Can a tornado ever assemble a Boeing 737?

Hypothetically,

If a tornado hits Football field, and the Football field has the 367,000+ parts required to build a Boeing 737, would the tornado have any chance at all to fully assemble the jetliner?

Assembling a 737 is a complex job. Factory employees must take 367,000 parts; an equal number of bolts, rivets and other fasteners; and 36 miles (58 kilometers) of electrical wire; and put them all together to form an airplane.
www.boeing.com...

Question 2: If there are an unlimited amount of days, and tornado hits Football field full of Boeing 737 parts daily (thus infinite amount of attempts), would the tornado ever assemble the jetliner?

A jetliner is not a part of the "natural world". Trees, plants, humans, rocks... These are all part of the natural world and need nothing more than nature to "assemble" them. WE (humans) made the jetliner. That's not nature's job.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


He's trying a variation on the infinite number of monkeys on typewriters gag.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Ok, can nature take all those 737 Boeing Parts (as many parts as needed) to assemble a big ol' mechanical bird?

I guess eventually there's a chance they would, especially if it's infinite, then it's inevitable.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

He's trying a variation on the infinite number of monkeys on typewriters gag.

Monkeys on typewritters?

Yeah, I know. And a caveman finding a watch in the woods. Surely someone "designed" it. Yes, someone designed it. A HUMAN. An animal found in .... NATURE. A watch is not part of the natural world either.

The NATURAL world happens... naturally. Boeing 747s do not happen naturally. So, it's an apples to oranges argument.

When you really think about it deeply then you begin to realize how difficult it would be.

The tornado would have to screw and assemble everything by chance.

Originally posted by Confusion42

Originally posted by JIMC5499
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

He's trying a variation on the infinite number of monkeys on typewriters gag.

Monkeys on typewritters?

An infinite amount of monkeys given an infinite amount of time on typewriters will write the complete works of shakespear.
Thats what he's refering to.

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by Confusion42

Originally posted by JIMC5499
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

He's trying a variation on the infinite number of monkeys on typewriters gag.

Monkeys on typewritters?

An infinite amount of monkeys given an infinite amount of time on typewriters will write the complete works of shakespear.
Thats what he's refering to.

The tornado building Boeing 737 *or a "Mechanical Bird" visual is easier to understand than monkeys typing Shakespeare because of "Language" reasons.

Originally posted by Confusion42
The tornado building Boeing 737 *or a "Mechanical Bird" visual is easier to understand than monkeys typing Shakespeare because of "Language" reasons.

For you perhaps, I don't like the Boeing example because it reminds me of the watchmaker argument.
It doesn't have anything to do with language, it's just the fact of monkeys slapping away at a typewriter FOREVER, they will eventually type everything everytime.

If the experiment has a duration of infinity, then yes. As purely a thought experiment, with an infinite time table, anything is possible.

Why do you ask?

This is one of the debates that never really ends.

Both sides have compelling arguments.

To me, it does appear as if there is something beyond perception that has slowly guided things into the way they are. It happens via evolution AND an intelligent choice being made.
Life would have never persisted if it hadn't cared about itself, even on the smallest scale. Either you live, or you die, or you live & breed & THEN you die. Isn't there more to life than just the proliferation of the species? Sure the species survives - but what about you? You die anyway. You reap none of the benefits.
Why did evolution stop (or greatly slow down) in insects? Dragonflies today are like dragonflies of yesteryear, only smaller. Same wings, same eyes, same legs. No doubt same habits. Surely there could have been improvement on the design, something could have been done to make them sleeker, faster, more intelligent. What stopped the change? The world has changed a lot. Their environment has changed. Their food? Maybe not. So...why hasn't the food developed skills to avoid the dragonflies better?

I know this makes little sense, as I've said before my brain works with ideas & pictures - not words.

I really think that life left to random chance over time will end in no life at all. Sometimes evolution works fast to ensure survival of a species, sometimes it seems to stop. Sometimes it either doesn't work fast enough or not even at all.
If changes are random, then we should see roses with every imaginable scent - but they all smell like roses to me.

Just my scattered thoughts.

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by Confusion42

Originally posted by JIMC5499
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

He's trying a variation on the infinite number of monkeys on typewriters gag.

Monkeys on typewritters?

An infinite amount of monkeys given an infinite amount of time on typewriters will write the complete works of shakespear.
Thats what he's refering to.

Methinks his ultimate destination here is to argue for "Intelligent Design."

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


But it is NATURAL for “human Primates” to build 737’s from NATURAL resources from the Earth.

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by Confusion42
The tornado building Boeing 737 *or a "Mechanical Bird" visual is easier to understand than monkeys typing Shakespeare because of "Language" reasons.

For you perhaps, I don't like the Boeing example because it reminds me of the watchmaker argument.
It doesn't have anything to do with language, it's just the fact of monkeys slapping away at a typewriter FOREVER, they will eventually type everything everytime.

Language Reasons = The monkey's typing a "code" that equals shakesphere writings (so not english but a "different interpretater) thus indeed if looked at that way seems possible...

Originally posted by Aliensun

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by Confusion42

Originally posted by JIMC5499
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

He's trying a variation on the infinite number of monkeys on typewriters gag.

Monkeys on typewritters?

An infinite amount of monkeys given an infinite amount of time on typewriters will write the complete works of shakespear.
Thats what he's refering to.

Methinks his ultimate destination here is to argue for "Intelligent Design."

Maybe it is Maybe it isn't

Funner not for me to reveal such things

This is a ID argument/question, a old one.
I think the first time it was actually used by Fred Hoyle. Here is his actually quote.

"A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe."

This is just a creationist argument of improbability.
The only reason you would ask this silly question is you are ignorant to the actual role of "chance"... Let me rephrase that. You are completely ignorant to the theory of evolution in general.

When asking the question you completely ignored natural selection and sexual selection.
If you can take a hour to get a a basic understanding of natural selection. I think you will see why the question is not a very good one.

en.wikipedia.org...

*spoiler alert*
Evolution is nothing like a tornado in a junkyard.
*end spoiler*

Depends on how smart the tornado is, duh.

reply to post by Confusion42


No, the tornado isn't capable of: riveting, welding, screwing a bolt, etc.