Go back and look. I'm not repeating myself.

[quote]I'm not repeating myself.[/quote]Strangely, I don't care for whatever excuse you have to say next.

Good. I'm glad you realize I've already proven you wrong once.

You are confusing abiogenesis and evolution. Evolution is a non-random pattern towards fitness, abiogenesis is life arriving from non-life through randomness, though even in this there can be a continuum between life and non-life as with viruses. This has not yet been proven. As far as science knows evolution began from Buddha shitting microbes onto dirt. [quote]His analogy exhibited[/quote] No, his analogy expected a human from shaken molecules and said the probability is so small it is impossible. If you implemented a way to keep partially constructed macromolecules, your probability would go up exponentially. Which is still irrelevant to what evolution really does. [quote]the steps to comply with every minuet and correct, additional part would have to function in an orderly manner, which you stated in your point #1 statement as impossible.[/quote] Correct. But that's not very relevant because we're not hoping for a watch, we're looking for smaller, stabler organisms that will eventually become a human through microevolutionary changes. (Interchanging words at this point.) [quote]is their not supposed to be over at least a million (which there isn't) transitional fossil records [b]per species[/b]?[/quote] No. Successful fossilization is rare and expecting all of them to survive over millennia is [url=http://starlightbookreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/inconceivable.gif]inconceivable[/url]. Considering that every species is transitional to its next stage (their offspring) every fossil you find is a transitional fossil. [quote]Darwin doubted[/quote] You misunderstand your own quote. What follows is the rest of his quote devoid of mining. And even if Darwin himself doubted this, so what? This is an argument from authority and does not reflect the [url=http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/]evidence[/url] we have for evolution by natural selection. [spoiler]"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real." (Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species 1859)[/quote] [quote]The study of abiogenesis...doesn't even have a conclusion as to the manifestation of organic life from non-organic material.[/quote] So what? Are you going to argue from ignorance? "You don't know so you're wrong." No, we don't even know if we're wrong yet, we just don't know and neither do you as to whether abiogenesis is true or not true. A supplementary series of fossils showing an example of evolutionary progress. I suggest researching the fossils and looking at the microevolutionary changes between them: [i]Orrorin tugenensis, Ardipithecus kadabba and ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, afarensis, africanus, bahrelghazali, and garhi, Kenyanthropus platyops, Paranthropus aethiopicus, boisei, and robustus, Homo habilis, rudolfensis, ergaster, antecessor, cepranensis, and rhodesiensis, for most of which there have been found several fossils, represent the chain of successive transitions between Sahelanthropus tchadensis and Homo sapiens sapiens (modern humans).[/i]

[quote]You are confusing abiogenesis and evolution. Evolution is a [b]non-random[/b] pattern towards fitness...[/quote]I dont know where you are getting your info, but all my public school textbooks state, "...random."[quote]...abiogenesis is life arriving from non-life through randomness...[/quote]No disagreement here. [quote]...though even in this there can be a continuum between life and non-life as with viruses. This has not yet been proven.[/quote]Then why would you mention this? This only adds to the speculation. [quote][quote]His analogy exhibited...[/quote] No, his analogy expected...[/quote]Dude, it's an analogy. It's supposed to be metaphorical. It's amazing how many people I find that looks at the answer to this OP and take it literally. Semantics people...

From <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html> [quote]Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment.[/quote] In short, the traits one can get through evolution are random, but they function to assist non-randomly in the local environment. The random mutations would do nothing for the organism if the local environment didn't favor it. I mentioned the viruses and such because of clarification. Otherwise it would be easy to say that abiogenesis is spontaneous life, like the watch analogy being made instantly, when it is organic molecules piecing together until you have something similar to life. I was referring to your whole quote, I just short handed it.

Oh boy, more people to mute.

I know you're getting a lot of mail since I made you the answer. If you want me to remove you from being the answer, let me know. Okay?

Wait really? I was wondering why so many people were responding. Nah its OK, I'm clearing out the morons so my B.net visits are much more pleasant and intelligent

Irreducible complexity?

What about it?

I was asking if that was what the metaphor was about

By admitting there is a chance, you cant say 'no matter how many times'. You can say a million times, but look at the billions of galaxies yes galaxies and the billions of years and u can see how life can start

I've heard this one before. And I'm not necessarily all into the opposing side, either. But here's the thing: -You're basically saying that instead of the watch coming together by shaking the box(which is highly improbable), you're suggesting that it's more likely that there was some magical man in the sky who was like "Poof! I want a watch."

1) Your metaphor is stupid. 2) Intellegent design contradicts evolution in literally no way. It is merely an ideology that states "Everything happens because a higher power demands it to happen". Arguing about it is completely pointless.

Are you American? Because I'm starting to think our school system is failing us.