Most biologists agree that the evolution from unicellular to multicellular had to go through a phase of small colonies of unicellular organisms, which achieved a cultural and survival advantage and continued to evolve as multicellular organisms * Now, single unicellular organisms have been discovered with attachment proteins, which may be the ancestors of the multicellular
Photo 1: Choenoflagellates are single-celled marine creatures, with a fin (painted green) used for swimming and hunting. They are surrounded by hunting arms (painted red) that are used to trap bacteria.
It seems that one of the great mysteries of evolution is the transition from single-celled creatures, whose entire body consists of only one cell, to multicellular creatures, consisting of thousands and billions of cells working together. Most biologists agree that the evolution from unicellular to multicellular had to go through a phase of small colonies of unicellular organisms, which achieved the cultural and survival advantage and continued to evolve as multicellular organisms. A recent study conducted in tiny single-celled organisms called choenoflagellates, revealed that they contain genes that lead to the creation of intercellular adhesion proteins, even though the choenoflagellates themselves do not form colonies. It is possible that the choenoflagellates are the single-celled creatures from which the first multi-cells evolved, and from which man also evolved, at the end of that long road called evolution.
Choenoflagellates live in seas and lakes all over the world. Their entire size is about ten micrometers - about the size of a human cell - but this is enough for them to hunt bacteria they feed on. If we were to look at them under a microscope, we would see an egg-shaped cell, with a rod beating at the other end and propelling it forward in pursuit of the unfortunate bacterium. Shotton also has another purpose - it is able to stir the water around it and push the bacteria closer to the choenoflagellate, where they are caught in its hunting arms. The choanoflagellates are very similar to the hunting cells of the sponges - which are among the most primitive multicellular creatures that exist today. Because of this, naturalists since the 19th century believed that they were a key step in the evolution of multicellular organisms.
Recently, the complete genome of one of the choenoflagellate species called Monosiga bravicolis was recorded, and compared to the genomes of other creatures, such as humans. One of the most interesting findings was that the tiny single cells possess many genes that produce communication proteins and adhesion to other cells, such as cadherins. It is not yet clear why these proteins are present in monosyga, as they do not form colonies.
The cadherins are one of the main factors that keep the cells in our body attached to each other. Without them, we would have been destined to dissolve into a puddle of billions of separate cells. Apparently, single-celled creatures, who do not need to come into contact with each other, have no reason to produce cadherins. But in the genome of the choanoflagellates, about 24 different cadherin proteins were discovered - a number similar to the number of cadherins present in the fruit fly or the mouse.
In an article published in the prestigious scientific journal Science, Nicole King (biologist from the University of California) and Monica Abdin (research student) claim that some of the attachment proteins are located at the bottom of the choenoflagellate, where it attaches to surfaces, as well as in the area of the choenoflagellate's hunting arms, which are used to capture the bacteria. They believe that the tiny hunter uses the cadherin proteins in order to stick to bacteria and devour them. The more complex animals have developed the proteins to the next level, and thanks to them they can connect and become a larger creature, consisting of many cells.
The genome of choanoflagellates offers us additional surprising clues about the progenitors of the multicellular. In addition to the genes coding for cadherins, five sites for immunoglobulins (antibodies) have been located, even though choenoflagellates do not and cannot have an immune system. Sites coding for integrins, which are used to connect cells and body tissue, were also discovered in the genome. Proteins called tyrosine kinases were also discovered, which are an important component in the ability of cells to communicate with each other - even though the monosiga, as far as we know, does not communicate with other cells or live in colonies. The most surprising discovery of all was the finding of a site that codes for collagen, which is an important part of the tissues in our bodies, but which should be completely useless to the individual choenoflagellate.
It is possible that the monozyga once belonged to some of the choenoflagellate species that connect to colonies, and since then it has evolved until it became the predatory and single cell that it is today. Even in this case it is not clear why genes coding for a primitive immune system or collagen appear in her genome. King hopes that sequencing the complete genome of another species of choenoflagellates called Protoarospongia will yield the answer. The choenoflagellates of this species live in colonies, so a comparison of the monozygote genome with their genome may provide us with a more detailed explanation about the ancient origin of the multicellular.
How were we created? Where did we come from? Who is our true ancestor? Are the choenoflagellates, those solitary hunters roaming the seas, the source of a third of our genetic code? Or maybe they themselves are nothing more than degenerate sponge colonies? Without knowing our ancient ancestors, like us as orphans in our own eyes, groping in the dark. We will not stop tracking, researching and guessing until we find the source of our lives today.
For information on the Berkeley University website
Image 2: Cadherin proteins were discovered in animals, where they are involved in connections between cells and in the transmission of messages. Researchers have also found them in unicellular organisms such as choenoflagellates, but their role in these organisms is unknown. It is possible that the cadherins in choanoflagellates are used to capture bacteria (by sticking to them) or to adhere to various surfaces in their habitat.
104 תגובות
Faith does come from a multitude of places, education, communication, personal experience but that is not what we are dealing with.. I argued that it is still too early for humanity to say that the search is over and everything is visible. In the spirit of modesty in the limitations of man's intellect, room must also be left for the theory of creation. If he was a creator, let's just assume for the sake of discussion that he might have been a secular type, with an excellent sense of humor 🙂
Flicks
Among the inability of the human race to understand the universe, nature, the beginning, infinity and more
and the belief in some higher power, there is an infinite distance. Belief in a higher power, directing and controlling, does not come
from stupidity or ignorance, but a kind of innocence,
Because religious faith answers the inner fears of death from the unknown and it strengthens
You believe in a sense of security and protection, it is widespread and developing. Like any successful drug.
100 amino acids for one functional protein? Zero probability.. but exists :>
Therefore, nothing is ruled out. Because what is it, gentlemen, to disprove or prove an intelligent creator? Nothing.
The discussion has long been not scientific but philosophical, please agree with me all that life is a strange thing..
Mysterious full of questions, an intelligent creator sounds like a deterrent answer for those who want to investigate
Things as they really are, after all, this is the plight of the scientist who is in search of the truth
One has to come across dark people who lack sense or education. Is that the case?
Faith, and I emphasize this word very well, faith in an intelligent Creator for the world (it is really the sin of pride to humanize the universe to man)
Falling into the trap of religion is not required yet, because over time the mighty humanity will learn
The laws of nature, through hard work and joint scientific investigation we see a world that works according to laws
that can be predicted in advance. And yet one must be modest in his understanding of the world even today. As I remember Aristotle who believed that the stone from an earth element is attracted to the soil made of the same element because elements tend to continue each other. Since Newton's laws until the unified field theory, scientists have gone through paradigms in understanding reality. Is this the end? And is the existence of an intelligent being creating worlds so far-fetched? Very possible. But this is a completely qualitative question.
In conclusion, look around you at a world full of magic and beauty, the meaning of love... after all, human life is a great adventure.
Happy Passover 2012 🙂
Good name - huh?
It's not just a joke - it also characterizes the one who everything they say passes by his ears without penetrating his mind.
hahahah "airwax" you killed me.
Yuso:
Aren't you a little confused?
Roy thought that my comments about religion were justified
Roy, I agree with you in everything you wrote.
All you have to do is keep lying but now you're arguing with Yuso (who might even be you yourself) so I'm waiting to see what happens.
to Michael-
"Of course, he also tries to use delusional arguments about probability.
He has no knowledge of probability and, in particular, he has no idea how to link probabilistic calculations with what is happening in the world (and he knows this because if he had relied on his understanding of the subject he would have responded to the challenge I posed to him)" - keep your nonsense to yourself. Even the question you asked I answered and detailed and you yourself did not So what's left?
Yuso:
It is clear that Irwax is religious.
He constantly tries to rely on false arguments from the Torah. It means he believes her fiction and it means he is religious. I don't know what you are basing your claim that it is not. His lies do not prove the truth but his arguments do so well.
Of course, he also tries to use illusory arguments about probability.
He has no knowledge of probability and in particular he has no idea how to connect probabilistic calculations with what is happening in the world (and he knows this because if he relied on his understanding of the subject he would have responded to the challenge I set for him) but he cannot be taught because he ignores everything he is told. Of all the arguments presented to him by Roy, Yigal, Miko and your servant (after all, you, apart from preaching morality towards us, did not say anything to him. You did mention taxonomy, but it didn't even tickle his fancy because he understood that you were actually with him).
Knows what? your arena Argue with him and see where you end up. Just tell us when you've given up and we'll see if we can repair the damage.
One more small donation before I leave you to your fate I give to you and Airwax anyway. It would just be fun to see him ignore it one more time:
http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-speciation.pdf
Comment-
"And he demonstrates much less knowledge than the experienced creationists I know. All he has demonstrated here so far is a rhetorical ability to ignore answers and questions and turn them aside with a word or two." - Yes, we have already seen and heard... the phrase "the falsifier in the mother falsify" is sewn on you.
"I'm afraid he doesn't even really invest - I read all the links he brings, and I have yet to come across a link that was genuinely relevant to the points he is trying to prove. Ermac just collects links and throws them here and there." - nonsense in the juice. I brought you a study that tested the frequency of Functionality in the appearance of genes. The research showed that one in 60^10 combinations some functional combination will appear. Since we know about the example of nylon digestion for example (which is caused by a "frame shift mutation"), then this is one giant step that appeared at once and whose chances of appearing are one in 60^10 .Even if all the stars of the universe were full of organisms swarming with mutations, we wouldn't have enough to cover a trillion possibilities. Maxena - The mutation was intentional!
Good night…
Yuso –
First of all I want to say that Ermac did not come here to convince or persuade. It is quite possible that he is not religious, because his arguments do not match the usual arguments of creationists, and he exhibits much less knowledge than the experienced creationists I know. All he has demonstrated here so far is a rhetorical ability to ignore answers and questions and turn them aside with a word or two. If I had to guess, I'd rate him as an 18-year-old secularist who likes to argue, no matter which side. He's just training here. I'm afraid he doesn't even really invest - I read all the links he provides, and I have yet to come across a link that was genuinely relevant to the points he is trying to prove. Ermac just collects links and throws them here and there.
I'm not interested in getting into theological debates either, and I agree with you about the different goals of religion and science. The trouble begins when clerics come who try to impose the principles of religion over the rules of science. In these cases, we must make the comparison and decide which laws we must obey on a daily basis and in research. I don't see a way to make a comparison between the two, but through the materialistic conditions I mentioned.
I believe in mutual respect for all, but I also believe that when trying to disprove scientific theories using religious arguments (as Ermac does), then the discussion also moves to the justification of religion.
Roy,
In some of the previous discussions the creationists really introduced the subject of God, but in this discussion it was simply not the case; Good people decided he was religious and attacked him for that (rather than the not-so-strong claims he made against evolution) even though he repeated several times that he was not religious. If the personal and religious attacks were removed from the equation, perhaps he could be convinced, and if he is truly religious, then the right thing to do is to explain that there is no contradiction between evolution and faith (you probably know the connection with the famous sentence that nothing in biology is understandable except in the light of evolution) and try to convert his religion, both in terms of mutual courtesy and in terms of better service to our side.
I agree with you that belief in God, or in his non-existence, is not a belief that is based on logic, and in my opinion not on emotion alone - but on what Captain Kierkegaard calls a leap of faith.
By the way, I don't know if your second message is directed at me, but if so, I'll make it clear that I'm not interested in getting into theological debates, especially on this topic because in my opinion, religion and science serve completely different purposes and there's no point in comparing them according to the criteria you indicated, and there's no need to choose one of them over the other.
All the best
to roi-
"As I mentioned, every 'hole' can always be explained through God. In fact, you don't even need holes. Suffice it to say that God simply changes every test that is conducted and every discovery, in order to fit what he wants us to discover."-
There are actually some scientists who disagree with you. Here-
http://telem.openu.ac.il/courses/c20237/bacterialorigin.htm
"In my opinion, in this test, science wins without question. Experiments, scientific theories and their applications led to the extension of the average human life by two times, to create machines capable of working for us and to abolish the institution of slavery, to kill most of the terrible epidemics on the face of the earth and even to bring us to space and the moon." - This is partially true. But what does this have to do with scientists? Evolution from eye catches of all kinds? Let's not forget that science also brought into the world weapons of mass destruction, bacteria that become deadly from moment to moment and several other negative things.
"Religion, unfortunately, did not bring balanced results throughout her life." - On the contrary -
It is only religion that brought to the enlightened and educated modern world the universal moral rules accepted by all (the ten commandments). When did science do this?
"In short, in the test of the result, science wins clearly. For me this is enough to decide what I should believe" - in short, you don't have much to say..
I want to mention one more thing -
As I mentioned, any 'hole' can always be explained through God. In fact, you don't even need holes. Suffice it to say that God simply changes every test that is conducted and every discovery, in order to fit what He wants us to discover.
Science, as opposed to religion, believes that there is no divine intervention in experiments, and that the results we reach are devoid of miracles.
Since we will never be able to disprove the existence of God, it seems that the only way to test which of these ideas are true is to test the result. A type of 'Elijah against the prophets of Baal'. Which of the gods can demonstrate real results: the god of religions or the scientific method?
In my opinion, in this test, science wins without question. Experiments, scientific theories and their applications led to the extension of the average human life by two times, to create machines capable of working for us and to abolish the institution of slavery, to kill most of the terrible epidemics on the face of the earth and even to bring us to space and the moon.
Religion, unfortunately, did not bring balanced results throughout her life. The accepted argument of the religious people is that it promotes a person's spirituality and helps him in the next world. That is, that it is not possible to judge by physical parameters (such as good food, long life or babies who survive their first year) whether the religion is true or not.
I imagine that the mythological prophets of Baal also responded in the same way to Elijah, when the fire came down from the sky and burned the altar. "Yes, well, your God works real miracles and brings real results. So what? Our God is better, because he takes care of our spirituality!”
Then the fire burned them and their spirituality as well.
In short, in the test of the result, science wins clearly. For me this is enough to decide what I should believe.
Yuso:
Your words remind me of the story about the man who testifies to the police: "It all started with him paying me back."
They also remind me of the cries of Hamas.
It's really interesting how those who know and understand the theory of evolution can be blamed for trying to explain the justifications of this theory to creationists and religious people (which is usually the very same people who use various deception tools) for "hijacking" the discussion when it was up to them to name God at all He would not have married him (in vain).
From your words it appears that you also think that the right way to convince people is not to argue with them. This is a really interesting theory and I would appreciate it if you could expand on it.
Yuso –
I believe that each of the debaters here contributes an important piece of the puzzle that constitutes such a discussion. I admit that ideally, the discussion of evolution would be purely factual. At the same time, it does not seem possible to reach such a situation, partly because of the fact that there are still 'holes' in the theory of evolution. The most obvious hole is that we can never know what happened before our time. We can only tap into the happenings from fossils and many other evidences. For people who believe in sequential logic and deny the existence of miracles, the only way to connect all the evidence is with the help of the theory of evolution. For those who believe in miracles and God, these holes can be explained through God.
(As a side note, it is interesting to say that the holes are constantly being filled. 150 years ago there were many more holes in Darwin's theory. Most of them have been filled in the meantime, and each time God was removed from another such 'hole'. Unfortunately, this did not result in a decrease in the popularity of the divine explanation.)
It is for this reason that creationists, when pushed into a corner with their pseudoscientific arguments, must invoke the name of God to explain the few holes that remain. At this point, good people like Michael, Miko and 'What's New' feel free to demand that they prove the existence of God, and rightly so.
For myself, I do not believe that it is possible to convince a person not to believe in God, since this is a belief that comes from emotion and not from reason. But, who knows.
So, to summarize: apparently a dry debate about evolution with creationists cannot in fact not include God - and in this case, there is sometimes no choice but to enter into theological debates.
Regarding the taxonomic classification of the species, you are absolutely right. Already three hundred years ago, naturalists such as Buffon saw the similarity between different species and came up with possible theories of evolution between them. The only reason the theories were not accepted was that they could not think of a mechanism by which it might occur. This was the greatness of Darwin, who brought the idea of natural selection, side by side with the huge amount of data he collected, which supported it.
thank you for your response,
Roy.
Roy, it's a real shame that every time there is a discussion here that can be learned from on the subject of evolution, it is immediately "hijacked" by atheism flowers who need self-convincing and degrade it into a cacophony of shouts about there being a God and there being no God. Perhaps you should try to explain to those who think they are helping you (although as mentioned I am not convinced that their motive is to help you) that in that they directly attack the beliefs of anyone whose opinion differs from theirs, they prevent you from any possibility of changing the minds of the supporters of creationism. And I'm turning to you because you're the only one who participates in these discussions who actually writes about science in them (apart from the on-duty creationist who occasionally spews some kind of claim that resembles a fact).
Also, among the eight pieces of evidence for the origin of species through evolution, you forgot the most significant one in my opinion: the taxonomic classification of species, which the theory of evolution used to hint at even before me.
All the best
Ermac:
In my previous response I also forgot to write that in relation to the one who first brought arguments from the Bible, your memory is not good enough to represent the reality.
Before response number 50, which is yours, there is no reference to the plagues of Egypt and the Exodus or any other story from the Bible, and certainly not one that claims that what is written in it is true. You were the first to try to base his words on "truths" from the Bible.
I also remind you that in the same comment you also described the Sage's ignorance regarding the number of stars in Kima as "knowledge"
Ermac:
I told you that the solution you give is wrong and I said in advance that I will not tell you what the correct solution is. Even with a thousand exercises that I'm sure you'll never get tired of, because I'm sure that inside you're not really sure of your words enough to risk your money, you won't get the solution out of me. There are, as I said, a number of ways in which you can, in principle, reach a solution and this list of ways is the list I decided on. The way of a free quote from me is not an option for you. You will only get a lesson from me by using the third way I presented. What is unclear here?
You allow yourself to lie with a determined brow when you say that you have never defamed anyone in response to explicit quotations of some of your defamations.
You say that you are ready to explain all kinds of things, but I understood what you said and I don't need an explanation. I understood your words better than you and I know where you went wrong. You have, as mentioned, a way to get the explanation from me and again, as mentioned, you will not get the explanation from me in any other way and I have explained why.
Regarding the Bible, I wonder even at you when you don't understand what I wrote. Did I ever say that the Exodus from Egypt is not described in the Bible? All I said is that the entire argument that what is written in the Torah is a description of events that took place in reality has nothing to rely on and that the entire tradition according to which the Torah existed before the days of Josiah and passed continuously and without change from the days of Moses to the present day is based on the stories of the Bible itself.
Regarding the story of the genes, I said that the link I gave was just the beginning of the road, but you, as usual, ignore what you were told. For my part, you can continue to bask in your ignorance.
to Michael-
"I hope it's clear to you that you're making a fool of yourself.
After all, I gave you a way in which you can both see the solution and understand your error." - Here is the solution for you -
The chance that out of 100 people 50 will reveal their number is almost certain (everyone has a 1 in 2 chance). This is because they are given the permission to open about half of the holes. So far is it clear?
If about 50 have found out their number and the remaining fifty do not know where their number is, then the chance of each of them finding their number is one in 50. Therefore....if there are even only about 10 people left who have not found out their number, then their chance of finding it is one in 50 to the power of 10 That is, an astronomical number. If I'm wrong, I'm ready for you to tell me where. Maybe I missed something?
"Your contortions show that you are not ready to do so and it only shows that the way of slandering other people is the right choice for you even when you are not sure of the rightness of your words." - I have never slandered anyone. I am always happy to explain to people who want it. Even if I receive teasing that is not serious .
"However, your confidence is not enough for you to risk money in the experiment I proposed.
In other words - the dignity of people is cheaper in your eyes than your money. In the first one you are ready to try to hurt even when you are not sure but in the second one you are not." - Nonsense. I don't know what you are talking about. I am ready to listen and explain to you as much as you want.
"Therefore, in addition to your inability to solve the problem, you also demonstrate your low moral level here." - Whatever you say. Leave nonsense.
"In any case... how is the proof of the Bible related to the proof of an intelligent creator?"
It is interesting. If it's not related, why did you bring it up? Why did you try to rely on the Bible if you don't think it is related?" - Your memory is failing. As I think you are the ones who started with the topic of the Bible. I was only talking about science.
"Regarding all the "proofs" you bring from the Torah, and especially regarding the reliance on a "whole nation" that saw the things, you deliberately ignore what I pointed out to you in the Book of Kings, chapter XNUMX, according to which no one knew the Torah in the days of Josiah, and all the talk about "a whole nation " never happened and never existed. Do you have an explanation for this omission?
"- What nonsense? Exodus from Egypt is not described in the Bible? Are you serious?
"Regarding the formation of life and the modification of genes, you demonstrate such great ignorance that only a complete course in biology can cure. "- Regarding saying that you brought the article in general about abiogenesis and not about the development of a gene in evolution. These are 2 completely separate topics. What's more, there is no answer there at all about the formation of a gene at random. It does not belong to the topic at all. The hypothesis of the RNA world is explained there. The problem Since it has never been found that the RNA molecule can reproduce by itself. This is because proteins are required for this. The problem is known by its name as the chicken and the egg problem. They have not yet found an adequate solution to it. This is not related to our case either.
Ermac:
"In any case... how is the proof of the Bible related to the proof of an intelligent creator?"
It is interesting. If it's not related, why did you bring it up? Why did you try to rely on the Bible if in your opinion it is not related?
With regard to all the "proofs" you bring from the Torah and especially with regard to basing yourself on a "whole nation" that saw the things, you deliberately ignore what I pointed out to you about in the book of Kings XNUMX chapter XNUMX according to which no one knew the Torah in the days of Josiah and all the talk about a "whole nation" never happened and never existed. Do you have an explanation for this omission?
In relation to the formation of life and the modification of genes you display such great ignorance that only a complete course in biology can cure. No one will give you such a course here. As with probability, it's time for you to understand that knowledge is bought and not spun on talkback sites. People prefer to use their time in a way that benefits them more than teaching science to idiots.
in all
case, for a start, you are welcome to read something in
Please enter this link
Ermac:
I hope it's clear to you that you're making a fool of yourself.
After all, I gave you a way in which you could both see the solution and understand your error.
If you are so sure of your righteousness - you are welcome to take this path. Note that I am willing to put money on my righteousness. Your meanderings show that you are not ready to do this and it only shows that the way of slandering other people is the right choice for you even when you are not sure of the rightness of your words.
So that even you understand the last sentence I will elaborate a little.
We are in a situation where you claim you are right about the puzzle.
You are confident enough in your claim to claim that I do not understand my riddle, that my words are a new low and that I have only one way out of shame.
However, your confidence is not enough for you to risk money in the experiment I suggested.
In other words - the dignity of people is cheaper in your eyes than your money. In the first you are willing to try to hit even when you are not sure but not in the second.
Therefore, beyond your inability to solve the problem, you also demonstrate here your low moral level.
Lamiko-
"You don't side with the facts - you accept specific scientific facts and deny other scientific facts obtained in the same way
It's like accepting the book of Exodus and believing in it with all your heart, while throwing the book of Genesis in the trash, claiming that it is a distortion of the truth as it was written in the books of Zarathustra." - I don't understand what you mean, which facts you are talking about.
"There is no uniqueness to the Bible, that--and you were brought up to believe that the Jewish religion and the Bible at its head were the first to do this and the first to do otherwise--all lies"-I have already shown you its uniqueness from times. I'm tired of repeating myself like a parrot. In any case... how is the proof of the Bible related to the proof of an intelligent creator?
"Learn some theology of the Fertile Crescent region and you will see that everything that Judaism thought (on a Biblical level and not on a Sage level) is a direct development of religions that were before it." - This is why the three largest religions in the world are based on the Bible. This is why more No one was able to imitate the exodus from Egypt. Why didn't they do it? It could have been very convincing if someone had added to their religion the story of the exodus from Egypt or a situation that the whole nation watched.
"I didn't say you were losing your temper
I said that it reminds me of the above discussion due to the main claim of that uncle
The fact that there were many generations who believed the claim before you does not mean that the claim is true
As a matter of fact, it means that it is most likely not true." - You are welcome to explain to me, how to fake sharing with another whole with ten supernatural blows. I am listening.
"And in addition,
Every argument presented here on the subjects of logic, theology and other vegetables is definitely related to the discussion of evolution for the simple reason that you brought up theological dogmas to refute and contradict evolution (it is true, you also brought statistical and biological data, but for some reason you are not even willing to listen to the explanations and try to attack them but simply cancel In "Wrong" or "Harry Potter and the Egyptian Horns by JK Rowling") - I explained perfectly why a garden cannot be formed in small steps. You are welcome to refute my words and explain to me why it could. I am listening.
for Michael the Riddler-
"I told you in advance that I will not explain the solution because unfortunately I will have to conduct many more discussions of this type where people who do not understand anything claim the height of wisdom and such mental abilities that they can nullify the claims of all scientists with their mouths (literally)." - strange. Probably You yourself don't understand your own puzzle. This is really a new low. How far will you go? :) Feel free to show me where I went wrong.
"You have three ways to reach a solution:
1. Solve the problem yourself" - you have only one way out of shame. To show the solution yourself.
Ermac:
I told you in advance that I will not explain the solution because unfortunately I will have to conduct many more discussions of this type where people who do not understand anything claim the height of wisdom and such mental abilities that they can dismiss with vanity (literally) the claims of all scientists.
One of the ways I use to refute this claim of superiority is by giving riddles relevant to the area in which they express superiority.
You have three ways to reach a solution:
1. Solve the problem yourself
2. To find among your friends or friends of your friends forever (of which I am not one) someone who can answer you
3. To respond to the challenge and organize the game (as mentioned - about twenty cycles of it) when the profit for success is 1000 NIS per person and the participation fee is, say, 10 NIS. That way it will be possible to say that you paid for the knowledge (in fact you will pay a lot) and I promise not to take the money for myself but to invest it in activities against the earth's distress.
Ermac
You do not side with the facts - you accept specific scientific facts and deny other scientific facts obtained in the same way
It's like you will accept the book of Exodus and believe in it with all your heart, while you will throw the book of Genesis in the garbage claiming that it is a distortion of the truth as it was written in the books of Zarathustra.
There is nothing unique about the Bible, that you were brought up to believe that the Jewish religion and the Bible at its head were the first to do this and the first to do otherwise - all lies
You will learn a little theology of the fertile crescent region and you will see that everything that Judaism thought (on a biblical level and not on a Sage level) is a direct development of religions that preceded it.
I didn't say you were losing your temper
I said that it reminds me of the above discussion due to the main claim of that uncle
The fact that there were many generations who believed the claim before you does not mean that the claim is true
In fact it means that it is most likely not true.
Regarding your responses to Michael,
Your ability in rhetoric still needs to grow and develop a lot before you can preach and respond to what is said in the comments to this article - you are welcome to contact Amnon Yitzchak who will teach you a little of his art (although he also has a lot to develop)
In addition,
Every argument presented here on the subjects of logic, theology and other vegetables is definitely related to the discussion of evolution for the simple reason that you brought up theological dogmas to refute and contradict evolution (it is true, you also brought statistical and biological data, but for some reason you are not even willing to listen to the explanations and try to attack them but simply cancel In "Wrong" or "Harry Potter and the Egyptian Hornets by JK Rowling")
We actually come to attack your claims against evolution by attacking the illusions on which your claims stand.
Think about it, maybe when you grow up you'll have something relevant to add to the evolutionary discussion.
To Michael-somehow we got from a discussion about evolution to a discussion about logic puzzles. Soon you will suggest that I solve crossword puzzles and participate in the parallel of the brains. Are you ready to explain why and where I was wrong in my answer? If you do, you will surprise me too.
Ermac:
The discussion is indeed over, but your answer to the question is wrong.
I would be happy if you organized such a game (something like 20 rounds of it) because I could invite my friends and we would all get rich at your expense. It would be interesting, for a change, to get rich from the stupidity of others instead of my wisdom.
We'll see you pick up the glove!
Summary response (I hope)-
"I argued with my (religious) uncle about the meaning of life, the universe and everything
And as I presented to him more and more contradictions and problems in the Bible, he lost his temper and started yelling at me
"Do you think I'm stupid?! That your father is stupid?! That your grandfather is stupid?! That his father and his father and his grandfather and so on are stupid?! Everyone believed and studied and worked diligently on the Bible and you are a 12-year-old boy, how dare you come and undermine it?!"
So yes," - strange. When did you see that I lost my temper? For now I see only the opposite and get a yawn from you.
"Nobody cares that there are billions of people who train in Bible engravings
There are also billions who believe that there was no holocaust, there are billions who believe that Harry Potter exists, and let's not forget the billions who believe that if they played the lottery today they would win." - True. It was just a comment about the uniqueness of the Bible. And I explained why it is indeed unusual Don't you think so?
"People's faith is worth as much as the skin of garlic in front of the facts.
It's a shame that it's also not true from a political point of view.
to Michael-
"What's new? He complimented you when he said you were sophisticated.
I think that every sane person who followed the correspondence was convinced that in order to accept your positions one must be completely stupid and agree to believe even blatant lies." - Self-convincing is a welcome commodity.
"Let's see if in the coming months you will be able to find someone to solve the problem I gave you. If you succeed, we can conclude that you know someone who knows someone who knows someone who knows someone who knows how to think." - So that's it. Just for the sport I took a look at your puzzle.
Consider the following game (which involves a participation fee):
"There are 100 people who each received one of the numbers between 1 and 100.
There is a room inside which is a thick wooden surface with 100 holes arranged in a row and covered with lids.
Inside the holes are written the numbers from 1 to 100 in random order.
The job of each person is to identify the hole where their number is written.
For this purpose he is allowed to open the lids of 50 holes of his choice, look into them and close them back.
Then he must go to the game directors and tell which hole he thinks his number is in." - The chance that he knows what the hole is is one in 2. Since 100 people try it, then about 50 people know where their number is.
After telling the managers this he goes home and cannot have any contact with the others.
After everyone has gone through the room checkers who manage all the people's guesses.
If everyone guessed correctly, they distribute a prize of NIS 1000 to each.
Otherwise they don't share anything.
"Before the people enter the room, they are allowed to discuss among themselves and make any decision they want." -Depends on how many people have found out where their number is. If only 50 have found out, then the chance of everyone else finding their number is one in 50 to the power of 50.
How much is it worth to them - if they are smart, to pay for participating in the game?"
It is not worth them at all. But what is their connection to evolution?
Ermac:
What's new? He complimented you when he said you were sophisticated.
I think that any sane person who followed the correspondence was convinced that in order to accept your positions you have to be completely stupid and agree to believe even blatant lies.
so that's it. I'm done with the discussion with you (actually it never took place because you don't debate at all but you probably don't understand that).
Let's see if in the coming months you will be able to find someone to solve the problem I gave you. If you succeed we can conclude that you know someone who knows someone who knows someone who knows someone who can think. If you fail, we can understand that you are part of a group that is completely isolated from the group of humans who understand something.
This reminds me of a discussion I had many years ago when I was a small child and an atheist in a traditional home++.
I argued with my (religious) uncle about the meaning of life, the universe and everything
And as I presented to him more and more contradictions and problems in the Bible, he lost his temper and started yelling at me
"Do you think I'm stupid?! That your father is stupid?! That your grandfather is stupid?! That his father and his father and his grandfather and so on are stupid?! They all believed and studied and studied the Bible and you're a 12-year-old boy, how dare you come and undermine it?!"
so yes,
No one cares that there are billions of people who train in Bible engravings
There are also billions who believe that there was no holocaust, there are billions who believe that Harry Potter exists and let's not forget the billions who believe that if they played the lottery today they would win.
People's faith is worth as much as the skin of garlic in front of the facts.
Too bad it's not politically correct either.
Wow Ermac, I'm sorry, but you're a monkey (and this also supports evolution - you're the missing link!)
Magicians?! witch hunt?! Egyptian magicians?!
Are you listening to yourself?
You sound like a 12-year-old who read Harry Potter and attended Amnon Yitzhak's lecture.
This discussion is completely pointless.
Your neighborhood rabbi did a good job of draining your mind through your ears, I apologize that we weren't there to prevent it earlier.
ermac h is a cunning missionary whose goal is to convert the readers of the lore.
He is not able to sell his rotten lease in a direct way because he knows he will get into trouble (for example the creation of the world according to the book of Genesis)
And so he tries to deny evolution by using words and content from the field of biology. He does this with great sophistication while pouring out a lot of garbage, whether it is necessary or not.
His interest in evolution is purely to repent
Therefore any argument with him is unnecessary because he will never be convinced..
And so it seems to me that his place should not be on this site.
Continue to Michael-
"A few more humorous things about the sages' knowledge of astronomy can be found, for example, here: http://www.daatemet.org.il/articles/article.cfm?article_id=4
Of course there is nothing to complain about. They were captives of preconceptions just like Ermac (as unbelievable as it is) and when they didn't know then they made up stories as if they knew." - If until now you've disappointed me, then now you've done it big. I know the website you gave neither from now nor from yesterday. You don't Seriously, leave..
"Regarding the story of the exodus from Egypt and the many people who saw it.
This story is apparently just a story." -"Just" a story because of which billions of people in the world accept its truthfulness. "Just" a story that surpasses the sales of the Guinness Book of Records." About the whole modern world. It's good that you added "apparently".
"Not only is there no corroboration for this story anywhere outside the Bible (and this is beyond the fact that scientists who tried to treat it as if it really happened also found all kinds of natural processes that could cause the phenomena mentioned in it to occur)"-
I advise you to stop watching TV shows. You are easily influenced by them.
"On the "formation of a garden" you have already received many answers, and if you go to study there is even a chance that you will understand the matter (not sure, because you seem immune to understanding, but it's worth a try). First of all, life did not have to be assisted by gardens at all in the beginning and so on... well, Why repeat things for the thousand and one time." - It's good that you said what you said - "Life didn't have to use genes at all." I haven't heard such a joke in a long time. So what did they use? Sand and oil?
"You are welcome to keep dreaming and share your hallucinations with us from time to time" - I think I am hallucinating you. I have no other way to believe that you are real.
Comments. To Roy-
"Not only Sages were wise. It has nothing to do with God. All ancient civilizations have knowledge that corresponds to what we know today, side by side with 'knowledge' that today we laugh at." -laughing or not (let's say the earth is spherical), they knew it first. Darwin also had knowledge that today we laugh at.
"Ten Egyptian plagues are described in the book. Book. Do you believe everything that is written in the books, Ermac?" - I explained why this is not an ordinary book such as Harry Potter. Because of several reasons I have already mentioned, which do not appear in Harry Potter or Star Wars - Return of the Jedi.
"If so, I ask that you explain to me yourself how Jesus walked on the water, came back to life, was born of a virgin, and of course the miracles that his apostles performed - all this in front of hundreds of thousands of people." Are you familiar with the Witch Hunter era?
"As for the garden emerging in small steps, the answer has already been given to you, and you continue to ask the question. I'm betting that at some point your fingers will start to hurt from typing the same question over and over again. Maybe then you will also try to read the answer." - I read and understood and reasoned why a *certain* functional gene must have at least hundreds of acids. Do you think that a gene consists of hundreds of amino acids for nothing?
to Michael-
"There are no shortage of examples of this - if it is the trachea of the cow that splits into three parts, one of which reaches the liver, if it is the rabbit and the pig that chew the cud, if it is the mice that are created from the soil, if it is the lice that are created from human sweat, and so on and so forth." can give you answers. I have no desire to do so at the moment, before you tell me how they could know the examples I have already given. I do not jump from topic to topic as if it were nothing.
"Then they said something about Kima - go find out what they were even talking about and even if they were talking about the cluster we are talking about today, they were simply wrong (or maybe God was wrong?) because today more than a thousand stars are recognized in the cluster."
1) The fact that they knew, that there are many more stars than what the eye can see says Drashni.
2) I heard that in the past maybe there really were about 100 and since then they have split.
3) Today the constellation is also recognized by the Astronomy Association in Israel (as far as I remember). Therefore, it cannot be claimed that it is a different group of stars. The possibility that two constellations have the same name is laughable.
4) If everyone knew about the number of stars in the Kima cluster at the time, then why would they even ask how many stars there are? This indicates that, even at the time, everyone knew the Kima cluster and was interested in it.
"The matter of continents is similar and the definition of the term "continent" is completely arbitrary. So let's even assume that what they called "countries" is what we call "continents". Are there 7 of these? After all, the Americas are connected and there are thousands of islands of different sizes. It is simply a broken cane support of people who really have nothing good to hold on to." - nonsense. It is enough that they knew that in the past there was only one continent (Pangaea), which split into several parts. No one knew this until the current century. Regarding the number - The fact that he was about 7 not long ago. The arbitrary choice does not prevent this fact from being special.
"Good. I've already talked too much about things I didn't intend to talk about because I already said that you talk nonsense a long time ago.
I wanted to give you a chance to prove that you are worth something" - I also gave you quite a few chances. So far I have only received yawns.
A few more kicks at Ermac's dead horse:
Regarding the number of continents, it is advisable to expand: the number of continents on Earth has changed many times and will continue to change.
Initially, as far as we know, it had many unconnected islands.
The movement of the tectonic plates pushed these islands and at a certain point turned them, together with land lifted from the sea floor, into one continent.
This movement continued and tore the continent into several continents which it continued to push until they were once again one continent. This process was repeated several times.
Today the earth has four continents (geographically, which is the only aspect that is of interest) one continent includes Africa, Europe and Asia (by the way - Europe and Asia apparently never separated), a second continent includes the Americas, a third continent which is Australia and a fourth continent in Antarctica.
Besides, there are many other islands that for some reason are not called continents.
Someone from Disneyland will come and claim that what is interesting is not the geographical structure but the essential structure - that of the tectonic plates, and then we will have to answer him: "As you wish. There are more than 12 of them. How exactly does this help you?".
In relation to the Pleiades, we already talked about how more than a thousand is much more than a hundred and whoever threw a hundred simply threw a number.
Of course, this number (of more than a thousand) includes only bright stars and if we also included planets we would get much more.
A few more humorous things about the knowledge of sages on the subject of astronomy can be found for example here: http://www.daatemet.org.il/articles/article.cfm?article_id=4
Of course there is nothing to complain about. They were captives of prejudice just like Ermac (as unbelievable as it is) and when they didn't know then they made up stories as if they knew.
In relation to the story of the exodus from Egypt and the many people who saw it.
This story is probably just a story.
Not only is there no corroboration for this story anywhere outside the Bible (and this is beyond the fact that scientists who tried to treat it as if it really happened also found all kinds of natural processes that could cause the phenomena mentioned in it to happen) but also a careful reading of the Bible shows that it apparently did not happen.
After all, in the days of Josiah, no one knew the Torah and everything written in it was discovered during renovation works in the Temple, so it is quite clear that this is merely a book of legends.
You have already received many answers about "being a garden" and if you go to study there is even a chance that you will understand the matter (not sure, because you seem immune to understanding, but it's worth a try). First of all, life did not at all have to be assisted by genes at the beginning of its journey and the continuation... well, why repeat things for the thousand and one time.
You are welcome to keep dreaming and share your hallucinations with us from time to time.
Ermac:
In your way you understand things that are not true.
I did not go researching the issue of chemistry or the issue of the 7 continents for a simple reason: there is so much evidence that the Sages "knew" nonsense that it is clear that the source of their knowledge was not divine and I am talking about nonsense that was really relevant to Halacha matters and not about astronomical or geological knowledge.
There is no shortage of examples of this - if it is the trachea of the cow that splits into three parts, one of which reaches the liver, if it is the rabbit and the pig that chew the cud, if it is the mice that are created from the soil, if it is the lice that are created from human sweat, and on and on and on.
So they said something about Kima - go find out what they were even talking about and even if they were talking about the cluster we are talking about today, they were simply wrong (or maybe God was wrong?) because today more than a thousand stars are known in the cluster.
The matter of continents is similar and the definition of the term "continent" is completely arbitrary. So let's even assume that what they called "countries" is what we call "continents". Are there 7 of these? After all, the Americas are connected and there are thousands of islands of different sizes. It's just a broken cane support of people who really have nothing good to hold on to.
Good. I've already talked too much about things I didn't intend to talk about because I already said that you talk nonsense a long time ago.
I wanted to give you a chance to prove that you're worth something after all, but you didn't know how to take advantage of it (which, by the way, is really nice because you say you've already encountered the question and that means he's already come out alive to meet you in some talkback and it turns out that since then - it must have been a matter of months - you still haven't succeeded To find even in my circle a person who knew the answer. Tell me who your friends are and I'll tell you who you are)
Frivolous questions have no serious answers. Both the Maya and the Egyptians knew knowledge that is difficult for us to understand how they discovered it. Not only Sages were wise. It has nothing to do with God. All ancient cultures have knowledge that corresponds to what we know today, side by side with 'knowledge' that today we laugh at.
Ten Egyptian plagues are described in the book. Book. Do you believe everything in the books, Ermac? If so, I ask that you explain to me yourself how Jesus walked on water, came back to life, was born of a virgin, and of course the miracles that his apostles performed - all this in front of hundreds of thousands of people. After that he explained to me how the Buddha Prince was born, and before the eyes of his parents and the whole court he took seven steps and declared himself the Lord of the World. Most babies don't. If you can't explain all these, you should convert to both Christian and Buddhist.
Regarding the garden emerging in small steps, the answer has already been given to you, and you continue to ask the question. I'm betting that at some point your fingers will start to hurt from typing the same question over and over again. Maybe then you will also try to read the answer.
Legal and Michael - So I understand that there is no serious answer to your question. I thought you were serious people. I have yet to hear from you how they knew about the Kima cluster and the splitting of the continents. The lack of response indicates that you were convinced and found that there is truth in the matter? Do I understand correctly?
Ermac:
Already the first time I responded to your words I said that in my opinion you are not arguing intelligently.
The fact that you don't understand what I'm talking about just proves it once again.
That's why it's really not a shame if I talk to myself because it's much better than talking to a computer program.
I entered the discussion only to expose you.
Since I'm talking to myself, I tell myself that I did it and I also sound convincing to myself, so I won't try to explain the reality to you.
You accidentally did not write my name in the previous comment. So, that was me.
David, the problem is not the passion of the debate, but the things that are published and may sway the thoughts of people who are not so sure and knowledgeable in the field.
ermac h - unfortunately, or rather to my joy, the words of the Sages, the Bible, the Zohar, the Black Book of Magic and everything similar to them, are not a reference to anything and certainly not to any scientific fact, explanation, or theory or to anything else in life.
Uncle,
The truth is that there was no real argument here. Ermac does not make sense in his sentences and claims. To the same extent I can argue with a computer that tells me "Wrong!" for each answer and repeats the same question as before.
In response to your question :
I don't like the fact that in many articles only the creationists present their opinion at the end of the article. People who come to the article after several weeks or months (through a web search on a related topic) read the result and see that there are always creationists asking questions. If no one answers them, it gives the feeling that there really is no real answer and that there is justice in their claims. I don't think it's appropriate. I believe that, as Shigall has already pointed out, scientists have an obligation to fight unscientific claims that disguise themselves in scientific fiction, degrade the collective intelligence of the public and harm it.
That's why I keep answering here.
Roy Michael
Pay attention to the publication date of the article, so many words are still being spilled in the debate
Say it's not a waste of time???!!!
Every time an article of this type is published, you immediately fall into the net of this fruitless debate.
On the other hand, it is possible that the passion of the debate is so great that it is certainly justified.
to Michael-
"I asked you if you have done anything in your life and if you have any achievement that might convince that despite the nonsense you speak we will continue to pay attention to you.
You told us (yet, without pointing to any achievement) that it is not your education but your wisdom (which is why we must continue to listen) and this question is intended to check if this wisdom actually exists." - I don't know what you are talking about. It seems to me that you are talking to yourself. It's a shame .
to roi-
"You evade and twist and contradict yourself. After all, if you say that at the time they knew how to perform sorcerers, thereby contradicting the claim that Jesus walked on the water in front of hundreds of thousands of people, then the entire Mount Sinai situation could also be the result of those sorcerers. That is, even One of those events cannot be proof of the correctness of the Torah or the New Testament." - So you suddenly become a believer in magic and supernatural things? This is already progress. Although this is not the topic I wanted to discuss.
"Regarding the study you brought, I have already briefly explained to you why it is not true and why the entire scientific community does not value it and that it is riddled with errors. I have added a link to a discussion in science about the twisted argument concerning the creation of complex genes from nothing."-
I explained to you why it is not possible to rank genes. Take the coagulation protein in the blood - it has no use without a control mechanism that senses when it needs to be activated. There is no use without it being zymogenic. There is no use without the active site that performs its main action. Routing to a target area and differentiation. All these have no point, without the acids that fold it into its spatial structure and more.
And you keep repeating it for nothing.
"You continue to make the same claims without bothering to read the answers or respond logically yourself. You just demand answers, and ignore them when they come. I'm sure you enjoy it completely and see it as an innocent hobby and nothing more. But don't feel bad for the people who might believe the lies And the half-truths you quote so freely?"-I'm just trying to show them real and alternative science. They will....taste it. They won't...they won't taste it.
And what about Hezal's words? How did they know about the splitting of the continents and the Kima star?
Ermac –
I am qouting :
"And even if it is so, it is known that at the time they knew how to do magic (like Egyptian magicians). I argued with a fixed eye. Try to explain to me how this can be invented."
You dodge and twist and contradict yourself. After all, if you say that at the time they knew how to perform sorcerers, thereby contradicting the claim that Jesus walked on the water in front of hundreds of thousands of people, then the entire Mount Sinai status could also be the result of those sorcerers. That is, none of those events can be proof of the correctness of the Torah or the New Testament.
Regarding the study you brought, I have already explained to you briefly why it is not correct and why the entire scientific community does not value it and that it is riddled with errors. I have added a link to a scientific discussion about the debunked argument concerning the creation of complex genes from nothing.
You keep making the same claims without bothering to read the answers or respond logically yourself. You just demand answers, and ignore them when they come. I'm sure you enjoy it completely and see it as an innocent hobby and nothing more. But don't you feel sorry for the people who might believe the lies and half-truths you quote so freely?
Ermac the Dodger:
It has to do with proving your eligibility.
When you avoid any serious discussion and only write long comments, all you plan is to quote the things addressed to you and the rest of their components are word combinations without content, you need in some way to show that there is something to talk about with you.
I asked you if you have done anything in your life and if you have any achievement that might convince that despite the nonsense you speak we will continue to pay attention to you.
You told us (yet, without pointing to any achievement) that it is not your education but your wisdom (which is why we should continue to listen) and this question is intended to check if this wisdom actually exists.
Comments-to Roy-
"Jesus' walk on the waters of Kinneret - a spectacle watched by hundreds of thousands of people, according to the New Testament" - I said clearly and for good reason - an event in which a whole *other* people participated.
And even if it is so - it is well known that at the time they knew how to do magic (like Egyptian magicians). I argued with a firm eye. Try to explain to me how this can be invented.
Why new - why give up so quickly?
See these links regarding Chazal's words (including a calculation of the volume of Noah's box, by a doctor of applied mathematics) - I look forward to your response -
http://www.tapuz.co.il/tapuzforum/main/Viewmsg.asp?forum=570&msgid=83899321
And here….
http://www.tapuz.co.il/tapuzforum/main/Viewmsg.asp?forum=570&msgid=76721327
And here...
http://www.tapuz.co.il/tapuzforum/main/Viewmsg.asp?forum=570&msgid=41191714&archive=1
Here….
http://www.tapuz.co.il/tapuzforum/main/Viewmsg.asp?forum=570&msgid=100692846
Here too (if you have any strength left)……
http://www.tapuz.co.il/tapuzforum/main/Viewmsg.asp?forum=570&msgid=80297441
to Michael-
"You said that education is not a measure of wisdom and thus I assume that you admitted that you do not have an education." - I did not admit anything. You are welcome to invite biology professors here to argue with them.
"Maybe, if you had, we wouldn't have had to deal with all the exhaustion you're trying to do here." - Maybe you just don't have answers and that's why I'm getting teases instead of an answer to the matter?
"Education is not a measure of wisdom, but those who are wise understand its value are going to acquire it and are capable of it, therefore, everything from a certain age, education is actually a good measure of wisdom."
"Think about the following game (which involves a participation fee):
There are 100 people who each received one of the numbers between 1 and 100.
There is a room inside which is a thick wooden surface with 100 holes arranged in a row and covered with lids.
Inside the holes are written the numbers from 1 to 100 in random order.
The job of each person is to identify the hole where their number is written.
For this purpose he is allowed to open the lids of 50 holes of his choice, look into them and close them back.
Then he must go to the game managers and say in which hole he thinks his number is.
After telling the managers this he goes home and cannot have any contact with the others.
After everyone has gone through the room checkers who manage all the people's guesses.
If everyone guessed correctly, they distribute a prize of NIS 1000 to each.
Otherwise they don't share anything.
Before the people enter the room they are allowed to discuss among themselves and make any decision they want.
How much is it worth to them - if they are smart, to pay for participating in the game?"
I've heard this before. And how exactly is it related to evolution, can you explain to me?
I brought you a study that shows that a beneficial combination appears one in 60^10 mutations (not including optimization).
Since there are approximately 20^10 (don't take my word for it), then even after 4 15 billion years of creatures multiplying every second on all the stars of the universe, we would not be enough to cover 40^10 mutations. That is, not even a trillion of trillions of possibilities!
ermac
I think you are just talking nonsense but instead of dealing with all the nonsense I will address one aspect of your words.
You said that education is not a measure of wisdom and thus I assume you admitted that you have no education.
Maybe, if you had, we wouldn't have to deal with all the attrition you're trying to do here.
Education is not a measure of wisdom, but those who are wise understand its value, are going to acquire it and are capable of it, therefore, everything from a certain age, education is actually a good measure of wisdom.
But you claim that all you need is simple logic and probabilistic analysis, so maybe I'll ask you a probability question and see if you have simple logic and the ability to do probabilistic analysis.
I announce in advance - I will not publish the solution because I use this question and others from time to time to expose frauds of people like you and I do not want to weaken the tools at my disposal.
Consider the following game (which involves a participation fee):
There are 100 people who each received one of the numbers between 1 and 100.
There is a room inside which is a thick wooden surface with 100 holes arranged in a row and covered with lids.
Inside the holes are written the numbers from 1 to 100 in random order.
The job of each person is to identify the hole where their number is written.
For this purpose he is allowed to open the lids of 50 holes of his choice, look into them and close them back.
Then he must go to the game managers and say in which hole he thinks his number is.
After telling the managers this he goes home and cannot have any contact with the others.
After everyone has gone through the room checkers who manage all the people's guesses.
If everyone guessed correctly, they distribute a prize of NIS 1000 to each.
Otherwise they don't share anything.
Before the people enter the room they are allowed to discuss among themselves and make any decision they want.
How much is it worth to them - if they are smart, to pay for participating in the game?
ermac h
You asked for a simple, clear, and direct proof.
She did not meet any of the criteria.
You tell stories and invent strange passages for the sages.
I repeat that you failed to prove rational creation,
Therefore you have no basis to refute the theory of evolution.
I stop arguing with you here because you have nothing to add.
Here is another beautiful proof of the correctness of Christianity.
D. James Kennedy, a prominent Florida pastor, says that Jesus fulfilled no less than 333 predictive Bible prophecies during his life, death and resurrection from the dead. No other religious figure or philosopher or political leader has anything that remotely approaches this level of supernatural witness.
These hundreds of prophecies were written in the Old Testament by Hebrew prophets centuries before Christ was born. In addition to the prophecies fulfilled in Christ are more than a thousand other Bible prophecies that have been fulfilled in history or are being fulfilled in our own time.
"In the exodus from Egypt another people participated who all (millions of people) saw 10 supernatural plagues. This is not inventable in my opinion. Can you give me a similar example in another religion? Do you think the Creator just gave the status of Mount Sinai to the eyes of all the people and not just to a handful?"
Christ's walking on the waters of Kinneret - a spectacle watched by hundreds of thousands of people, according to the New Testament.
I quote your words:
"So proof of a creator proves a certain religion in your opinion? Not true."
"I didn't fail at anything. I explained everything."
If your explanations amount to a false repetition of the question you were asked, and then the fateful couplet - "Not true.", then yes, you really explained everything.
why new-
"It seems to me that you have a logical fallacy, what are you relying on, do you decide that way?
Each of the religions I wrote about has a creator of the world with a unique description of creation that is different from others." So proving a creator proves a certain religion in your opinion? Not true.
"There are several events in the Bible that are difficult to falsify - the Exodus from Egypt in which an entire people is shared"
First, you don't completely rule out that the Exodus is fake (strange)
I do not understand the connection between the exodus from Egypt and proving the existence of a Creator
But we will follow your method in the New Testament (Matthew 13:15-XNUMX) it is written
Jesus rose from the dead and came out of the tomb. The 12 apostles saw him.
More than a billion people believe this, do you also believe in the resurrection of Jesus?"-
In the exodus from Egypt, another people participated who all (millions of people) saw 10 supernatural plagues. This is not inventable in my opinion. Can you give me a similar example in another religion? Do you think the Creator just gave the status of Mount Sinai to the eyes of all the people and not just to a handful?
"It is interesting, therefore, what Sages wrote about the splitting of the continents, you do not quote or provide evidence, and if they wrote something, perhaps they did not mean what you think.
Regarding the Kima stars called the Pleiades group, I also see them in the sky, so what is special about this and what does all this have to do with proving the existence of a creator of the world"-
It is written - "Tana said - one country literally brought out the water and from it 7 countries were formed".
Hazal knew about the splitting of the continents.
And also - "What is Kima? About a hundred stars". However, with the naked eye you can only see about 6-8 stars. Certainly not around a hundred as it says. Just today they discovered that there are hundreds of stars in the Kima cluster. What do you have to say about that?
"Since you failed in proving rational creation, so you stop trying to disprove the theory of evolution." - I didn't fail in anything. I explained everything.
ermac h
"First of all, you have a logical fallacy (proof of a creator is not related to proof of religion)"
It seems to me that yours is a logical fallacy, what are you relying on, you decide that way?
Each of the religions I wrote about has a Creator with a unique and different description of creation.
"There are several events in the Bible that are difficult to falsify - the Exodus from Egypt in which an entire people is shared"
First, you don't completely rule out that the Exodus is fake (strange)
I do not understand the connection between the exodus from Egypt and proving the existence of a Creator
But we will follow your method in the New Testament (Matthew 13:15-XNUMX) it is written
Jesus rose from the dead and came out of the tomb. The 12 apostles saw him.
More than a billion people believe it, do you also believe in the resurrection of Christ?
"Thirdly... it's quite difficult to understand how they knew at the time (Hazel) about the splitting of the continents and the Kima cluster and the number of its stars. Do one + one and you will reach the required conclusion."
It is interesting, therefore, what Sages wrote about the splitting of the continents, you do not quote or provide evidence, and if they wrote something, perhaps they did not mean what you think.
Regarding the constellations called the Pleiades group, I also see them in the sky, so what is special about this and what does all this have to do with proving the existence of a Creator
In conclusion, it failed in proving the existence of the divine creation and it also failed in proving the existence of God.
Without this basis you could not disprove the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution develops if time is not all closed there (as in the Torah)
You may find a few missing places but over time more knowledge accumulates.
Since you failed to prove rational creation, so that you stop trying to disprove the theory of evolution.
Answers-
To Michael-"In light of the fact that you are unable to convince the scientific community and you are not ready to accept their arguments, I assume that you must think that you are smarter than all the scientists. is it true? Is this excessive wisdom of yours also expressed in something that you did manage to do" - not sure that I understood... firstly- education is not a measure of wisdom. secondly... only simple logic and probabilistic analysis are needed here.
"You claim that the correct explanation for our being here is intelligent creation and I ask you, therefore, do you see this as an explanation or in other words, does the problem of the formation of an intelligent creator from nowhere seem simpler to you than the formation of life through natural processes" - he was not created from nothing but was has always existed (didn't the atoms always exist or the Yesh?). However, we know quite a bit about man and that he did not always exist. Hence someone was created.
why new-
"Prove to me that the version of the creation of the world that you support is true and others are false.
If you fail to prove this, then the rational creation will collapse because it is not possible for every people to have a completely different story and all of them are correct!
I expect a simple, clear, and direct proof
"-First of all, you have a fallacy of logic (proof of a creator is not related to proof of religion) and therefore your claim falls flat. Second... there are some events in the Bible that are difficult to falsify - the exodus from Egypt in which they share supernatural events with another people. Try to invent it today. Third... It is quite difficult to understand how they knew at the time (Hezal) about the splitting of the continents and the Kima cluster and the number of its stars. Do one + one and you will reach the required conclusion.
To Roy - you wrote that everything appeared gradually - that is, first the active site and then the other sites. However, this is not possible.
1-There are active sites of 50 acids.
2-Even if we take the repeating combinations (there are at least 5 types of amino acids with different weights).
So the minimum chance of finding the active site is one in 50^5.
Add to that the methylation process and necessary control areas (as in the blood clotting protein that must receive a certain signal).
Add to that the acids that participate in the folding of the protein and you will come to the conclusion that at least 100 acids are required to obtain a certain protein. The problem - even after a trillion years of mutations, you will not obtain a trillion of a trillion of the required power.
Ermac –
I don't have the time to re-explain the idea of gene evolution, but you can read the answers I wrote in the above thread, where I also address this problem.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/longest-talkback-0111079/
A small note - we know that more than 99% of all organisms that have ever lived on Earth died out in catastrophes. No wonder, therefore, that we see only a fraction of the gardens that ever existed. Many small jumps between genes simply disappeared.
ermac h
a question
Versions of the creation of the world are known to at least four peoples
1. Judaism
2. Babylon
3. Ancient Egypt
4. Inca (a South American people)
(There are many other nations with the story of the creation of the world)
Each of the nations has a completely different creation story.
I assume you support the Jewish version of the creation of the world.
Prove to me that the version of the creation of the world you support is true and others are false.
If you fail to prove this, then the rational creation will collapse because it is not possible for every people to have a completely different story and all of them are correct!
I expect a simple, clear, and direct proof.
ermac
I still want to understand what's going on here.
I won't dwell right now on the fact that you ignore all the answers given to you and confuse word washing with an answer.
I want you to answer me two simple questions:
1. In view of the fact that you are unable to convince the scientific community and you are not willing to accept their arguments I guess you must think you are smarter than all the scientists. is it true? Does this excessive wisdom of yours also manifest itself in something that you did manage to do (because as mentioned, you can't convince)?
2. You claim that the correct explanation for our being here is intelligent creation and I ask you, therefore, do you see this as an explanation or in other words, does the problem of the formation of an intelligent creator from nowhere seem simpler to you than the formation of life through natural processes (since the creator you are talking about is from It is probably alive and its formation poses all the difficulties that exist in the formation of life plus the problem of inconsistency with the findings)?
Note that my questions are simple and do not require a scroll as an answer.
Depending on your answers I will decide if it is worth me continuing to talk with you.
Roy Cezana
Your last comment is amazing.
a big thanks.
to Roy and Miko-
"patience. Good answers, like good questions, do not come without data to support them, and I spent the last day reading and searching for such data, which would answer your questions." - I appreciate your investment.
"1. There is no chance of creating a functional gene / functional protein from scratch. This argument was put forward for the first time already in 1964 by Saftner, and in 1977 by Yuki. The problem is that their calculation does not reflect reality. They claim that if an average protein is made up of 300 amino acids, and each acid can be one of 20 possible, then the chance of forming a functional protein is 20 to the power of 300. This number is so large as to be impossible.
Creationists who use this argument, which has long since been disproved, ignore the idea of the gradualness of evolution. The amino acids (or nucleotides) are not added randomly. The protein or the gene is not created all at once, in a process of creation from nothing. It was really absurd. The initial gene or protein is very short, and almost useless. The slightest bit of activity they can perform is enough to bring about their preservation, and the accumulation of mutations in the gene from that point onward brings about a change."-
Here you are probably wrong. I will explain - a gene cannot be created gradually. And why? Because every gene is not for nothing composed of hundreds of *necessary* acids -
1) Acids that constitute the active site (there are proteins with active sites of dozens of acids)
2) Acids that fold the protein into its specific spatial structure and without which the protein will not function at all = dozens more acids
3) Necessary control sites of various kinds - such as, for example, in the coagulation proteins in the blood
4) Routing mechanism to a specific target area in multicellular organisms and differentiation = more acids
Conclusion - at least 100 acids are required in order to give some useful function and there are no small steps in creating a gene. In my opinion, this is the critical point in the Darwinian argument. If you can disprove it, I would love to hear it. So far I have not met anyone who has done this (it probably requires a high level of knowledge). By the way... Also in the book of the blind watchmaker there is a model that tries to symbolize this in the sentence - "I think he resembles a rabbit". And even there it is not successful because it is an artificial selection.
"If the change is negative and causes a loss of activity, then the gene will not be passed on. But if the change is positive and leads to better activity, then the gene will be passed on in an increased form. Repeat this mechanism billions of times, and you will end up with a very complex gene or protein, made of hundreds of amino acids / nucleotides. There is no contradiction of evolution here. It is strange that Dr. Truman is not aware of this point, which is also taught in schools in the subject of biology." - see above. If you have a source (even an evolutionist one), that explains how a garden is formed in small steps, I would appreciate it if you could show it to me.
"As I mentioned, Truman has many more problems with his logic and claims, but if I start detailing them all I will bore everyone who doesn't know biology on the forum." - Okay. Let's try to concentrate only on the small steps argument.
” and there are no residual organs in them, after all this could be evidence of the existence of an intelligent force directing evolution. But you cannot prove this, because there are many creatures with residual or harmful organs and mechanisms" - who determined that they are residual or harmful?
Those who claimed that the "junk" DNA is unusable or that the appendix has no function? The fact is that they were wrong.
Regarding your example, there is a problem. If you go for the probabilistic explanation, then it is actually on the side of the creationist argument so far. Whether it is abiogenesis or the fine tune of the universe or the big bang or the quantum theory or mathematical models.
Unfortunately, if we objectively examine all the evidence of evolution then it seems that they all merge into one big hole.
"When we also connect the evidence from the molecular clocks in DNA, "-here, for example, there are jumps (Kimura's studies). And they contradict the model of small steps.
"And the dating according to the soil layers of geology, "-there are hypotheses here along with circular arguments of predicting the age of the layer according to the findings and not the other way around and along with the fact that the thickness of a layer does not indicate its age and along with the fact that this does not contradict an intelligent creation and along with the fact that previous worlds are mentioned in various scriptures.
"And the dating according to carbon 14 of physics, "-as above
"And the mechanisms of evolution that we see every day in laboratories, "-what we see in laboratories is point mutations or a bacterium that remains a bacterium and a worm that remains a worm without the formation of a new gene system.
"And the tendency of DNA to connect to other DNA molecules and create primary replicators, "-our DNA only replicates with the help of proteins and a genetic language that have never been shown how it could have been created (there are dozens of necessary components in it). As far as I know, it has never been A replicating molecule +some coding ability was predicted.
"And the evolution that insects, bacteria and viruses go through every year,
"-see above explanation
"And the natural selection that works on all life on earth," - I have no problem with natural selection. Natural selection can only clarify but not create.
"And the evolution that the Pharisees went through in the Galapagos Islands," - no new mechanism was created there
"And all the other thousands of pieces of evidence that continue to be collected every day..." - we have never seen one millionth of what evolution claims to claim.
See how all the evidence you gave is no evidence at all.
"Can we deny the theory of evolution, simply because - "it is written in the Bible"?" - No. Because of the laws of logic and probability.
Lemiko-"Evolution does not pretend to state that new complex genes appear with the wave of a hand, but develop over time. First, the abnormality of another gene is created - a simple gene, and over time more mutations are added to this gene"-
Try to answer the question I posed above. You surely know that each non-homologous gene differs by hundreds of acids from one another = therefore there are no small steps between gene and gene.
Have a nice day everyone.
Roy, I agree with your every word
But you are missing an important point
Ermac declared himself "non-religious"
So the Bible is not relevant in the case
If you want to explain to him or differentiate, convince him, of the correctness of your claim, perhaps you should find out first what makes him believe in intelligent creation (and according to his limited understanding of evolution, I don't believe it is for scientific reasons).
to Ermac,
Regarding the issue of probability that you presented here, and it is about high school level material, there is a difference between gradualism and there is - from nowhere
The probability that a completely new gene will appear at a full level of complexity is (20^300)/1, evolution does not pretend to determine that new complex genes appear like a wave of the hand, but develop over time. First, the abnormality of another gene is created - a simple gene, and over time more mutations are added to this gene.
Take coin flips for example
What is the probability that you will get 500 coins in a row? A very small number.
But if you got, completely by chance, 499 fliers in a row - what is the chance that you will get a flier on the next shot? 0.5
Definitely a reasonable chance.
If we throw it at the evolution of the genes, to move from one level of complexity to another it is not about a probability of (20^300)/1 but only 1/20 and again, this is absolutely reasonable.
So much probability for laymen.
to short-tempered Ermac,
patience. Good answers, like good questions, do not come without data to support them, and I have spent the last day reading and searching for such data to answer your questions.
I will start by commenting on the article you brought by Dr. Royal Truman. The article is full of errors and false assumptions, some of which have already been disproved. In short, he comes out against a software called AVIDA which he claims was supposed to imitate evolution in a computerized way. He claims that the software does not mimic evolution very well. I will not go over all the prominent errors in the article (which is clearly unscientific and failed to pass peer review even by masters in various forums), but I will still talk about two of his main claims:
1. There is no chance of creating a functional gene / functional protein from scratch. This argument was put forward for the first time already in 1964 by Saftner, and in 1977 by Yuki. The problem is that their calculation does not reflect reality. They claim that if an average protein is made up of 300 amino acids, and each acid can be one of 20 possible, then the chance of forming a functional protein is 20 to the power of 300. This number is so large as to be impossible.
Creationists who use this argument, which has long since been disproved, ignore the idea of the gradualness of evolution. The amino acids (or nucleotides) are not added randomly. The protein or the gene is not created all at once, in a process of creation from nothing. It was really absurd. The initial gene or protein is very short, and almost useless. The slightest activity they can perform is enough to bring about their preservation, and the accumulation of mutations in the gene from that point onward brings about a change. If the change is negative and causes a loss of activity, then the gene will not be passed on. But if the change is positive and leads to better activity, then the gene will be passed on in an increased form. Repeat this mechanism billions of times, and you will end up with a very complex gene or protein, made of hundreds of amino acids / nucleotides. There is no contradiction of evolution here. It is strange that Doctor Truman is not aware of this point, which is also taught in schools in the subject of biology.
2. Truman complains that the software simulation is too small. That is, instead of taking all the billions of bases of a living being and running a simulation on them, it is based on 250 initial bases. He also complains that the mutation rate is too high. Apparently he does not understand the meaning of the word 'simulation'. The researchers' idea was not to reconstruct evolution from the beginning. Their idea was simply to test the validity of the process for a model with a limited number of initial bases. The mutation rate was high to allow the software to run in normal time. A lower mutation rate would have simply caused a longer wait in front of the computer, but the results would have remained valid.
As I mentioned, Truman has many more problems with his logic and claims, but if I start listing them all I will bore everyone who doesn't know biology on the forum.
Let's move on.
"Who told you, that I'm not trying to show the existence of God? What's wrong with proof by way of negation?"
You cannot prove by way of negation, because you can never completely negate evidence. In other words, if there was absolute evidence that all the creatures we will ever discover on Earth are XNUMX percent adapted to their environment, and have no residual organs, then this could be evidence of the existence of an intelligent force directing evolution. But you cannot prove it, because there are many creatures with residual or harmful organs and mechanisms.
I want to summarize everything else you said, with my own example:
—–
A crime happened in New York. An armed man broke into a jewelry store, killed the seller, robbed all the money and jewelry and fled for his life. Fortunately, there was a camera in the store and the burglar left fingerprints. In addition, he also struggled with the seller and was scratched, so that a drop of his blood fell on the floor, and during the struggle his head covering was torn and the camera was able to capture his face.
The detectives did not have a hard job in this case. They cross-referenced all the data, arrested the right person, and prepared to put him on trial. The parable I'm about to describe begins at this point, when a lawyer enters the police building and demands to speak with the chief detective, claiming that the person he imprisoned is innocent.
The detective: "I understand that you claim that he is innocent. Can you explain to me why?"
Lawyer: "I have one good testimony that shows that X is not guilty. But before that I want to know - what evidence do you have that X is guilty?"
The detective: "We took a picture of his face when the mask was torn. It's not such a good photo, but you can clearly identify the eyes, nose and ears."
Lawyer: "Just the eyes, nose and ears? Surely there are millions of people all over America with similar facial features! This is not certain evidence, and therefore X is not guilty!”
The detective: "We discovered partial fingerprints. They are not perfect, but they are 90% the same as those of X.”
Lawyer: "Only 90%? There are millions more people to whom these fingerprints could belong! This is not certain evidence, and therefore X is not guilty!”
The detective: "We extracted DNA from the drop of blood he chalked on the table. The DNA is not completely complete, so there is only a 99% chance that it belongs to him."
Lawyer: "Only 99%? There are hundreds of thousands of other people that this DNA could be theirs! This is not certain evidence, and therefore X is not guilty!”
The detective (starting to despair): "But why would one of these hundreds of thousands of people, the vast majority of whom are not even in New York, spill blood on the jewelry store's table?"
Lawyer: "I don't know. It is from God. But this is still not certain evidence!"
The detective: "We discovered in X's possession a gun identical to the model we see on camera, with which he shoots the seller."
Lawyer: "Additional guns of other types were also discovered with X. You were just looking for this gun. And a lot of people have guns like that, that doesn't make X guilty!”
The detective: "There were signs that X had fired a gun that day."
Lawyer: "It has nothing to do with our case. X is not guilty!”
The detective: "X has a criminal record and is known to have already committed acts of serious crime."
Lawyer: "So what? It doesn't prove anything. X is not guilty!”
The detective: "They discovered jewelry in X's house that he stole from the jewelry store!"
Lawyer: "These are not the same jewelry. X bought them for good money that day, from another store he forgot the name of, and threw the receipts in the trash. The jewels are similar to jewels stolen only by accident. You cannot disprove it with complete certainty, therefore X is not guilty!”
The detective: "Let me summarize all the evidence. X is a serious and known criminal. He has in his hands a gun identical to the one used in the burglary, and it is clear that he shot it that day. The drop of blood discovered on the table in the store contains his DNA with 99% probability. The partial fingerprints point to him with a 90% probability. The eyes, nose and ears that we see on camera match X's face completely. In X's house, jewelry was found that exactly matches the stolen jewelry, and he cannot explain where he got it. Perhaps each piece of evidence by itself does not constitute absolute and clear proof, but all of them together create a picture that is very difficult to deny. I'm sure that as soon as we interrogate him, he will confess."
Lawyer: "Apparently it is so, but the connection is not necessarily circumstantial, and I am sure he will not confess. I have information that can explain why, despite all this, it was not X who committed the crime.”
The detective: "Well, then tell me!"
Lawyer: "It is written in the Bible."
The detective: "..."
----
What is the parable and what is the parable?
The theory of evolution is based on thousands of evidences from all different fields of science, as I already mentioned in my previous message. Maybe only one piece of evidence does not justify the theory, but all the pieces of evidence combine to show a picture that is very difficult to deny. You might say that the fossils are definitely not a jump from species to species, and you'd be right. But when we also add the evidence from the molecular clocks in DNA,
and the dating according to soil layers of geology,
and the carbon 14 dating of physics,
and the mechanisms of evolution that we see every day in laboratories,
and the tendency of DNA to connect to additional DNA molecules and create primary replicators,
and the evolution that insects, bacteria and viruses go through every year,
and the natural selection that operates on all life on Earth,
and the evolution that the Pharisees went through in the Galapagos Islands,
And all the other thousands of testimonies that continue to be collected every day...
Can we deny the theory of evolution, simply because "it is written in the Bible"?
have a good day,
Roy.
To Roy-"Magic without a magician? That's easy to find. The development of one cell into a living, breathing human baby, perfect in all its organs and in all its billions of cells. And without divine intervention at any stage."-
Of course. After the magician invented the mechanism that performs this. It is good that you admit that it is magic.
Legal-"By the way, why do you copy passages from those who respond to you and often leave the passages without comment? You have nothing to comment on?"-I have something to say about everything. I am content with the summary. I am not ignoring any question. You are welcome to try.
For "what's new"-"and this is the substitute that you invented this nothingness."
Maybe you will go to convince people of your kind.
I won't waste my time on your bullshit."-
Do whatever you want. You are not obliged to respond if you don't have an answer.
By the way Roy... I'm still waiting for you to refute the article, regarding the chance of finding a functional gene. The data of the evolutionist Kimura show that a functional gene is formed approximately one in 50^10 sequences. What do you have to say in your defense?
to ermac h,
It seems to me that you repeat the comments like a parrot without almost responding.
So she raised a white flag
I am not at all surprised because it became clear to me from your response about the Leviathan creation that you know nothing about the Theban creation because your God keeps it a secret.
Oh, I forgot, he discovered some of the secrets of creation in Adam and Eve
And that's the substitute that you invented this nothingness.
Maybe you will go to convince people of your kind.
I won't waste my time on your bullshit.
to ermac h,
Mechabat = Repentant
Your definition of a religious person is probably very unique to you if you claim that you are not.
By the way, why do you copy passages from those who respond to you and often leave the passages uncommented? You have nothing to comment?
To my father and my shepherd,
Michael is right, there is no point in responding to ermac h's words, because his language is different from the language of most visitors to this site, his logic works differently and he mainly repeats over and over arguments that have already been answered (as usual...).
Magic without a magician? It's easy to find. The development of one cell into a living, breathing human baby, perfect in all its organs and in all its billions of cells. And without divine intervention at any stage.
To my honorable father-
"It is not clear why religious Jews are so mobilized in favor of intelligent creation which is a North American Protestant cultural creation." - Maybe because I am not religious?
"Secondly, it seems to me that you probably lack basic information about how evolution works, the whale is a most wonderful creature, and its origin in general is from terrestrial mammals, probably relatives of the hippopotamus." - The key word here is "probably".
As it seems, man owed food and an enzyme for its decomposition and a metabolic pathway already at the beginning of his journey in the world.
” By the way, one of the types of whales is the largest creature that has ever lived on Earth, larger than any dinosaur or marine reptile. It is much more miraculous than a pile of dirt of the same weight." - The Blue Whale - 33 meters and over 100 tons.
"For tens of millions of years the whale has evolved, and it is also a product of those 3 billion years of evolution. It is true that 3 billion years ago all the material that is found today in animals including humans and plants was once part of the dirt. Well then what." - Well then what is different, the story of science from the story of the Bible? Miracles happened in both. But science claims that they happened without a miracle worker. Do you know magic without a magician?
"Since you have no scientific alternative, you look for weak points and if there are none - you invent them by building a scarecrow of evolution. Every beginner pan-baker uses this method." - What's wrong with intelligent planning? What's wrong with the negative way?
What is mahbat?
Ermac –
I read your comment with interest, and I am now examining the article you provided in the link. It is not a scientific article and is riddled with errors and misunderstandings, and I will talk about that in my response, which will hopefully arrive towards the end of the day.
ERMACA, it is not clear why religious Jews are so mobilized in favor of intelligent creation which is a North American Protestant cultural creation.
Secondly, it seems to me that you probably lack basic information as to how evolution works, the whale is a most wonderful creature, and its origin in general is from terrestrial mammals, probably relatives of the hippopotamus. This niche of large marine creatures was vacant from the time the dinosaurs abandoned it 65 million years ago until the first marine mammals filled it about 40 million years ago. There are no empty spaces in nature, and anyone who could take advantage of it did so. By the way, one of the types of whales is the largest creature that has ever lived on Earth, larger than any dinosaur or marine reptile. It is much more miraculous than a pile of dirt of the same weight. For tens of millions of years the whale has evolved, and it is also a product of those 3 billion years of evolution. It is true that 3 billion years ago all the material that is found today in animals including humans and plants was once part of the dirt. so what.
And one more thing. Science is not a program as you ask. You cannot argue against something by way of negation without offering something alternative. Since you have no scientific alternative (God cannot be such an alternative), you look for weak points and if there are none - invent them by building a scarecrow of evolution. Every beginner military personnel uses this method. Unfortunately, it works on the masses of ignorant people in the country.
Continued-
"The processes of evolution seem to have developed almost at once. And not like that!
Evolution supports gradual processes, which are revealed one by one, over billions of years." - Even a step-by-step process is not possible. (Read the link I attached earlier). This is because the chance of finding a single functional gene is zero to the point of horror.
We have evidence for this from the field of molecular biology (genetic similarity), geology (layers of soil that contribute to the dating of fossils), paleontology (many fossils that are very similar to each other and show how creatures evolved from one another), chemistry and biochemistry (the creation of organic molecules - the building blocks of life - in a test tube ), physics (radioactive carbon dating) and many other sciences." - You could continue with comparative anatomy, embryology and all the other "evidence" that does not say anything. Pay attention that all of the above has a common basis - it is only a hypothesis!
"Even from the economic principles of Malthus, in 1800, Darwin Wallace deduced natural selection! It is not just one area of science that supports evolution. These are many areas, all of which support each other. What does Ermac have to present against all those multiple evidences, which back up and verify each other? "- that they also perceive an intelligent creator. You are welcome to present me a claim and I will answer it one by one.
"And then Ermac gives a 'poo!' Big, and the scarecrow collapses.
Ermac is happy and jubilant. He overthrew the theory of evolution!"-You are funny Roy.
is that so?
Ermac did not drop the evolution. He just dropped the scarecrow he built. This scarecrow is not the theory of evolution. He does not present the theory of evolution in ignorance. He leaves out of evolution, most conveniently, parts like natural selection that are so important in evolution. He does not mention the thousands of evidences received for the theory of evolution, from all the different fields of science. "-a claim was made and it was discussed in detail. See in the end that you will be left with nothing.
"The scientific, with the aim of finding how many of them talk about an 'intelligent creator' or the 'science of creation'. Not even one such scientific paper has been discovered. Other scientific studies repeated this survey and got the same result. "-articles can't determine. Do you want peer-reviewed articles? I have a list.
You want scientists who do not support evolution? I have a list.
"The community of scientists is a very critical and ambitious community." - Yes of course. I have already seen how much.
"If a scientist discovered a finding that refutes evolution, he would be considered the next Einstein. So how is it that no such finding has been published in the scientific literature? "-
What about Professor Michael Behe? He is a scientist and he comes out against evolution (there is a list if you want). Why do they despise him? Because of course they are afraid.
"Religious people have an answer for this too. According to them, the scientific community is closed and is not ready to publish such studies. But a check with the editors of the leading scientific journals reveals that only a very small number of anti-evolutionary studies at all -=submitted=- have ever been published. "-I told you-I will give you a list of some studies on the plausibility of evolution and intelligent design. And all of them are from scientists.
why new-
"Did he use to create a leviathan:
In Leviathan-like dirt (about 100 tons) + the Holy Spirit = the first Leviathan
I'm just interested in evolution, excuse me, in intelligent creation"-
Ask him. As I imagine man is the one created from dust. No?
By the way....do you think a whale is the final product of a puddle of chemicals in an ancient imaginary ocean?
to roi-
"You try to argue for the existence of an intelligent creator, but then you avoid answering the questions about that creator. If he is intelligent, why did he create useless organs? Why did he create such problematic female hypocrites?
You have no answers." - Who said there are no answers to this? The knowledge of biology today is many times greater than yesterday the day before. It is arrogance to say that we know everything when we know almost nothing.
And yes... I can give you explanations for the appendix, the coccyx, "primitive" reflexes, "junk" DNA, duck skin, and more. And if I show you that everything has a role? Then evolution is disproved? I'm guessing you'll still believe in it. Right?
” You are trying to justify every fossil in a way that fits the idea of intelligent creation, which is not scientific at all.
There is evidence of genes that are similar enough to prove that these species diverged from each other. How do you justify this evidence?" - Are you serious Roy? Similar genes are "evidence" of evolution from each other? Do you really want me to expand on the subject? (By the way, what about non-homologous genes?).
So why did he make some of the creatures in an unwise way at all?
'Well, it already has to do with philosophy...'
(That is, you don't know. You don't have an answer. You are sure that the Creator has an answer, and you don't dare to think to yourself that there might have been some kind of glitch in the whole business)" - then you will also ask why there are blind and mute people, etc. Questions that religion answers. It has nothing to do with science .Who said that the creature was built in an unwise way? You? You are welcome to try to surpass the creation called man. I will supply you with amino acids and nucleotides. Do you think you will succeed? I doubt it.
"And this is a scientific theory in your opinion? When every question has no answer, you answer it with "because that's the way it is" and end with that? I notice that religion during its entire existence has not produced vaccines for diseases, has not produced electricity, has not flown people into space.
Why?"-Who said that religion should do this? Who said that intelligent planning proves any religion?. Cow cow. By the way. Do you know the phrase - "Wisdom among the Gentiles, believe"? That is to say, religion definitely encourages science and rational thinking. By the way... if you I really want to, I'll show you things that were known at the time about the splitting of the continents and the Kima star, etc.
"Science is ready to test any possibility, as long as it can be proven or disproved. Since science came into the picture, humans live twice as long on average, are healthier, eat better... we've even reached the moon already!"-
Who said that a long lifespan is a measure of quality? And even if it is...how does it have anything to do with evolution?
"So what's better?
What works, or what fails?
What advances the person, or what holds him back? "-It's better to tell the truth.
"What should I do?
Should we think on our own and understand where we came from and where we are going?" - Definitely. I do so.
"It's pretty clear what you chose, because you're trying to twist the scientific theory, just to attract souls to your side." - Maybe you won't believe me... but in the past I would argue with religious people in favor of evolution. You'll be surprised!
Comments to all-legal-
"Why do you demand proof of evolution but at the same time you put the same 'intelligent designer' above all proof?" - because they claim that evolution is a "fact" when it really isn't.
Who told you, that I'm not trying to show the existence of God? What's wrong with proof by way of negation?
"Stand up and prove it! Do not rely on a pile of imaginary arguments without any basis and proof. A repeated claim that a certain thing has not been proven, does not become proof of its negation, if it is not true" - I am not throwing things into the air.
Read here, about the chance of finding a functional gene in evolution-
http://www.trueorigin.org/schneider.asp
"Do you think the fossils and their dating are fiction?
Do you think that similar but slightly different fossils found in layers with different but close dates are not related to each other?" - even if they are related it cannot be proven. Therefore they are not worth anything. If there was some supporting evidence, one creature that changed into another creature, we would still be can accept it, but without such proof it is a serious problem.
"The fundamental difference between planning and evolutionary development is that the former has a purpose and the latter does not. What is the purpose of your intelligent planner? How did he plan and create those primordial creatures and at what stage did he leave them to their own devices and their evolution?" - these are philosophical questions that religion answers. This is not my intention.
"Intelligent design raises so many unanswered questions and such great complications that, according to Occam's razor principle, there is no doubt that we must stick to the theory of evolution!
"-On the contrary! First of all... Occam's razor cannot rule out anything. Second of all... evolution has many more problems than intelligent planning - sexual reproduction, eugenics, jumps in fossils, problems with the phlygonic tree, statistical and technical explanations, the formation of multi-gene systems, inextricably complex And more and more. Occam's razor is more suitable for intelligent creation - an intelligent creator created everything and that's it. Without unnecessary questions and problems that evolution cannot answer.
ermac h
Because she decided that Genesis is a scientific book, so I have a question?
The secrets of the creation of your rational God are detailed in chapter XNUMX verse XNUMX according to the well-known formula:
Man made from dust + the Holy Spirit = the first man
Did he use to create a leviathan:
In Leviathan-like dirt (about 100 tons) + the Holy Spirit = the first Leviathan
I'm just interested in evolution, sorry, intelligent creation
I'm asking for a direct answer (and avoid it in the direction of evolution)
Was this how creation was, yes or no?
Roy Vigal C:
I've been away again for a while and I see you've been working hard.
In my opinion, you have a fundamental mistake in that you react to Ermac as if he were an intelligent debater.
He doesn't pay attention to your words at all and simply recites his mantras. It's really not a problem to write a computer program that will answer in its place. Because he reacts automatically, he doesn't even have to think and thus he saves a lot of energy while you think about every word and exhaust yourself.
I read your comments and will answer later. Due to lack of time.
What's new,
From reading your previous messages in the forum, I think you yourself recognize the problem with Ermac's demagoguery. He tries to make things sound ridiculous by presenting the processes of evolution as if they developed almost at once. And not like that!
Evolution supports gradual processes, which are revealed one by one, over billions of years. To believe that a lawyer can evolve from a bacterium in our lifetime... well, it's not very likely. But over billions of years, it can certainly happen. We have evidence for this from the field of molecular biology (genetic similarity), geology (layers of soil that contribute to the dating of fossils), paleontology (many fossils that are very similar to each other and show how creatures evolved from one another), chemistry and biochemistry (the creation of organic molecules - the building blocks of life - in a test tube ), physics (radioactive carbon dating) and many other sciences. Even from Malthus' principles of economics, in 1800, Darwin Wallace deduced natural selection! It is not just one area of science that supports evolution. These are many areas, all of which support each other. What does Ermac have to present against all those multiple evidences, which back up and verify each other?
From previous discussions with Ermac and other creationists who appeal to the general public, I already know what he has. He has a scarecrow. It turns out that what Ermac is doing is a common exercise among evolutionists. Ermac sets up a 'scarecrow', and calls it 'the theory of evolution'. This scarecrow is very fragile. In fact, he can barely stand on his own two feet. Any slight gust of wind can cause it to collapse and collapse.
Then Ermac gives a 'poo!' Big, and the scarecrow collapses.
Ermac is happy and jubilant. He overthrew the theory of evolution!
is that so?
Ermac did not drop the evolution. He just dropped the scarecrow he built. This scarecrow is not the theory of evolution. He does not present the theory of evolution in ignorance. He leaves out of evolution, most conveniently, parts like natural selection that are so important in evolution. He does not mention the thousands of evidences received for the theory of evolution, from all the different fields of science.
As I said, this is a cheap exercise used a lot in arguments about evolution. When they try to explain to Ermac about his mistake, he ignores. It is important for him to maintain the appearance of his scarecrow. But the fact is that the theory of evolution has not been disproved in the scientific community. Moreover - in a study conducted in the 90s, hundreds of thousands of articles in the scientific literature were reviewed, with the aim of finding how many of them talk about an 'intelligent creator' or 'the science of creation'. Not even one such scientific paper has been discovered. Other scientific studies repeated this survey and got the same result.
So let's look at that again for a moment.
The community of scientists is a very critical and ambitious community. If a scientist discovered a finding that refutes evolution, he would be considered the next Einstein. So how is it that no such finding has been published in the scientific literature? How is it that only certain religious people who oppose evolution in principle find all these problems, and claim that they have no solution?
Religious people have an answer for this too. According to them, the scientific community is closed and is not ready to publish such studies. But a check with the editors of the leading scientific journals reveals that only a very small number of anti-evolutionary studies at all -=submitted=- have ever been published. These too were shaky and had problematic logic and were, usually, rejected outright. In contrast, hundreds of articles are published every year that use evolution as a default and get results that justify the reliance on the theory. In every such article, evolution proves itself anew.
So Ermac can continue playing with the scarecrow he built for him. He can keep knocking him to the ground, kicking him and spitting on him. We know that his scarecrow is not the theory of evolution, and that the whole world is watching as Ermac, in the end, plays with himself.
You try to argue for the existence of an intelligent creator, but then you avoid answering the questions about that creator. If he is intelligent, why did he create useless organs? Why did he create such problematic female hypocrites?
You have no answers. You throw your hands in the air, raise your eyes to the sky, and say that - 'These are philosophical questions, not related to science.'
Very well.
So, from your own words, the idea of intelligent creation does not belong to science either. You are trying to justify every fossil in a way that fits the idea of intelligent creation, which is not scientific at all.
There is evidence of genes that are similar enough to prove that these species diverged from each other. How do you justify these testimonies?
'The intelligent creator decided to make us this way.'
Why?
'So. Because he is an intelligent creator.'
So why did he make some of the creatures in an unwise way at all?
'Well, it already has to do with philosophy...'
(That is, you don't know. You don't have an answer. You are sure that the Creator has an answer, and you don't dare to think to yourself that there might have been some sort of glitch in the whole business)
And is this a scientific theory in your opinion? When every question has no answer, you answer it with "because that's the way it is" and end with that? I notice that religion during its entire existence has not produced vaccines for diseases, has not produced electricity, has not flown people into space.
Why?
Because religion accepts very simple answers. "Because God wants it." It is impossible to argue with such an answer. It is impossible to disprove it - and it is also impossible to prove it. It is clearly unscientific. As long as this was the case, is it any wonder that man did not advance anywhere?
Science is ready to test any possibility, as long as it can be proven or disproved. Since science came into the picture, humans live twice as long on average, are healthier, eat better... we've even reached the moon already!
So in fact you come and present a debate between a scientific theory and a religious dogma. The scientific theory comes when it is backed by the scientific method, which has already proven its value in all areas of life. The religious dogma comes when it is backed by... well, by the religious dogma, which for two thousand years has not improved the living conditions of human beings.
So what's better?
What works, or what fails?
What advances the person, or what holds him back?
What should I do?
Should we think on our own and understand where we came from and where we are going?
Or maybe we should shrug our shoulders, mutter, "God says that..." and close our eyes to reality?
It is quite clear what you have chosen, because you are trying to twist the scientific theory, just to attract souls to your side.
I am? I choose the scientific theory, which has already proven itself, and continues to prove itself every day, in improving the conditions of man's life in the world.
post Scriptum.
Religion is a great thing, as long as you know how to draw the line between religion and science. Everyone has the right to believe in their own God. But I find it hard to believe that God intervenes in our lives every day, or that he created us 6000 years ago and placed us fossils simply to test our faith. As 'what's new' has already said, you are simply insulting God here and desecrating the Holy, if you think that's all he has to do.
to ermac h
Why do you demand proof of evolution but at the same time you put the same 'intelligent designer' above all proof?
Do you think the word 'Nada' is used as a scientific proof?
If you think that the cat was created by evolution 'backward' (there is no such thing! All evolution is forward! Even if organs degenerated and then returned to function - very rare - this is still forward evolution), stand up and prove it! Do not rely on a pile of imaginary arguments without any basis and proof. A repeated claim that a certain thing has not been proven, does not become proof of its negation, if it is not true.
Do you think fossils and their dating are fiction?
Do you think that similar but slightly different fossils found in strata with different but close dates are unrelated?
The fundamental difference between design and evolutionary development is that the former has a purpose and the latter does not. What is the purpose of your intelligent planner? How did he plan and create those primordial creatures and at what point did he leave them to their own devices and evolution?
Intelligent design raises so many unanswered questions and such great complications that, according to Occam's razor principle, there is no doubt that we must stick to the theory of evolution!
to roi-
"If you claim that there is an intelligent creator, then you have to explain why he created creatures that are not designed in an ideal way. For example, the wings of the ostrich," - I don't need to explain philosophy. Regarding design deficiencies - it is not possible to prove that the ostrich's wings have no function or that they did not have a function in the past. (What's more, no agility in running can be considered a useful function). The same goes for the tailbone, wisdom tooth, appendix "junk" DNA, etc. All of them have been proven to have a beneficial function.
"Or the female hyenas, 50% of which die in the first birth. There are no answers to questions like these, beyond 'because that's how he wanted it, and we'll find out that it's good'. These are simply not real answers, but answers that evade the question and are not ready to investigate further." - This is a philosophical question related to religion. We are not discussing religion here, but science. In any case, this does not rule out any creator.
"Regarding new species that are created, the creation of new species of flies, bacteria with new properties and, of course, different dogs has already been demonstrated.
Now tell me - "But a dog is still a dog!"
And I will tell you - "A Great Dane is no more similar to a Chihuahua in appearance than a manta fish is to Abu-Nafha." - Absolutely not true! Abu Nafha has different organs, different genes, an external shape that does not resemble a manta, etc.
"The definition of gender is marginal, superficial, and directly related to the defining human beings. If we look at the external form alone, it seems that the Chihuahua is very different from the Great Dane. "-see above. He is still identified as a dog. He is still called a Danish dog and not a Danish cat (let's say).
"Actually, we know that they are both dogs only because we brought their evolution through very strong artificial selection. We did it in less than 10,000 years of evolution. "-So according to you, a Danish dog is not a dog? Do I understand correctly? Furthermore... see my explanation above regarding the change required regarding a new creature.
"How long did evolution have to work on the multicellular organisms? hundreds of millions of years. That is, a time 10,000 times more changes than those that turned the wolf into the Great Dane and the Chihuahua. At this time we can understand that all the wealth of animals and fossils could have been created." - Not true. The chance of finding a functional gene in multicellular organisms is zero on any scale. Not to mention complex systems of gene complexes.
"We have very good evidence for this evolution. We have already found many fossils showing the evolution of modern horses from their tiny ancestors. "- Not true. The horse remains a horse. What's more, it is not certain that it was created from another horse.
"We found many fossils belonging to the ancient ancestors of the whales, who had four legs and walked on land." - again the questioner asked. Why go so far? I claim that the domestic cat is an evolutionary product of a lion that evolved backwards. Can I prove it? Nada.
"Fossilized shells show the evolution of all kinds of molluscs over millions of years. About twenty fossils of hominoids have been found, which constitute transitional stages between modern man and our ancient ancestors who split from the apes." - You repeat the argument of the fossils over and over again. I just now showed you why it doesn't make sense at all.
"In short, the proofs are abundant - much more proof than the proofs for that intelligent Artilai creator." - In short - you cling to fossils as if they were real evidence, even when it is nothing.
Response to "what's new" - in the beginning there was a soup of chemicals (which was never found anywhere), in a miraculous process (which was never predicted anywhere) a miraculous replicating molecule was created for it, which not only knew how to replicate itself but also code for a miraculous genetic language (which was never predicted to be created) ), this went to her and slowly developed into a living cell with all of its organs (which they never saw coming into being), and over the years it became a wonderful person with interdependent parts. They could never have been created gradually, because everything was needed as one. The food he needed appeared miraculously And so is his digestive enzyme, it is required + a layer of protection against that enzyme. And that person (basically a developed molecule), wanted to be a lawyer one day or study painting and art. He started talking and invented a real language for him. He invented computers, cars and spaceships for him Until now to the site of the scientist. And all these miracles (and millions more) from soup mud. Would you believe it? Blessed are the ears that heard this...
By the way, I wonder what the creationists think about the purpose of the rational creator in creating all the species that have already become extinct and especially those human species that are on the way between us and the ape.
What is beautiful about the rational choice is that not only does it not have a shred of proof - it does not even have an orderly claim.
For example, to my question above, there will be among the creationists those who will stand up and say - "of course - the intelligent creator only created the first living cell" but they will still remain partners in the struggle with those who claim that an intelligent creator created man because basically all that defines them is their opposition to science.
Ermac –
Another thing. You compare spoons and forks to living things, which shows me that you don't appreciate the complexity of your body enough.
Please, go to the kitchen, get a spoon and fork and examine them carefully. Can the fork produce offspring? Can the cape undergo mutations in its gametes? Can a fork and a spoon mate with each other and produce hybrid products?
If you believe so, you probably don't need to keep sharp utensils in the house, like a fork (and certainly one that could get pregnant at any moment).
In short, the inanimate object analogy does not work, and has nothing to do with evolution.
Ermac –
If you claim that there is an intelligent creator, then you have to explain why he created creatures that are not designed in an ideal way. For example, the wings of the ostrich, or the female hyenas, 50% of which die in their first birth. There are no answers to questions like these, beyond 'because that's how he wanted it, and we'll find out that it's good'. These are simply not real answers, but answers that avoid the question and are not ready to investigate further.
As for new species being created, the creation of new species of flies, bacteria with new properties and of course, different dogs has already been demonstrated.
Now tell me - "But a dog is still a dog!"
And I'll tell you - "a Great Dane does not resemble a Chihuahua in appearance any more than a manta ray resembles Abu-Nafha."
The definition of gender is marginal, superficial, and directly related to the defining human beings. If we look at the external form alone, it seems that the Chihuahua is very different from the Great Dane. In fact, we know they are both dogs only because we have brought them to their evolution through very strong artificial selection. We did it in less than 10,000 years of evolution.
How long did evolution have to work on the multicellular organisms? hundreds of millions of years. That is, a time 10,000 times more changes than those that turned the wolf into the Great Dane and the Chihuahua. At this time we can understand that all the wealth of animals and fossils could have been created.
We have very good evidence for this evolution. We have already found many fossils showing the evolution of modern horses from their tiny ancestors. We have found many fossils belonging to the ancestors of whales, which were four-legged and walked on land. Fossilized shells show the evolution of all kinds of molluscs over millions of years. About twenty hominoid fossils have been found, which constitute transitional stages between modern man and our ancient ancestors who split from the apes.
In short, the proofs are abundant - much more proofs than the proofs for that Artilai intelligent creator.
What's new:
See another interesting thing from the wonders of religion and its effects on its believers.
You, what's new, think you understand religion better than the leaders of the religious community and that's why you weren't chosen to lead it.
It is very desirable that you understand that religion is what the elected leadership of the religious community says it is.
I do say that religion is bound, by its very definition, to lead to scientific and moral darkness of the kind we encounter every day. You may not agree with me that this is a phenomenon bound by reality, but it seems to me that you cannot but agree that this is the result that exists in reality.
What's new:
It's hard to know what you're saying is serious and what's being said in humor.
I will treat your comments about intelligent design as a joke unless you try to defend them.
I have already told you that you have no authority to say that the Torah is something other than what it claims unless you recognize that it is actually a fraudulent book.
It turns out that the Jewish preachers also think so, and that's why they published the following ad full of lies on the front page of the Haaretz newspaper:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgz8mg3w_259f2vvvhgp
For the avoidance of doubt, it is clear that they did not intend to insult the Torah, but that is what they actually did because it is easy to see that their claims are nonsense (and this is beyond the fact that they resolutely quoted people who deny their claims completely as if they supported them)
ermac h
"Regarding another scientific theory - what is unscientific about intelligent design? Predictions? Are there scientists? Are there evidences? Is there anything wrong?"
Quote from Genesis
And God formed man out of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul (Genesis chapter XNUMX verse XNUMX)
Quote from Pinocchio
Geppetto, who is very poor, decides to try to earn his living
through a puppet theater which he will operate. That's why he carves a wooden doll from the flood of wood which he calls "Pinocchio". Right after Geppetto finishes carving Pinocchio's nose, his nose begins to grow in the name of his natural cheekiness. After Geppetto finishes building Pinocchio and Geppetto teaches him to walk,
What do the two stories have in common?
In two stories there is an intelligent planning of life
In the book of Genesis, God created Adam from earth + spirit
In the book Pinocchio, Geppetto created Pinocchio from a tree with living properties
Both stories are at the level of folk tales and definitely intended for children.
Why did I bring up the two stories?
So that you understand that the book of Genesis is not a scientific book and has nothing to do with any actual creation
This is a literary, spiritual, religious book, and if you turn it into a scientific book, you insult and desecrate it.
To Roy - "There is a huge difference between the genome of the stickleback insect and that of the tree". There is also a huge difference between a replicating molecule and a single cell. This does not prevent evolution from claiming that they were created from each other. The same is true of gene complex systems. The lactation system for example, according to Evolution developed in only 100 million years and includes at least 6-7 parts that do not exist in any other animal. That is, there is a jump. This does not prevent evolution from claiming that there may be a step in the above system.
"There are certain similarities between the genomes, according to which we can identify when they split from each other" - this is the desired assumption. Similarity can testify to a common creator just as much as to a common origin. Just as there is a common homology in their cutlery. However, as everyone knows, soon no You will slowly turn into a fork and vice versa. So it can be argued that, unlike objects, the ability to reproduce exists in living creatures. But without evidence of a creature becoming another creature - it is wishful thinking and nothing more. which is no longer identified as the previous animal).
Regarding another scientific theory - what is unscientific about intelligent design? predictions? are there scientists? are there evidences? are there any harm?
Ermac,
There is a huge difference between the genome of the stick insect and that of the tree. The same is true between the genomes of the birds and the manta fish. Despite this huge difference, there are certain similarities between the genomes, by which we can identify when they diverged from each other.
Genotypic similarity is currently the best method for inferring when and how organisms evolved from each other. When you see all the evidence, it's hard to believe otherwise. And as a result, there is also no scientific theory other than evolution that manages to explain the great variety of evidence.
Anyone willing to tell me, how exactly does genotypic similarity indicate evolution from one another? Do scientists really believe this?
According to this method - the stick insect evolved from the tree it lives on, and the manta fish evolved from the birds. Doesn't sound serious? But it is much more logical than saying that we are the product of a single cell.
Ami,
The sponge cells are indeed called choanocytes, thanks to the 'collar' of tiny microvilli that filter food from the water, similar to the way the choanoflagellate captures bacteria.
I'm glad you enjoyed the article.
Michael,
It seems to me that Miko and I agree on this point, as you described it.
Very good article.
She makes me go back and rummage through the old material in the old school notebooks. Mainly in the whole field of sponges, which are also a kind of evolutionary revolution in the relationship between individuals and the colony. There are cells there that, to the best of my memory, are called "choanocytes" that help in the flow of fresh water (food, oxygen) to and from the colony.
Miko and Roy:
Did I miss something in your discussion?
After all, in the article itself it is written "They believe that the tiny hunter uses the cadherin proteins in order to stick to bacteria and devour them." And so I assume that Miko is trying to say (and you, Roy, confirm) something else but I don't understand the difference.
Uncle,
Your reasoning is too abstract for me, and seems like it's based on statements and nothing else. I prefer that you bring examples from the news and reason why they seem invalid to you.
Roy
Roy
Predicting the existence of one pattern from the appearance of another has nothing to do with the scientific methodology of prediction based on the understanding of the whole. As happens or should happen in various physical or mathematical theories. Here you don't have a totality but a collection of events, some of which are connected with others and can be expected, but that has nothing and nothing to do with the totality with its consistency throughout. Just like in the ciphers of the Bible, a certain part definitely hits the mark and there is nothing more than a curiosity about it.
In short, you don't have the required valid proof in the existing data.
Miko,
you're absolutely right. The main question is about their great diversity, which is more suitable for a multicellular creature than for a single cell. Also, there is a beautiful proof here of the way in which components that we previously thought were only found in multicellular organisms can also be used in unicellular organisms, and hence evolve to their current state.
Uncle,
I cannot agree with two parts of your words:
1. Finding patterns in combinations of letters in the Bible is not like completing a DNA puzzle for the simple reason that it does not make accurate predictions that match. It is always a 'look back' - searching for letter combinations that match what has already happened.
The insights we gain from DNA, on the other hand, can direct us to new discoveries that validate the insights we have gained. This also happened in the current study where the cadherins were located on the creature thanks to DNA identifications.
2. I am also sure that if I take a random computer code I will find very familiar patterns. But computers do not reproduce and their descendants do not evolve, so the comparison is not valid.
Thanks for your comments,
Roy.
Roy
The basic approach of completing the puzzle by identifying certain familiar patterns is fundamentally problematic. Why is this similar to finding different patterns in combinations of letters in the Bible and drawing conclusions about their correspondence to historical or future events. You can be sure that if you take a random computer code from the memory of any average physicist you will find very familiar patterns. As long as no one knows for sure how DNA is chained Shalem plays as a whole, the patterns do not have much meaning, especially since there are huge sections that seem to lack significant compatibility.
Roy,
This is exactly what I said - "in order to stick to the hunted cell"
Simply put in the article it will be about the use of cadherins in choanoflagellates and to me, as an amateur in biology and evolution, it seems quite elementary
This is a clear advantage for choenoflagellates with cadherins over those without cadherins
For that matter, it is about a stronger "hunter" and therefore more "survivor".
Miko,
I don't think cadherins can help a chonoflagellate digest bacteria. At most they are able to attach the bacteria to the hunting arms, thus bringing them closer to the cell body, which breaks down / swallows them in some way. Most probably the choenoflagellate phagocytoses the bacteria - that is, swallows them whole - but I am not sure on this point.
I'm glad you found the article interesting.
Roy, if you look carefully, the link I have with Birnbaum is actually "everything is a lie"
Just an unnecessary spammer
Very interesting article
Could it be that the use of the cadherins in the aforementioned choenoflagellate is to attach to the hunted cell for the purposes of digestion (although I'm not sure that "digestion" is the right term here)?
Does the person come from the alien?
Uncle -
If you say exactly what the problem is that you find in the news, I can try and answer you.
With me -
The link is not working.
R.H. –
You are absolutely right, but the 'sophisticated' multicells that exist today are not made up of prokaryotes. The prokaryotes also lack integrin or cadherin proteins.
Primitive "tissues" and a kind of multicellular creatures can already be seen in prokaryotes, structures known as biofilms.
Surely these stories are true, the theory of linear reproduction is a direct link to this phenomenon, which is a mandatory continuation of the Malatonian theory, see link
http://www.akolsheker.org.il
Does anyone really believe in these stories it seems like a bunch of egg babbling