Jump to content

Blind Watchmaker

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Blind Watchmaker

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If the fisherman see large pebbles then he knows that it's the shore near Chesil, if he see small pebbles then he knows that it's the shore near Bridport. Is it really so hard to understand? I'll check it later, thanks.
  2. Yes, I know that this map shows how the universe looked like 380,000 years after the Big Bang, but still, I thought that there should be a nice correlation between this and the current state of the universe. My intuition tells me that at least statically, we should find more galaxies clusters in the areas with lot of red color on the right side of the map: and much less galaxies and matter on the middle where you see the large cold blue area (or the opposite, I wasn't follow).
  3. Thanks, but I don't think that that's what Richard Dawkins was talking about in his book. It seems that your quote is talking about different shores, large pebbles on one shore (near Chesil) and smaller pebbles on another shore (towards Bridport). I think that Richard Dawkins was talking about different zones or stripes of pebbles with different size on the same shore.
  4. I know that it was a very very very small and dense point... but what it contained? Where there any kind of a very small particles moving inside? Or was it all "frozen"? If there where moving particles (of any kind) inside the singularity point, then it means that there was also time inside, no? Just trying to understand.
  5. I looked at the link that you gave and the pictures there, I couldn't see any order in the pebbles on this beach. "Sorted in a particular order" Isn't it large to small, or small to large? what other order can you think of? And your theory about how the waves do that may be right, but I would like to see a photo of such a beach that represents what Richard Dawkins thought about when he gave that example in his book.
  6. But why wouldn't we see a correlation between the cosmic microwave background map and the current state of the universe? If I understand it right, the different colors in this map represent different temperatures, which represent different density of matter in the early universe, so I would expect that for example in the red areas of the map, which represents high density of matter, we will find (today) clusters of galaxies, and that in the blue areas which represent low density of matter, we will find an empty space with almost no dust and not galaxies. Where am I wrong?
  7. Hi all, I guess that all of you familiar with this picture of the Cosmic microwave background map: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Ilc_9yr_moll4096.png/1920px-Ilc_9yr_moll4096.png But is there a strong correlation between this map and the current visible universe? Can we really see stars and galaxies in the red spots, and an empty space (without stars and matter) in the azure and blue areas? Shouldn't we see such correlation? Thanks!
  8. Hi all, I know that this question is not directly about evolution but I can't find a better place for it. I would really like to see an example (a photo) of the pebbly beach that Richard Dawkins is talking about in "The Blind Watchmaker" book. In chapter 3 ("Accumulating Small Changes") Richard Dawkins gives an example of a pebbly beach: "If you walk up and down a pebbly beach, you will notice that the pebbles are not arranged at random. The smaller pebbles typically tend to be found in segregated zones running along the length of the beach, the larger ones in different zones or stripes. The pebbles have been sorted, arranged, selected. A tribe living near the shore might wonder at this evidence of sorting or arrangement in the world, and might develop a myth to account for it, perhaps attributing it to a Great Spirit in the sky with a tidy mind and a sense of order. We might give a superior smile at such a superstitious notion, and explain that the arranging was really done by the blind forces of physics, in this case the action of waves. The waves have no purposes and no intentions, no tidy mind, no mind at all. They just energetically throw the pebbles around, and big pebbles and small pebbles respond differently to this treatment so they end up at different levels of the beach. A small amount of order has come out of disorder, and no mind planned it. The waves and the pebbles together constitute a simple example of a system that automatically generates non-randomness. The world is full of such systems". I'm not sure that I understand what he is talking about, my intuition is telling me that on such a shore we should see first a heavy big pebbles that the waves couldn't push much, and farther (away from the sea shore) we should see a stripe of a smaller pebbles, that the waves throw stronger away, but when I searched in Google Images the only example that I could find that "Fits" Richard Dawkins's example, is this: https://previews.123rf.com/images/amoklv/amoklv1510/amoklv151000040/46400336-pebbly-beach-of-ibiza-balearic-islands-spain.jpg But as you can see, it's just the opposite of what I imagined... first there are small pebbles, and only then there are large pebbles. Is that what Richard Dawkins talked about in his example? If so, how the waves can explain that? Can you help me find a better photo that illustrate what he means? I would really like to see how it looks. Thanks!
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.