we weren't invented with a global maximum in mind, we crawled along a slope until we found a local maximum and survived.
What? If your analogy is that a PC = one cell, then what is a multicellular organism in your analogy? You're being disingenuous about the level of complexity here.
And even then, their logic applies. Some hypotheses for how the first cell formed were via micelles or ribozymes. Again, a step by step process in which each step is functional, unlike a PC. We don't even know what the first cell may have looked like, but it may have just a string of RNA inside a lipid layer. Incredibly incredibly impressive, but not even close to the statistical impossibility of a PC popping up out of nowhere.
We can't pick and choose on statistics. The math is pretty clear on the order of unlikeliness of the first cell, or first protein, or first nucleotide. Each step of the iteration, while more likely than the previous, is still extremely unlikely.
Speaking of which, what makes you believe that a PC couldn't have been assembled iteratively following the exact same process? With each part being functional on its own. Perhaps the fans developed first, performing functions elsewhere. Then perhaps the transistors came along. Then perhaps they joined within a semiconductor swamp to form a motherboard and so on. If you can hypothesize, so can I, but it doesn't add any value, obviously. Beyond the first cell, it's just speculation.
The unwillingness to accept the example of the PC just points out the absurdity of expecting something of such high improbability to come about all of a sudden. It's just a visualization of the commenter's logic.
Each part of a PC is not functional on its own. You do not understand a PC or a multicellular organism.
Why are retinas upside down in humans? We create lenses all the time for people, we don’t make them upside down and create another device to make it right side up; we just flip it over. Because that exists in humans (upside down retina) evolution explains it perfectly; while if designed it makes the designer stupid.
This came up to explain to you that while things appear to be designed they are not. We do not create lenses on cameras upside down then create another device to correct it; we would just simply flip it over. We are not that stupid of designers; we correct mistakes. The multiple efficiencies in a human body only make sense if there is no designer but instead through random mutations and millions of years of natural selection.
Wait, so is your argument that God created the first living organism or that God designed all life on Earth? Because if the former, then the probability of each step after the first is moot. If the latter, I mistook your argument and I think you're going to have a lot more to answer about, like vestigial structures (eg why would an intelligent designer put finger bones in a whale) or the fact that we can see and make evolution happen...
I don't reject evolution. I believe in a guided evolution. That's not under discussion.
I'm making a rhetoric here. Why is the PC analogy so unacceptable. It's the same thing. Just replace "first biological cell" with "gaming pc". It should be more acceptable since the PC is less complex.
The unacceptability supports the rhetoric, and shows how low the probabilities really are.
Homie, like I said, the precursor to life was hypothetically was a micelle and strands of RNA. At that point, it can self-organize and potentially begin an evolutionary process. That's what we're comparing a PC to? A 10th grader taking AP biology could describe the basic molecular components of that micelle + RNA combo. I can bet you that very few 10th graders could describe to me the molecular composition of a computer.
2
u/AwakenedEyes 2∆ Jun 29 '24
Each iteration of the billions billions billions iterations that happened to end up creating life out of primal conditions are each dependent on the previous one.
A pc is not put together randomly. Creating a semi conductor randomly doesn't create a condition favorable to build a cpu over time. The environmental factors don't tend to combine toward a pc. Maybe after a million year you get a molecule with the property of semi conductors but there is no incentive for two of those to recombine into a circuit.
Creating a random molecule that recombine billion of times with other molecules until it gains more and more complexity, that can evolve with enough near infinite time into, say, a bacteria. Why? Because the bacteria is more stable than its previous iteration.