After n number of times, you will reproduce the Rolex - NOT. It's never been demonstrated.
>
>You expect that shaking would turn the screws and hook the springs into their sockets? Increase n by a few orders of magnitude, then.
>
>But again, you're pulling a wrong example. You begin with something that was a (human, this time) creation, and expect it to be re-created by random recombination its parts. Not the case - we aren't looking for a Rolex here. We're looking for any chemical compound which can reproduce and multiply itself. A more suitable comparison can probably be composed, but I'm not sure I'd recognize a successful outcome even if it bit me. Life may take any form.
>

I was also speaking of the design of the solar system, the earth's rotation, distance from the sun, etc. This is more precise than a Rolex.

>> Things tend toward atrophy, not the other way around, which is another BIG problem with evolution.
>
>But life is by definition a local organization of matter to oppose entropy. So if one of the (theoretically possible) cycles (that I don't really believe in, but then can't entirely reject the possibility) yields life, life will fight entropy or die out.

Yeah, life continues, to a point, all the while dying and regenerating. The point is that whatever lives, starts dying at inception. Things get better, then worse. A house left unattended will be reclaimed by the earth if left alone. Things left alone don't get better, they get worse.