An article published today in Science reports on excavations in Ethiopia in which an ancestor (or rather an ancestral mother) was discovered on the line that separates us from chimpanzees and gorillas - please get to know: Arditipitcus
A week ago I gave a lecture about the evolution of man, in the evening 'Sages by Night' at the Medatech Museum. After I finished and left the hall, one of the listeners came up to me with a scowl on his face, and slapped me saying - "Maybe your father was a chimpanzee, but I know who my father is and he wears a cap."
I will not deny that I was deeply perfused by what my ears heard. That person reflects a common mistake in the public, which is the belief that we are descendants of monkeys and chimpanzees. The truth is clearly different: we are distant cousins of the chimpanzees. Before an unknown period of time, estimated at 4-8 million years, the chimpanzees and gorillas split from our ancestors. Because of this, we cannot know for sure what those ancestors looked like. Until now we believed that he was close in appearance and features to chimpanzees and gorillas, and distant from the current appearance of the human race. But these days a new clue has been found that may shed light on the mystery: the remains of the oldest fossil in the line of human evolution, which is only a step away from our ancestors, from which the chimpanzees and gorillas also diverged, have been discovered and analyzed. The creature lived about a million years before the famous Lucy, and is already described as the 'find of the century'. And no, he wasn't wearing a cap.
The fossilized bones of the female Harditipitcus, known as Erdi, were discovered already in 1994 in Ethiopia, but the entire skeleton was broken and crushed into more than a hundred pieces and fragments. An international team of forty-seven scientists toiled over the remains for 17 years, until they were able to nurse and restore most of them. Today, the scientific community is exposed for the first time to the reports of the groups that worked on Ardi's remains and examined and dated them in detail.
From the fused skeleton, the researchers were able to extract a large number of evidences of Ardi's lifestyle. Examination and analysis of the tooth enamel covering her teeth indicate that she preferred the green approach to life: most of her diet was based on leaves and fruits. As another evidence, her upper fangs are small and dark, similar to the fangs we boast of today, but unlike the sharp and long fangs of the chimpanzees. It turns out, then, that our ancestors were not themselves endowed with such long fangs, and that chimpanzees underwent an evolution that resulted in the creation of fangs.
The chimpanzees and gorillas usually walk on their hind legs, and support the weight of the upper body on their hands. The previous scientific theory held that our ancient ancestors also used to use their hands to walk, and that modern humans evolved and acquired the ability to walk upright. Ardi's chassis reveals a different story. She was able to climb trees using all four limbs, but the structure of the pelvis, hip and muscle markings suggest she could walk on both legs without leaning on her forelimbs. It is therefore possible that the chimpanzees and gorillas developed their way of walking after the separation from their human ancestors, and that those ancestors were very different from the apes that exist today.
Despite her demonstrated closeness to the human race, Ardi represents an intermediate stage on the way to man. She probably spent most of her time in the woods, as her feet were endowed with a large, opposable thumb, which gave her the ability to grip branches with her feet. Ardi certainly used the trees as a source of food and a place to sleep and a refuge from crazy people, but she also had a pleasant time on the ground, walking on her two legs and picking food from the ground with her hands.
Ardi is not alone in the battle. Since the discovery of a skeleton in Ethiopia, at least 35 more fossil remains have been discovered that can be attributed to members of its family - the Ardipithecus. Her closest descendants, the Australopithecus which includes Lucy, lived a million years later in Africa. These and other skeletons describe the stages of transition between our ape-like ancestors and our present form. Each of those ancient remains teaches about the period in which he lived, loved and perhaps also thought. Together, they unfold the long story of human evolution, which continues to the present day.
230 תגובות
Blackmail you that you have time for these discussions.. 🙂
Rah:
It's clear!
That's why I brought the example!
All that needs to be done for the discussion to be one after the other is simply not to lie!
This is what I keep saying: I get angry at the lies and not at the fact that they attack evolution (and I get angry at lies, as you see, even when they lie in other contexts).
The impression that my anger is about attacking evolution is only a consequence of the fact that most evolution attackers are liars.
Exactly, do you see that it is possible to have a fascinating discussion without ranting and slandering "liar" at everything that moves?
Now go back up and read your responses to those Elisha information and then to me and you will see the difference.
In short, it is also possible otherwise.
And by the way - the same discussion - although heated and continued for several articles - also ended well as you can see here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-sciam-0004093/#comment-210344
And one more thing before the law:
It is true that "the one who takes the evidence from his friend" but nevertheless I decided to give you an example that shows that my attitude towards the attempts to refute evolution is not hostile or belligerent in the first place and that my hostility only begins when dishonesty is revealed.
Read Barel's question here
https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-basics-0004092/#comment-207406
And my response right after it.
And besides, Rah:
What kind of logic is it to "prove" that I relate to evolution emotionally by an example where there is no debate about evolution but only a discussion culture?
This behavior in itself is demagoguery bordering on lies.
Rah:
This is a response that explains your mistakes to you in a completely rational way.
She also explains in a completely rational way why some of the mistakes actually express lies.
Of course she also expresses emotions - wouldn't you be upset if someone saw fit - outside of any relevant context - to slander you just like that - as you did to me in response 216?
Tell me, do you read your own comments?
Does the last response seem like a rational or emotional response to you?
I tell you what you feel or you bombard your feelings get with a conference?
Michael, I suggest you drink some water, relax and maybe go to sleep, a little late for you.
In my opinion, this debate has exhausted itself a long time ago and I am tired of hearing the words lie or poison over and over again.
I really don't care what you feel about evolution or any other scientific theory, but only what you think about them, so I would be happy to discuss science issues with you if you would moderate your reactions as you have been asked here without interruption and treat yourself in a matter-of-fact and cold manner and not be emotional and stormy and stop the hatred, cursing and blaming in lies
This is just a friendly discussion and no one here has any interest in lying, so calm down. A little discussion culture wouldn't hurt.
And I was not wrong about the article about the lizards.
You are the one who was wrong about it (and not only were you wrong - but indirectly you actually expressed disdain for the editors of the newspaper that published it, that if it wasn't a controlled experiment from which clear conclusions can be drawn, they wouldn't have accepted it for print at all).
Rah:
You didn't say how I react (and even if you said that it would be a lie) but you had the courage to say how I feel.
It's a lie no matter how you look at it.
If I didn't tell you how I feel it would be a lie of pretending to know something you don't know.
After I told you how I feel (and I am the ultimate authority on my feelings) it becomes a much worse lie.
Even if you said that you were talking about my reactions (and you clearly didn't talk about it and to claim this is another lie - after all, you still had the courage to say that I don't think evolution is a theory) it would be a lie - both because I often said that evolution is a theory and because I often responded in a polite way And I even expressed appreciation towards people who opposed evolution (when they raised objections that seemed original and interesting to me).
I explained to you that when I am angry it is because of revelations of dishonesty and not because of opposition to evolution, but you continue to spread your poison (which would have been poison even if it had not been a lie) and therefore I am doubly angry with you.
Michael,
It amazes me that despite your extensive knowledge of logic and puzzle solving, you do not understand the difference between an objective factual statement that can be true or false and an expression of a subjective opinion about which there is no truth or falsehood.
"Today is a beautiful day" is an expression of opinion that you can agree with or not but you cannot claim that I am lying.
In a similar way, your reaction by hurling insults and insults at anyone who disagrees with your opinion on evolution is, in my opinion, emotional and you are entitled to disagree but you cannot claim that I am lying.
Regarding the same Lizard article, you were wrong, but in logic???
Don't you understand that when you lie about one thing, you also damage the credibility of the true things you say?
Rah:
You really can't help it and have to repeat this lie over and over again?
Noam: Do you see what I'm talking about?
Dawn, you don't have to live long to see evolution in action. Every first year biology student in universities and colleges and I think many high school students too have conducted experiments that demonstrate natural selection in bacteria.
There are thousands of laboratories that perform more sophisticated experiments than these and thousands of other scientists have made and are making observations so that together a huge database of data has been built that indicates the validity of the theory, there is no matter of faith here.
The day evidence is received showing that the theory is incorrect or that another theory better explains the data, evolution will be replaced as an afterthought. More than that, if conclusive evidence is received for the existence of an intelligent creator (and not just based on a book written thousands of years ago) there will be no choice but to accept it and investigate its existence and essence. As Isaiah Leibovitz once said, "The truth is forced upon us." At the moment, of course, this is a theoretical and irrelevant discussion because there is no evidence of the existence of such a creator.
With the exception of people like Rothschild here who take evolution in a terribly emotional and sentimental way, most scientists (and I know a few..) think that evolution is a beautiful and elegant genius theory, but in the end a theory.
Dawn,
Faith = I believe, and don't need proof, don't need substantiation, don't need trials.
Science = a rigorous method for studying the phenomena around us. Not subject to a rabbi, priest, dictator or anyone - only to the scientific truth as obtained from observations and experiments.
It is hard to find two things further apart, and those who do not understand this, do not understand what faith is or what science is or both.
Dawn:
You're rambling, but since I've already seen that you're also indomitable, I'll settle for these things
Science is also a form of faith. A person chooses to believe in one body or another.
Once upon a time when the church was most powerful, it provided the answers to the people.
Today people see themselves as more understanding and therefore they get their answers from populist "knowledgeable" bodies. Such as the science website that presents populist opinions that have been approved by bodies with money and interest.
In the end there is a widespread opinion that is pushed forward by the media which is controlled by a small number of people who believe in all kinds of hidden things but prefer the population to remain as confused as possible.
I feel sorry for people like Michael who calls people liars as if he invented the truth.
Which of the various scientists on this site has actually seen dark matter? electrons? Who of you has lived long enough to see evolution in action? You all only reinforce the opinions of your "wise" because no one wants to believe that he wasted his life on other people's theories.
Aristotle:
Do not be confused.
There was no debate here.
You tried (with some success) to wear me down and I tried (with a distinct lack of success) to get you to argue.
A debate is a type of conversation in which data is presented (and empty statements are not data) and in which logic is used to draw conclusions from the data.
You (contrary to your false claim) did not do any of the above.
Aristotle,
Creationism is not a scientific theory at all, but a belief like many other beliefs: the Jewish religion, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Voodoo, crystals, numerology and much more.
Each of the above-mentioned beliefs has millions of believers, each of whom knows that only his belief is true. Oh well...
You didn't disprove any axiom. Idiots are everywhere. This is also an axiom.
For anyone who didn't understand the debate that was going on here was not about the correctness of this theory or another, the scientists on whom these studies were done should be given to the scientists on whom these studies were done that I brought to answer the debate was about the axiom of some of the site visitors that there are no researchers in the scientific community who believe in creationism and another axiom that almost no scientists believe I succeeded in refuting the axiom prove
Aristotle I can't believe I'm saying this but you probably really don't understand, for a change it wouldn't hurt if you did
copy-paste. Just throwing in the air "I brought the data" when you say look for yourself is really stubbornness, lack of credibility and especially lack of seriousness.
And I'm not talking at all about you not answering (!!!) any question or answer Michael gave you.
So be a little serious.
I would add to Rah's request:
Come present facts that support intelligent design (note - not facts that you think contradict evolution!)
Aristotle, this whole discussion is not relevant at all. What does it matter how many believe or not? You have been churning out the same stale water for over a hundred comments, they said yes, they didn't say. What does it matter anyway?
In the middle ages, most of the wise and educated people claimed that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it, so they were wrong.
You want to argue about evolution, come present facts and your interpretation of them and we'll argue.
In science what matters are the findings and not how many think one way or another.
Eagerly awaiting your response
Michael,
I ask, a little patience and empathy towards Aristotle, the theory of evolution stuck to him and his friends like a bone in the throat of their faith.
They wish for her death, and she only grows stronger and in the process undermines their confidence in their faith. It's not an easy situation, though unfortunately for them, they will have no choice but to accept in the end.
Chantrish
And without a word more about the second study that I mentioned, you are welcome to read my response to Daliel and look for a source for it as well, and again this is a study that was not "researched"
If you read my responses from beginning to end you will be able to find sources for everything I said from your response. It seems that you did not understand or did not read my entire response above. I am pointing out that there is a study done by the Gallup Institute that reached the same results that Nietzer reached, so that even if the research in Nietzer was "investigated "According to your definition, there is another source for what I said, and again, as I said above, you are welcome to enter the Wikipedia entry for objections to the theory of evolution under number 140 and look at the 600 scientists.
Aristotle:
Do you really not understand anything?
Know that claims neither confirm nor disprove anything. After all, one can claim whatever he wants! Only facts can confirm or refute claims.
It wasn't me who chose to doubt the research, but the person who wrote an entire article about the mistakes in it.
I pointed out to you, as mentioned, a serious study that presents contradictory facts (and Anif, unlike you, I really pointed out the study and did not try to waste your time for nothing.
You keep trying to try to move me without addressing my demand to specifically point out the nonsense you want me to deal with and not vaguely on mountains of nonsense.
This of course also includes the reference to those 600 scientists whose existence you have not even proven and that even if they exist they constitute a minuscule percentage of all scientists.
In the meantime, all the material you pointed to or that I was able to search for you was a hodgepodge of lies and nonsense and I hereby announce the end of the conversation with you.
To Raul I presented data, you will deal with it
Aristotle there is no point in arguing with you instead of answering what you are told
You keep reciting and reciting nonsense
One more thing, I didn't hear your reference to the 600 scientists who called to doubt evolution
By the way, you can find a source for a study by the University of Chicago on Google under the title With the help of this it will pass in the second result. Another interesting statistic that you can find there is that a study done at Harvard claims that 69 percent of the people who prayed for themselves were at least partially answered
Michael has 2 more claims that confirm my claim and contradict your claim. You are invited to look again at Wikipedia in the entry Objections to the theory of evolution [number 140] where there appears another poll by the Gallup Institute in which the same results of the Neitzer newspaper that you chose to doubt were obtained. A study conducted at the University of Chicago among doctors across the US revealed that 76 percent of them believe in a higher power. I would appreciate your response
Now I watched this stupid movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOjh4sc2Wuo&feature=related
What entertainment!
There is indeed a claim about 60 scientists and 24 Nobel laureates.
I guess this is a false claim but I'm still willing to see the research.
What is clear is that all the speakers are saying that the vast majority of the scientists you are trying to talk to on the subject do not get their point and at some point they are simply told that they are exhausted from their Aristotelian behavior.
In other words - they say that the scientific consensus opposes their position (contrary to Aristotle's claim!)
Of course, there are many more false claims (like the joking claim that Einstein did not know mathematics).
Of course it was especially funny to hear Auerbach say that modern science only has a problem with Christianity and not with Judaism. what? He hasn't heard of evolution? Didn't he hear what he himself was saying about her?!
What a bunch of stupid liars!
And for those who weren't clear before - now it's clear that Aristotle didn't read the study he sent me to because he still hasn't answered my question from response 185
Aristotle:
Dahil Rabak I'm tired!
Here you admit that you wasted my time and you did it exactly in the method I warned you about!
I'm not giving you another second.
I will be willing to address something only if you give a direct link to it!
Another very interesting thing:
At the beginning of the aforementioned rambling film, Jeremiah Baranover says:
I dedicated so much attention and time to the investigation of the questions between Torah and science, that I even had to study quite deeply several areas not only in physics - even in other sciences: in geology, biology, psychology... so that the answers would be truly based, not just some kind of announcement - "that's how it is" . No - let there be a reasonable, well-founded explanation that must be acceptable to everyone if this one is knowledgeable in science.
He says many other things, but the interesting part for me is precisely this.
Why?
Because regarding the rest of the things he says - things that in my eyes are delusional - he can be suspected of bias (because he has a thesis that he wants to sell), but he says the above statement regardless of the thesis (or at least that is what he is wrong to think) and he unwittingly reveals the His opinion on anyone who opposes evolution without studying all the above topics.
After all, he says that the study of the above topics is necessary to justify his claims and this means that all Aristoides of various kinds are just making proclamations.
Now - don't get me wrong: later on he doesn't say anything that is based on these studies, but what can we expect from people who try to sell us something as truth that at best they don't know if it's true and at worst they know it's not?
Michael, here is the source of the problem. You did not watch the video I was talking about on the same link. Click on the first link and you can see another survey brought by Prof. Barnover that 50 percent of scientists in the US believe in a higher power, and again I recommend watching the entire video.
Aristotle (regarding your last response to my father):
You have not proved anything.
At most you talked about some studies that claim this but you didn't even provide a link to them and in my opinion, as mentioned, you didn't even read them (and the fact that you haven't yet answered my question from response 185 confirms this).
And one more thing for Artisto:
You keep talking about the movie I saw in passing.
So you got what you wanted and made me waste my time and watch it carefully even though I'm not at all sure that this is the video you were referring to.
In the video I saw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEi-omH1c_w&feature=related
Everything - but really everything - nonsense and lies.
This includes, among other things, an embarrassing passage in which Auerbach flat-out lies about Einstein's faith.
There are about 10 seconds in there where they mention a poll you could have meant.
Neither 60 nor plaster is mentioned there.
In general - if there is a survey that can be referred to - it also has a direct link and not some video in which an article in some daily newspaper is projected for a few seconds (which I read even though it is almost impossible to see what is written in it and I was very sorry to find out that in fact nothing was written in it and I just let you waste my time )
I clearly proved to my father that there are 600 scientists and 10 percent of the scientists in the US who doubt evolution. I would love to hear why I am not right after all
To Michael - indeed, there is no telling what other discoveries science will take us to. I have always wondered what the consequences of genome research are in the short term and this is probably one of them, it's a shame that only a few are able to say: "I was wrong, the evidence points differently than I thought". Although on that note I wonder what the last sentence in the video meant.
Aristotle - you are boring and repeating yourself. Just so you know there is a growing population of scientists who believe in the flying spaghetti monster. This is indeed a fascinating figure, don't you think?
And by the way sixty people reminds me of the phrase "cancel at sixty". Although Michael has already shown us that your claim is somewhat archaic.
Aristotle:
Am I correct in guessing that you yourself have not read the study you sent me to?
Let's see you quote the first sentence on the second page.
Aristotle:
The study was investigated and found to have many flaws.
The problem is that most of the material on the subject is protected under copyright and passwords.
You can find a small summary here:
http://www.bookrags.com/highbeam/are-scientists-still-keeping-the-hb/
In any case, this is a random sample (let's say! I'm not really sure) and not leading scientists as tested in the survey I pointed to
Your goal has been achieved because you are using attrition tactics, like all Discovery Institute creationists, not because you are right. People no longer have the strength for these excavations again and again and again. The fact that Israel Oman is a creationist probably does not prevent him from being a good mathematician and winning the Nobel Prize in Economics for game theory, but he has no more to say about evolution than just a man on the street.
By the way, I didn't get to hear your comment about the research from the producer that I brought
Aristotle:
For the third time - I think it's no coincidence that you don't bring the link to the source but send us to look for it (and continue to do so even after the reason for this was revealed!).
Your goal "to prove that there is no scientific consensus" was not achieved and the charter signed by all the academic institutions and which I have already brought up twice in the discussion also shows that this is a false claim and therefore your goal is to prove a lie. Know that you cannot prove a lie.
Michael, maybe you didn't understand, but my goal is to prove that there is no scientific consensus in things in which you are sure there is, I think my goal has been achieved
To Michael, for the third time, the source for those 60, yes, 60 scientists appears in the video you watched in a flash, and again I suggest you watch it from start to finish. As for the last things said by me, you are welcome to go to Wikipedia for objections to the theory of evolution, evolution to number 138, where the reference to the Neitzer newspaper appears
for everyone:
Filled Aristotle who is not willing to address the facts, but I am really surprised by the others who did not respond to the video I uploaded in response 149.
I think it's really a shell!
So that you don't have to search - here is the link again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMj_45epINM&feature=player_embedded
To put things in perspective, out of the 24 (of which, as mentioned - some of them do not believe/believed in God at all) only 7 (!) are alive today.
Aristotle:
Since for obvious reasons you do not indicate sources, I searched a little for you - that is - I pretended to think like you and was looking for support for what you said.
What I found bordered on a joke.
Here is one link:
http://www.adherents.com/people/100_Nobel.html
It is written here about 50 (not 60) Nobel laureates, of which 24 were scientists who supposedly believed in God.
This is too similar to what you wrote to not be what you meant.
What else?
1. Most of them are people who have already died - contrary to the claim you tried to make to mislead us.
2. There are mentioned, among other things, people who did not believe in God at all and even said so explicitly (like Albert Einstein)
So what about the truth?
Is she of no importance to you?
Aristotle:
I don't think it's a case that you don't provide any link or reference for your words, because as soon as you provide a reference, it will be possible to take them seriously and contradict them, and it is much more convenient for you to make unsupported statements.
As for your comment about carefully reading your pearls - I wanted to inform you that I even consider the very fact that I read anything from them a miracle in light of your past responses (some of which were censored because they contained nothing but profanity).
so true
In a certain response I missed your reference to 24 out of 60 and not all 60.
You, on the other hand, have missed everything you've been told so far.
A little more information on Wikipedia, a survey is cited in which 10 percent of scientists believe in intelligent design and 40 percent of scientists believe in both evolution and a higher power
Mr. Yawn, I don't know where you get the information from, but if you watch the lecture in question, you will see Prof. Barnover quoting a survey in which 50 percent of reputable scientists in the US believe in a higher power
For my father, among the signatories are world-renowned professors, James Thor, Philip Skel, editor of the biological journal Rivista di Biologia, the oldest in the world, Giuseppe Sarmonti, and more. You are welcome to browse the list.
To Mr. Yawn, the signing in question was done in 93, when there were of course a smaller number of winners than the number you're talking about. Besides, you're talking about the prize winners for their generations who at the time of the signing were no longer alive. Moreover, the fact that they haven't signed yet doesn't mean there aren't any more who believe, and about the 480000 I don't know Where does the number come from, but again this does not mean that everyone who did not sign believes in evolution and in general it does not matter the main point is to show that there are other opinions on the matter and a lack of belief in evolution does not show a lack of knowledge
So if 24 Nobel laureates believe in the existence of a higher power, that's fine. There are only 809 Nobel laureates, after all.
And it is important not to forget that a survey conducted among American scientists showed that only 7% of them believe in the existence of God.
And you keep repeating that 600 scientists have signed up to doubt the theory of evolution, ignoring that they are only a tiny fraction of the 480000 scientists in America.
What would Aristotle be? Start reading comments properly.
I'll look for it when I have the chance, but I think there was an article by someone who examined the names one by one and in the end found out that 2 out of the 600 are active biologists, since computer science people can have an opinion on evolution just like kindergarteners, but not just as relevant, but they also work at Christian universities , and in order to deceive them into thinking that they are real scientists, they mentioned the university where they studied their first degree as if it were their institution today ~~~
And as I've already said, you can find the reference to 600 scientists if you google Discovery Institute 600
What will happen to the society here, you don't read comments properly, you too, Michael, the signature of the 24 scientists who won the Nobel Prize is about the belief in the existence of a higher power, 600 scientists have signed on doubting the theory of evolution. on religion and science
Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
In short, only 0.1% of all scientists deny evolution. Equivalent to the number of scientists who believe in Santa Claus or Gargamel.
I did not find any mention on the net of the 24 Nobel Prize winners who came out against evolution.
What I did find:
In 1968, 72 Nobel Prize winners signed a petition that would require the study of evolution in school. It was the petition with the largest number of signatures collected from Nobel Prize winners up to that time.
Of the fifty Nobel Prizes awarded in recent years in medicine or physiology, 47 relied on applications, conclusions and implications of the theory of evolution.
The one above me and 600 scientists of which are world famous are also extreme religious
Repented in 1981. Isn't it amazing, how every scientist who is willing to commit that evolution did not happen is completely coincidentally also religious and usually extremist?
By the way, in the same clip that you yourself brought [if you watched it without skimming] the evolutionary scientist there declares that he is a believing Catholic
Michael, if you take a good look at my comments and don't skim through them like you go through the video you watched, you will see that there have always been 60 scientists, 24 of whom are Nobel Prize winners, in any case, you watched the right video where it is proven that religious belief is not the property of uneducated people, and regarding the questions, as I said, you You are welcome to look at the above book, just not in the review
Aristotle:
I don't know what lecture you are talking about.
I found one lecture with Auerbach and others and everything in it (but really everything!) is nonsense. A collection of childish arguments that have all already been answered in the current discussion as well.
I don't know if you meant this lecture.
I don't know how 60 Nobel laureates became just 60 among them Nobel laureates.
I do not know which signature it is about and who signed it (if at all).
And in general - the links I gave you speak for themselves. The vast majority of scientists do not believe in God and this trend is more emphasized the bigger scientists are concerned.
The entire academic establishment opposes your opinion.
Usually one question is given 7 answers because it has no really good answer.
The same with the rabbit. The answers (and believe me - I've come across them all) are just stupid.
And what about the Euphrates and the Tigris? Do you have 7 answers for that too?
And what about the fact that lice are created from human sweat and mice from mold?
And what about the fact that the trachea of the cow splits into three parts, one of which reaches the liver?
And what about Cain marrying a woman who was never born nor created?
Audio. I have more interesting things to do than the homework you are trying to impose on me.
Michael, as I suggested to you before, you are welcome to watch the entire lecture and see the source regarding the religious beliefs of the 60 scientists, including Nobel Prize winners. Regarding the 600 scientists, I meant the Discovery Institute's signature on doubting the theory of evolution. For those who deal with them, one of them is especially recommended "The Khazari Book of the Jewish Heart" where, if I'm not mistaken, it has at least 7 answers to the question with the rabbit and other interesting questions
Aristotle:
And if such statistics are important to you - here is a serious one:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Aristotle:
seriously!
There are endless links from which you can reach more links.
I didn't watch Orbach's lecture and I don't intend to watch the rest. I just sampled and expressed my conclusion.
If you want to deal with things seriously, please explain to me how it is possible to claim that contradictions of the Torah with reality are not contradictions between religion and science.
I have given you a few examples and I can give you many more.
Waving the names of people I don't know really doesn't do it for me.
I also don't know what the truth is about your claim with the 60 Nobel laureates or 600 scientists (depending on which comment you read) that you are talking about.
Not that it matters - but I would love to see a link.
Of course, belief in a higher power does not say anything about a person's religious belief and I suppose you will find among them members of different religions who are far from agreeing with each other.
By the way, Michael, I suggest that you watch the entire lecture and I would be happy to hear your response regarding the belief in a higher power signed by 60 scientists, 24 of whom are Nobel Prize winners
Michael, for your information, Prof. Doron Orbach, who appears in the aforementioned lecture, was completely secular in the past and did not undergo any "brainwashing" of which you are talking about. You better check the facts before you respond. Other than that, I don't think that professors from MIT are anything to be taken lightly.
Aristotle:
These are not the great professors, but individual professors who do not know how to let go of the nonsense that washed their minds with it while they were still babies.
Their lectures, in any case, are not about facts.
How can I take seriously a claim that a book that claims that the rabbit raises rumen and the Euphrates and the Tigris come from the same source does not contradict science?
Some sense!
Aristotle,
For 200 years people of all religions have been wishing for the moment when the theory of evolution would collapse.
My advice to you: don't hold your breath until it happens...
By the way, in the same link that you brought Michael, there are lectures on religion and science from the greatest professors in Israel on religion and science, I would suggest you listen to them
Aristotle:
FYI, all the academic institutions all over the world think the opposite of you and are ready to sign it:
http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf
For your information, Michael, a few months ago the Discovery Institute collected signatures of 600 American scientists who doubt the theory of evolution, as well as Prof. Doron Auerbach from Bar Ilan University, head of the department of electrochemistry [which by the way is the largest in Israel] organized a scientific conference with the participation of scientists from around the world to disprove the theory of evolution. It seems that there is not much time left until the theory This dubious one will collapse
If I may be allowed, in the midst of the irrelevant battles (so, at least I hope), to return to the topic of evolution, creationism, and the article, I would like to recommend everyone (including Elisha) to watch the following link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMj_45epINM&feature=player_embedded
Noam:
I don't read minds but there are things that are self-evident.
In all the cases where I call someone a liar, I have no doubt that he is lying.
I am not immune to mistakes and it may happen that I attribute dishonest intentions to the person who made a mistake.
It is rare but not only can it happen - it has even happened here and there.
In such cases, I apologize and apart from the occasional unpleasantness, no harm was done.
I think the failure to denounce lies and other expressions of contempt is the main cause of the offensiveness and aggressiveness of the discourse everywhere - including here.
Notice what the debate is about here:
There is a liar (and he is a liar without a shadow of a doubt) named Elisha, who for reasons reserved with the writers of the Torah goes to war against science and does not use lies in this war.
After the matter goes on for a long time and spans many responses, they block him so that he stops trashing.
Rah attacks the block and is the one who initiates verbal violence against me.
I respond with justified verbal violence.
You come to me with claims!
Michael,
last try:
You wrote: "When someone intentionally says something that he knows is not true - he is lying."
The weak point in this valid statement is that you have no way of knowing if someone is intentionally saying something that they know is not true.
Despite your desire to discover and denounce every lie, you are not a mind reader (as far as I know), so give people the benefit of the doubt, and let them enjoy a less offensive and aggressive discussion.
Noam:
Also note my response 139:
In which I also refrained from calling Rah a liar (even though I clearly thought he was one) but he correctly understood what I was thinking and therefore later used the word lie.
In such a case - even removing the word "lie" from the lexicon would not have helped and in fact your general suggestion should have been simply "don't hurt people" but, as mentioned - I do not accept this type of demand in relation to people who hurt others themselves.
Let it be clear:
When I tell someone they are lying I consciously choose this form of expression.
My intention - when I say this - is not to point out the incorrectness of his claims (because by definition - when he lies - he knows that his claims are not true) but to punish him for allowing himself to lie.
Lying is not a legitimate part of an argument.
It is part of all kinds of other things such as war, defamation attempt and the like.
As soon as someone uses it - it is clear to me that I am no longer arguing with him about the facts, but rather fighting him about ways of behavior and public opinion.
It is also clear to me that in such a situation there is no reason to avoid insulting him because he has already crossed the line of "insults" and gone far beyond it.
I mean in the above, of course, the claim that is not true.
Noam:
When someone intentionally says something that he knows is not true - he is lying.
Michael,
You are wrong!
The two options are:
Either it is true, or it is not true (actually there is also a third option - "unknown")
There is a huge difference between not "true" and "false" - a lie indicates malicious intent, "false" indicates a mistake, without malicious intent.
I offer you a friendly suggestion from the bottom of my heart: completely remove the term "lie" (with all its connotations) from the discussions here. This is simply not true and does not suit 99% of the people arguing on the site!
(Note: I said "it's wrong" to use the word "lie", I didn't say "you're lying when you use the word "lie")
Rah:
So do you think I really chant mantras incessantly?
There are only two options.
It's either true or you lied.
If you need lies to argue with me then it's really better that you deal with the more serious things you have to do.
Oh, so now I'm also a liar and not speaking honestly?
You're right, I really have more serious things to do than argue with you.
Rah:
And by the way, I hope you also deal with more serious issues than protecting liars.
If you do you must have read many of my comments that are not about them at all.
Therefore - I don't know who you could have meant in the matter of the incessant scattering of mantras if you were speaking honestly.
Rah:
Read.
Extinct lizards are not.
In any case, what should have been checked and checked is that there are no lizards of the first species there.
Pay attention to how much you invest in a debate on a topic that is not at all relevant to us, because even if I was wrong (and I am not wrong), Elisha's words were false.
And by the way - I will never get tired of calling a lie in his name.
Lies lies, aren't you tired? Who chants mantras incessantly?
Read the quote from the article (135) - there were lizards on the second island, they became extinct. Read Michael, read a little before you jump.
Rah:
You should practice a little reading comprehension because I explained to you exactly what bothers me and it's not at all the fact that someone opposes the theory of evolution but the fact that he is lying.
One of the two - either you didn't understand this even though I wrote it explicitly - or you decided to attack at any cost even if the price is the truth.
Regarding the research - Roy's summary is indeed excellent and therefore also accurate.
I already said that the fact that the lizards were not changed diapers every day is irrelevant.
It was a controlled and well-planned experiment where they located an island that previously had no lizards and brought lizards from another island to it and returned to it after 36 years and discovered evolution.
This of course contradicts Elisha's lie that for some reason you are trying to defend him even though he is lying and it also contradicts the false claims you make while trying to defend him.
Michael, I already told you to leave the excellent summary ofRoey Tsezana and look at the original article:
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/12/4792.full
And if it's difficult for you, then here is the quote:
In 1971 five adult pairs of this species were moved from the small islet of Pod Kopište (0.09 km2) to the nearby Pod Mrčaru (0.03 km2) by Nevo and coworkers (12). Both islets lie in the middle of the South Adriatic Sea near the larger island of Lastovo and belong to Croatia. Although the islet of Pod Mrčaru was originally inhabited by another lacertid lizard species (Podarcis melisellensis), repeated visits (twice annually over the past three years, beginning in 2004) show that this species has become extinct on Pod Mrčaru.
With the emphasis on "twice a year since 2004." In other words, we did not conduct a study over time, but only an observation at two points in time 36 years apart. Look at the graphs as well.
Well, it seems to me that we have exhausted the discussion. All I wanted was to express my protest about gagging that should not be done on a site that claims to be scientific and therefore should automatically support freedom of speech regardless of the commenter's opinion as long as he maintains a proper discussion culture.
It is permissible to attack any scientific theory from any direction and the argument of the intelligent creator is also legitimate and can be argued with (easily by the way) and it is absolutely forbidden to shut up in a scientific discussion.
Unfortunately, my father, I understand that you were not convinced, and for you, too, evolution involves some kind of emotional reaction and it's a shame.
Think about it, is there really a difference between you who do not allow the expression of an opinion and those on the other side who try to ban the study of evolution in school like the religious or Lysenko who attacked it from the other side?
I have no other choice because I don't have your email or any other way to correspond with you. Write me an email and I will explain to you by email. Except that for the next hour I'm busy with LCROSS.
Elisha, the argument was none of my business. I released one of your comments as it was to the point and it was probably the only one.
I am not aware of any article published in the scientific press that contradicted the theory of evolution. Moreover, all attempts to look for flaws were unsuccessful and even further confirmed the hypotheses. The only ones who disagree with the theory of evolution are religious people (of all kinds of degrees of religiosity), and their answer - creationism or in its politically correct version creationism - is just an attempt to force religion into a system that has not been a part of it for hundreds of years (since Copernicus).
Rah:
Your accusation against me is not true.
I treat all manifestations of dishonesty emotionally and bluntly and Elisha specializes in such manifestations.
He doesn't interpret anything - he just throws out mantras that don't relate to the things he's trying to misrepresent as if he were interpreting them. This cannot be an "interpretation" of the findings and I believe much more in the intelligence of humans than in their honesty and therefore - of the two possibilities - the one that he is completely unintelligent and the one that he is a liar, I believe in the second.
Therefore - no - this is not a religious response - unless you consider the demand for honesty as a religion.
Regarding the experiment - read here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/lizard-fast-evolution-230408/
Your claim is simply baseless.
They were transferred specifically to do such an experiment.
It's not like someone in 1971 kept a diary in which he wrote "Today I just moved lizards from island to island. Today I scratched eggs. Today I ate a rattlesnake" and then thirty-six years later someone dug into the diaries and decided to check the lizards and not the rattlesnake.
It's an experiment done to find evidence of evolution - the very experiment Elisha claimed scientists would never do.
Elisha's claim is a blatant lie and your attempt to defend him only hides this fact.
First of all to reassure you, I agree that as of today there are no findings that contradict evolution. There are gaps and unsolved questions, but really this is the most comprehensive and exhaustive explanation for countless phenomena.
Regarding the matter of religion or no religion, the feeling that you treat the whole subject of evolution in a very emotional way and any questioning is immediately met with a stormy and blunt response from you. So Elisha analyzes the results of the lizard study as an indication of an intelligent creator, so what? So instead of debating with him with substantive arguments you immediately start with insults and slurs, notice how many times and in how many forms the root S.K.R repeats in your responses throughout the current discussion. So he thinks differently, so what? He will defame the soul of the youth, so should he be shut up? Is this not a religious response?
Regarding the article, please read it and you will see that the lizards were transferred to the neighboring island and were not examined for thirty years. Only in 2004 did someone think it would be interesting to compare them to the lizards from the island of origin and what they found was the surprising result that there was a total change in the population. If it was a controlled experiment then every year at least samples would be collected and tested.
What I wanted to say about the repetition of this study was that, overall, there is no amazing result here and the explanation is surely simple, a mutation and a strong selection process or the expression of dormant genes as a response to the environment as in the example I wrote to Elisha regarding the production of melanin in the body. So I guess no one will bother following the lizards for thirty years when these questions can be answered in bacteria/yeast/drosophila and even mouse models and you don't have to mess with the lizards. It's just an interesting observation that raises points for thought and nothing more.
Certainly not a revolutionary experiment that contradicted evolution like the one that the closed-mouthed Elisha tried to present, nor some resounding proof in favor of evolution that justifies giving him the title of liar more than 10 times.
Rah:
Or you don't know what a controlled experiment is.
This is an experiment that scientists initiated and tested its results.
It's true that they didn't change the lizards diapers every day but that wouldn't have added anything.
I wonder what experiment you would agree to call a controlled experiment.
It's hard to sequence the lizard's genome but that doesn't mean they won't.
You also don't need to sequence the actual genome, but only find the differences between the original lizards and the new ones.
It's an interesting thing and if someone does that there's not even a slim chance that they'll get an Ignobel award.
Elisha's claim about the fear of the scientific community is not just ridiculous. She is a conscious lie. Especially in light of the fact that your definition (which I don't know what it is) of a controlled experiment is not the one that is usually used and there is no doubt that Elisha did not mean it (in my opinion - mainly because he did not mean anything other than defaming science)
This rant about making evolution my religion is exactly what I said - rant in disguise.
First of all - I did not talk about any question that does not arise from the research in question and this research confirms evolution in a distinct and clear way that, contrary to Elisha's claim and contrary to your insinuation in response 126 - there is nothing in it that casts doubt on evolution, but on the contrary.
Except that I really don't know any other findings - from any research - that call evolution into question.
I used the term "questions" because that's the term you used and I assumed (and I still assume) that you meant well-founded questions and not ignorant questions.
That's why I really don't have such questions in general, but if you present me with a well-founded question, then I will have such a question.
It has nothing to do with religion and your statement about it is unfounded and rude.
Michael, either you didn't read the original article or you missed something. There was no controlled trial here. The lizards were transferred in the 70's and when we remembered them and examined them, very interesting results were discovered. The tests began in 2004, so no long-term experiment was done here to see the kinetics of the change. And as mentioned, it doesn't seem to me that someone will conduct the experiment in this way because of time issues.
In addition, the genome of these lizards is not yet sequenced, so it will be very difficult to find whether new mutations have occurred in the island or whether dormant genes have begun to express themselves.
I agree with you that Elisha's claim about the scientific community's "fear" of the results is ridiculous. After all, if there was an experiment that could definitely contradict evolution, it would have been done immediately and its editor would have received his Nobel Prize. More than that, I can also imagine the competition between the various laboratories for the title "destroys evolution", after all, science has no sentiments for any theory.
And here is my second point, I feel that you have turned evolution into a kind of religion of your own, a sentence like you wrote: "There are questions about everything but there are no questions that put the fact that evolution took place there in doubt." It shows that you, like those believers on the other side, are not ready to consider explanations outside the paradigmatic square.
And another historical fact that should not be ignored:
The same researchers who investigated what both Rah and Elisha say (for opposing reasons) that it should not be investigated, not only did they not receive an Ignoval award, but their article was cited in many places and received sympathetic attention from the entire scientific community.
Rah:
In my opinion, there is no silence policy here.
You can say what you want but people who argue in a civilized way and don't repeat themselves like a broken speaker without addressing what they have been told have never been silenced here.
There are questions about everything, but there are no questions that doubt the fact that evolution took place there.
Right. It may be that there is an expression of genes that were in the lizard before, but surely there is also a change - at least in one place because otherwise identical lizards would have developed.
You don't know people who will do research that will last for decades even though all the discussion right now is about research that will last for decades.
The reason you say it won't happen is that it's not important enough.
I agree with you that the number of confirmations for evolution is so great that the importance of more and more studies of this type is already decreasing, but this has nothing to do with what Elisha said! Elisha meant to imply that they would not investigate (what was actually investigated) because they would be afraid to confront the results. He knows that scientists are obliged to take the test results seriously and cannot - like him - distort reality to their needs (it is so funny when the opponents of evolution say that evolution did not have enough time to create the existing diversity and then - when they are shown an example that proves that their time estimates are simply incorrect, they They also try to use this example to contradict evolution).
You say you envy me for being so certain but you have not pointed to any scientist who is not certain of what I am certain of. The questions that came up in PNAS are questions that I also ask, but I ask them out of interest and a desire to know and not to promote some thesis that I have decided on in advance.
What is clear is that whatever the answer to these specific questions is, there is not even a shred of contradiction to evolution in them - just as in the answer to the question of whether the trip from Tel Aviv to Karmiel via road 4 is faster than the trip via road 2 there is no potential for the conclusion that there is no road from Tel Aviv to Karmiel at all.
I'm glad that the silencing policy bothers not only me here.
Besides, Michael, I envy you that everything is so clear to you. I read the article in PNAS about the lizards and questions and doubts do arise, such as whether the structures that were created are indeed the product of mutations or simply the expression of silenced genes that exist in all lizards (and if they so desire, we can even discuss this designer hypothesis of theirs).
The problem with such research is that although 36 years is a relatively short time, I don't know a researcher and certainly a student who would want to do the necessary research, that is, go for decades to the island to take samples and follow the changes in the lizards over time. At the same time, one must look for mutations and compare genomes in organisms whose sequence is not yet known. It is not important enough to invest time money and effort like that.
And it is assumed that in the end whoever does will get Ignoval.
They once said that it is very difficult to predict - especially about the future.
What they forgot to say on that occasion is that a prophecy about the past - if it is not true then it is a lie.
And by the way - Hanan - the very existence of the article describing a controlled study done on that lizard - disproves Elisha's false prophecy in response 117.
This is of course trivial because the lizards in general were created in a controlled experiment, so what controlled experiment that will not be carried out is he even talking about?
Hanan:
Did you really not understand the opening?
I will try to explain.
When you said that something smells bad - you are the one who intended to insult and therefore you received an insult in return.
The meaning of the insult was - to paraphrase the words of Sherry Arison - that the bad smell, like peace - begins within you.
There is a whole article about the lizards and a long chain of comments and the answer to your question is also there.
We observe tens of thousands of species all the time so occasionally we manage to see evolution in a particular species.
This does not mean that evolution is directed or happens quickly and the fact is that many species have become extinct and have not evolved which shows that this claim is simply delusional.
You don't want to get into an argument?
This makes me very happy, but maybe read the comments received by the troll Elisha and the other troll and maybe read the comments in the article that you find unimportant without understanding and reading the comments and at least wait a little.
Michael
I couldn't understand the opening, except that you meant to insult me in some way. Your style is one of the reasons I've never commented here.
As for the link you brought, it did not update anything. That's exactly what we're talking about. A paragraph from the article:
The results of the study are fascinating, especially in view of the fact that these changes happened in only 36 years. We know that life has existed on Earth for more than 3.6 billion years and that multicellular organisms existed as early as 1.2 billion years ago. The major morphological and behavioral changes that the lizards in the study underwent could have been repeated and accumulated hundreds of millions of times over the past billion years. It is these many changes that ultimately led to the huge variety of life we see today in the land, sea and air.
I don't intend to get into an argument at all, but from the article and the paragraph I quoted, one can certainly come to the assumption that the transition from chimpanzee to man did not necessarily take millions of years, but could also have occurred within a hundred and fifty or two hundred years. It may seem absurd, but that is exactly what the article implies.
Of course Elisha is also invited to respond to the challenge I set for him in question 72 - just so we know that when he says "probability" he understands what he is talking about.
Hanan:
I suggest you blow your nose so you can smell the smells outside.
Which army gets a free hand here?
What factual claim did Elisha claim that did not receive a crushing answer twice or more?
As a passive reader of the site for a long time, I remember miles of idle arguments with people who were not blocked (like Hugin), which the veterans of the site actually enjoyed. I have an uncomfortable feeling that Elisha was blocked precisely because it was my business. It leaves a bad smell, as if you get a free hand from those who are easy to confront, and people who raise more serious mistakes that are difficult to deal with are eliminated. In my opinion, this should not be the attitude of a scientific website.
Elisha,
Without referring to the specific finding to which you are referring, your belief that the scientific community (for all its members) will refrain from conducting any experiment that holds the potential for a breakthrough that undermines existing and established theories because it is "afraid of the results" is evidence of a thousand witnesses of your lack of understanding of the structure of the scientific method and the driving tools her.
Perhaps it is therefore better that you try to complete some basic general education before resorting to attacking a theory that has been in the scientific consensus for 150 years, which, contrary to your delusions, is only getting stronger year by year.
my father
Really cool. I'm going down. I'm just adding one prediction to the one I've already made: I predict that there will never be a controlled trial of Italian wall lizards, because the researchers are afraid of the results. parable?
Elisha, send me your claims by email. I read every word and found nothing there, except an attempt to disprove evolution with some obscure example of lizards. The fact that suddenly the issue of the intelligent planner is not relevant but only to the denial of evolution is exactly the attrition tactic of the Discovery Institute because it is clear that at some point it will be difficult to defend a delusional theory and therefore they try to attack evolution, with all due respect, my management time is limited, and wars of attrition steal from it. It was more important for me to take care of Prof. Ada Yonat's Nobel prize.
Rah:
An unfair argument is an argument in which one of the parties repeats the same things over and over again without considering what the other party says.
All their words have been refuted thousands of times and even in this debate refutations of their words were brought and they simply ignored the whole matter.
They did not come to argue but to annoy some people and brainwash others.
Repeating the same answers like a parrot, cutting and pasting from ultra-Orthodox websites and ignoring the convincing reasons of science, as well as the fact that they only attack evolution and look for weaknesses in it and do not explain why their Torah is stronger, is simply exhausting.
The truth is I don't understand what you want from them. Why an unfair debate? Because they oppose our opinion on evolution? Since when is this a reason for blocking?
If you look above and in other news, the verbal violence is precisely from the direction of the supporters of evolution.
As long as they are having a legitimate scientific debate (and I don't see why you think they aren't) then they have the right to express themselves.
Believe me I don't know who they are and I don't really care what they think, I'm bothered by the approach on the website that I thought was one of the best on the Hebrew web and it's a shame.
I didn't just block them because of their opinions but because they don't have a fair debate. The war of attrition has other sites. And besides, my limited management time is in demand elsewhere, today for example covering the Nobel Prize.
As I wrote above, although I argued with them and did not agree with their opinion, I do not think they are trolls but have a legitimate opinion. Blocking the expression of an opinion is wrong not least because they did not curse or curse as those from the evolutionist camp did, led by Mr. Rothschild.
With all due respect to evolution, it, like any other theory, is not immune to criticism and it is our job to investigate or discuss the research of others. You don't like it, don't read their comments, but what is blocking mouths?
Father, I urge you to reconsider the policy of blocking that will not be recognized on a site like yours.
As I wrote above, although I argued with them and did not agree with their opinion, I do not think they are trolls but have a legitimate opinion. Blocking the expression of an opinion is wrong not least because they did not curse or curse as those from the evolutionist camp did, led by Mr. Rothschild.
With all due respect to evolution, it, like any other theory, is not immune to criticism and it is our job to investigate or discuss the research of others. You don't like it, don't read their comments, but what is blocking mouths?
Father, I urge you to reconsider the policy of blocking that will not be recognized on a site like yours.
The trolls are no longer commenting here because they have finally been blocked.
Let's not kid ourselves that any of them were convinced.
In order to be convinced, they had to read and understand what was said to them, and they avoided that at all costs.
Finally, Elisha, we are making some progress.
You say: "I'm not talking about acquiring a brand but about a. Mutations or b. Awakening of dormant genes.
A. The mutations are not accidental.
B. Because this is how they occur in all the individuals in the group.
third. They occur in a short period of time - a single-digit number of generations.
d. Because of this, the role of natural selection in the process is marginal to zero."
(I added A and B for clarification)
So first of all let's separate two things here:
1) Mutations like you describe have not been found to date. I promise you a Nobel Prize on me if you find any. But even if you find some, how does this prove the existence of an intelligent creator??? After all, such an ability to induce changes in DNA as needed, if it exists, also developed randomly and it can be assumed that there will be a very strong selection in its favor. Where is the intelligent creator here?
2) Dormant genes? What's new here? Most of the genes in our body are dormant at a given time. For example genes of liver proteins are dormant in the heart and vice versa. There are also many indivisible genes that are activated by a signal from the outside, for example the melanin that is created in response to sunlight and results in the dark skin color in tanning. So where is the proof for an intelligent creator?
Regarding your lizards, as above, what will this prove? Suppose we move lizards to another island and they will change. Where is the Creator here? Take 100 people out into the sun and they will all be darker, meaning they have changed. Wow, have we proven the existence of God?
As mentioned, the intelligent creator hypothesis is very weak and I have not yet seen any serious support for it. Maybe try again.
The third chimpanzee:
If, after further tests, all the findings are verified - indeed it seems that the tree of evolution has been redrawn in this area.
This still does not contradict the genetic finding because it is possible that the ancestor was very similar to the chimpanzee and the human and precisely the gorilla expresses a more significant genetic drift.
I thought that according to the conventional wisdom these days, chimpanzees and humans are more similar to each other than chimps are to gorillas.
This means that first there was a split between the gorilla ancestors and the common ancestors of humans and chimpanzees, and only later a split between the human ancestors and the chimpanzee ancestors.
In this article it is written "An unknown period of time, estimated at 4-8 million years ago, the chimpanzees and gorillas split from our ancestors."
Has the "family tree" been redrawn?
Elisha, you have been blocked. I am one person, and it is difficult for me both to handle the news about the Nobel Prize and to monitor the reactions. However, the argument leads nowhere, because that is the nature of creationists all over the world. Too bad for the effort.
my father
That I understand, have I been blocked? It is not so fair to raise the allegations against me but to block my answers.
Regarding the 99.999... I was going to say "whatever some of this company really are idiots, like everywhere else", but I just thought we weren't in the mutual insult section.
Go and read about bottlenecks and genetic drifts and you will see that the modern theory of evolution (which is very different from Darwin's and still has no hint of an intelligent planner) also explains the formation of new and different populations in a short time. Certainly and certainly when it comes to thirty-six generations of lizards that encountered very strong natural selection on the new island.
Part?
It's like saying that 99.9999% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
biological information,
You wrote: "proof by way of negation exists in almost every science"
Proof by way of negation does exist, but the claim that disproving evolution proves intelligent design is not proof by way of negation at all.
It is similar to someone trying to disprove the sentence 2+2=4 to prove that 3+5=10
To my father
Accepting your offer. Go to the Discovery website. I'm just afraid I'll get a little bored there, what's more, some of these company are really idiots. Oh well, we'll see.
to yawn They claim that there is something beyond the materialistic world, so please transfer their conversation to the science website in some parallel world and leave the science website in the materialistic universe to people who are willing to understand the scientific arguments and not just use them when convenient,
A dialogue between two deaf people and one biologist who is depleting his powers. The deaf demagogue will return to the image of the car even though cars cannot breed and accumulate mutations. Elisha the deaf will ignore everything that he is not comfortable hearing about hundreds of experiments that focused on exactly what he is trying to prove and they all failed. He will just keep shouting his mantra without realizing how stupid and senseless it is. But if someone really does what he is proposing and it fails, then he will suddenly remember that one unsuccessful experiment does not invalidate the entire theory he has in mind just as all the other unsuccessful experiments that have taken place to date have not disproved his theory that maybe just maybe there is an intelligent planner
Four differences of course.
Rach
Those who tried to find acquired traits according to Lamarck failed, and it's clear why. I'm not talking about Lamarck acquired but about mutations or the awakening of dormant genes. This is remarkably similar to the description you accept, with only three differences:
A. The mutations are not accidental.
B. Because this is how they occur in all the individuals in the group.
third. They occur in a short period of time - a single-digit number of generations.
d. Because of this, the role of natural selection in the process is marginal to zero.
All the above conditions were met in our case.
Those who don't believe me - and I'm glad they don't believe me, because this is about science - are welcome to disprove my theory using the most natural thing - perform the simple experiment. It doesn't require any resources or sophisticated equipment, it doesn't even require know-how, and in fact any child can do it: chase some lizards, catch them, put them in a box, move them to the other island and watch to see what happens. I don't understand why we are debating here, when it is possible with this method to completely disprove my theory, present me as an empty vessel and accuse me of charlatanism, naive creationism and whatever you want. Why miss such a rare opportunity to ultimately prove Darwin's theory? All she has to do is wait two years - and eat me without salt.
Let's try again:
"The Italian found a wire and claimed that it was proof that the Romans had a telephone and the Israeli found nothing and published that it was proof that the ancient Israelites had a cell phone..." - So here is a situation identical to the evolutionary one - and we found a car on a distant planet without seeing its maker. You have 2 options: created by a natural process or Be smart. What is your answer?
"Once again I ask you and leave you from hallucinatory chatter or any other nonsense, what is the evidence for intelligent planning?" - What is the evidence for intelligent planning in that car?
And no, the fact that you disagree with the evidence for evolution is not considered proof of intelligent design" - not related to screens but to proof that systems cannot be created gradually. And this is proof of the way of positiveness, which, as mentioned, is no different from the way of negation, like in a car.
Another small detail - the lactose experiment apparently demonstrated targeted mutations.
And one more thing Elisha, regarding what you call "the natural adaptation of organisms". Do you have any idea how many articles and failed attempts to date have been made to prove the existence of targeted mutations? You are hanging from very tall trees here. Just a quick reminder –
Lamarck tried to argue that animals acquire traits by necessity. To this day, no one has been able to find even a single case where this claim was true.
Lysenko in the Soviet Union who believed in this thesis led to the destruction of Russian genetic science and the death of hundreds of thousands of people as a result of an irresponsible policy based on the wishes of the heart and not on experiments.
Joshua Lederberg, one of the fathers of molecular biology, received the Nobel Prize for the subject.
Recently, a scientist named Susan Rosenberg tried to prove the existence of acquired mutations and although it seemed at first that she found proof of their existence, she finally discovered a random mechanism that combined with selection created a phenomenon similar to acquired mutations.
http://www.bcm.edu/cmb/?pmid=2391
I am not claiming that acquired mutations will never be discovered. All I ask is that you, Mr. Elisha, do not come to Benon Shalent and claim that they exist despite enormous efforts to find them based only on some lizards that have undergone selection.
Information Response 85 - What do you remind me of? The joke about the archaeologists, that the Greek found paper and claimed that it was proof that the ancient Greeks had mail, the Italian found a wire and claimed that it was proof that the Romans had a telephone and the Israeli found nothing and published that it was proof that the ancient Israelis had a cell phone...
Again I ask you and leave you with hallucinatory chatter or any other nonsense, what is the evidence for intelligent design?
And no, the fact that you disagree with the evidence for evolution does not count as proof of intelligent design.
Elisha, you say: "Living organisms are created and act by the power of the biological-organic system of laws, which is in no way the same as the system of physical laws, and in most respects is even opposed to it."
Which physical law exactly is violated by which biological system exactly? And do me a favor, don't start with entropy because if you think about it, you will see that the energy that enters the system from the sun and is absorbed by bacteria and photosynthetic plants and fed from there to the entire animal world is sufficient and no law is violated.
my father
I've never read anything from the Discovery Institute, and I haven't even heard Shimo, but it's encouraging to hear.
What I do know is that the case of the lizards in Pod Mercaro was described by scientists as proof of the correctness of Darwin's theory of evolution. In this regard, here is a quote:
"If it were possible to prove the existence of some complex organ that could not have been formed by multiple, successive and minor changes, then my theory would have completely collapsed." (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species).
And another quote:
"We know much more about the animal and plant world than Darwin did, and I have not yet heard of a single case of a complex organ that could not have been formed by multiple, successive and minor changes. I do not believe that such a case will ever be discovered. And if it is revealed (…) because then I will stop believing in Darwin's theory." (R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker).
Another quote:
"Our brains are built to handle events with a time scale that is completely different from the one that characterizes evolutionary change. We are able to get to the bottom of processes that last seconds, minutes, years or at most decades, until they are completed. Darwin's theory is a theory of incremental changes so slow that thousands of decades, if not millions, are required to complete them. All our intuition considerations about what is reasonable and what is not reasonable, turn out to be wrong by several orders of magnitude. The sophisticated mechanism we have been equipped with for skepticism and subjective probability errs by huge margins because it is aimed (...) to operate in the field of several decades, the duration of human life. A great effort of the power of imagination is needed to go beyond the prison of the accepted time scale." (Name).
Let's say that I am not making any arguments, I am not raising any speculations and I am not challenging any Torah. I'm just asking a simple question: why don't the researchers do the required, logical and most expected thing after the discovery in the uncontrolled experiment - redoing the experiment in a controlled way?
Not if they were your arguments but these are arguments of people from the Discovery Institute, which scientists have answered a million times but they change the language and say the same thing in other words and claim that it is a new claim.
to the point
And why don't you test my words for their substance instead of attributing all kinds of imaginary qualities to me? You know what, let's say I'm a religious fanatic, who believes that the world was created in six days, that Methuselah lived for four hundred years, and that God has the form of a kangaroo and sits in a cave on the moon and roasts the unbelievers with a mixture of poisonous og and hydrochloric acid. So what? Does that exempt anyone from logically examining my arguments?
Noam
I really don't understand you. What would you say to me if I said to you: "Do you think that if you say about something that it is "coincidental" then that makes it really accidental?" - You would probably say to me: Sir, you can check it, there are ways to do it, and then you will argue whether it is accidental or not.
or! So that's exactly what I'm telling you (and what I told you).
From what do you conclude that by the word "intentional" I am trying to prove intelligent planning? You kind of see the shadow of mountains as mountains. In order for organisms to have the ability to adapt, we don't need God yet, so in the meantime he can rest. For this purpose, the organic-biological system of laws will suffice. But the problem is that the independent existence of this set of laws is also a threat to the Darwinian premise - that living organisms are a continuation of the laws of physics. So it is true that I am expressing terrible and terrible heretical words here, but I have not reached God yet.
For the sake of emphasis, I will repeat the heretical sentence: living organisms are created and act by the power of the biological-organic system of laws, which is in no way the same as the system of physics laws, and in most respects is even opposed to it. If I were Dawkins I would add here: the fact that natural selection didn't kill me on the spot after such terrible words proves that it doesn't exist (no seriously, no seriously).
I think we can all relax about the intelligent creator. This guy - whoever he is - seems to scare the fans of evolution even more than he scares his Christian, Jewish and Muslim believers.
To understand an argument with religious people you need to understand what it is about.
There is such a status competition in sex religion, when you are in a situation where something is explained to you in a logical and reasonable way, only it goes against what you were taught or what your opinion is about how things work. So if, despite the logic of the things being said, you still smirk and chuckle and belittle it while internally feeling a strengthening of your faith in God, then you are considered religious and believe in a greater God, and the appreciation of other believers of the same religion values you more.
These two idiots are babbling like a broken speaker without understanding anything and for some reason no one is blocking them.
I suggest, father, that you block them and let them continue to respond in another reality.
Hello!
Noam and Rah, an answer to your request - proof by way of negation exists in almost every science. For example - archeology. If we find an old car under the ground, then we have scientifically proven that there were cars at the time. No scientist will claim that this car was created by a natural process, and this despite not having seen the The creation of this specific car = proof by the way of negation. But let's quibble a little more about the way of the positive - was and witness an alien entity (let's say) creating humans. How can we prove that this is not a hallucination? After all, even with proof by the way of positive it can be argued that it is just an illusion. Conclusion-proof by way of scientific negation, and proof by way of positive scientific to the same extent.
Elisha,
It is not possible to logically prove the existence of countless things, among the most famous of them: the teapot circling the earth, the flying spaghetti monster and more and more as the good imagination allows.
Do you think this is enough to prove their existence?
One thing is clear: the requirements you set for the theory of evolution are thousands of times higher than the requirements for the theories you believe in.
I adopt your last call to demand an equal test.
Elisha,
Do you believe that emphasizing the word *intentional* really makes the processes intentional?
What is this strange reasoning? Is it enough to say about something that it is intentional and thereby prove the intelligent design?
I am still waiting to hear from you about positive confirmations for the intelligent design, and I am willing to settle for less confirmations than eyewitnesses of your planner.
Listen, I think you'll have to work a little harder...
Rach
Let's start from the end. The theory I brought is about the positive way, and the conclusion that it probably supports in some way the idea of intelligent design was not made by me, but by Darwin's high priests, who lash out at anyone who dares to bring up the theory about the natural adaptation of organisms (which in itself does not contradict, by the way, the existence of evolution, splitting into species, etc.).
I don't understand what the connection is with justifying or not justifying certain religions. I don't come from a religious point of view, I don't observe the mitzvot of any religion, and my opinion about religions has nothing to do with my opinion about an intelligent creator. It is possible that all religions are wrong, and that still does not say anything about the question of the existence or non-existence of an intelligent creator. Are you trying to claim that if the supporters of all religions slaughter each other for good, then the end will also come for the rational creator (maybe he will kill himself or something)?
Friend, get off these childish arguments. I'm not talking from gut feelings. If you can logically prove that there is no reality that is beyond our senses or that the existence of such a reality contradicts material reality in some way - then, as you imply, we will have to remove this possibility from all the substitutes for natural selection and look for other candidates. If you stand by your demand that I prove the physical existence of God, I see it as just avoiding a more serious discussion about less sacred (but probably no less charged) matters that I raised earlier.
post Scriptum. Let it not be heard that I deny the existence of other candidates as a substitute, if they explain the world better without resorting to a supersensible reality. As long as they pass the test of logic, a test that is required of them.
Elisha, I agree with Noam's call. What is the support for intelligent creation?
Let's assume that evolution is unfounded, after all there are countless possibilities and in fact every religion and belief in the world, starting with Baal and Zeus and ending with the God of the Jews, offers an "explanation" for the creation of the world, life and man. Is there a scrap of observation that supports one of them? Is it possible to plan an experiment that would disprove one of them?
Beyond that, it is logically clear that there are two possibilities: only one of the religions or none of them is right. Is there a way to verify which of them is correct, if at all, without mutual slaughter of the supporters of the second belief?
Regarding parallel realities or whatever you call them, then again beyond your gut feeling that we can't absorb everything with our senses/device, is there any basis to assume that they exist? Will their existence explain or answer some unsolved problem?
For the time being, all that is received here from you and biological information are proofs by way of negation.
Noam
What, you really don't understand? I brought you a theory that relies on *intentional* internal factors of organisms, resulting in *intentional* development of organs, in *intentional* response to environmental changes, and all this based on an event whose existence cannot be doubted (unless someone lied here). True, it still does not prove the existence of a God who punishes sinners one by one, but apparently for the authors of the experiment it is enough on the way there to discourage them from holding a repeat experiment, this time in a controlled manner.
The clearest and strongest proof of the existence of an intelligent planner is the testimony of the person who saw him. Since there is currently no such evidence, and more fundamentally, there probably won't be either, since this intelligent creator, if it exists, by its very definition (regardless of whether one believes in it or not) is not made of physical matter and therefore cannot be seen, therefore the proofs or confirmations of its existence are indirect , and they are found or not found in what we can or cannot attribute to the works of his hands on the physical plane (introductory course in theology, first year, first semester).
Since you obviously know this very well, it is very easy for you to catch me in—by repeating over and over the demand to "prove to you", when you mean physical proof. You will certainly be very happy to hear that I have no such proof, but the question is whether this will also convince the researchers at Pod Mercaro, who are probably very afraid that the results of a controlled experiment will devour their entire worldview.
Elisha,
I think you don't understand or don't read my response:
I didn't ask how you refute the theory of evolution, I asked how you confirm the theory of the intelligent creator - why is it so difficult for you to answer such a simple question?
Do you think you can answer the question?
Methodical addition:
I present in this a precise way to refute the theory of adaptation. This way is already mentioned in response 43. They take 5 pairs of lizards that live on an island with little vegetation.. transfer them... wait two years... and by the way it's a complete waste.
Noam
I think you didn't understand. What to do. Anyway, at least I had one prediction, a prediction that I stand by.
On second thought (if I didn't say it before, it's only because I was sure it was clear as day), see the italian walls case not only as putting a huge question mark on the accepted theory of evolution, but also as an unequivocal confirmation of the theory that organisms have a natural adaptation to changing environmental conditions, And that this, and not an accidental mutation, is the motive and cause of the development of new organs or a change in existing organs, and this change takes place in short periods of time and not in millions of years, in a process that is completed within three or four generations, when all individuals in a species without exception develop the organ in question even without No relation of pairing between them.
you are welcome. Now it's your turn to refute.
Elisha,
Once again you managed to evade such a simple request: please, forget for a moment your aversion to evolution, and try to come up with reasons for the way of charging for intelligent design. The reasons for the negation are simply not serious.
It seems to me, in light of the repeated evasions, that the best reasoning you can come up with is: "That's what I believe."
Realities that cannot be perceived and discovered: theories of this kind I can invent a thousand lira. They have no importance and no interest to me, because they do not meet the most important criterion of a scientific theory: presenting a way, even only in principle, to refute them. This is the requirement of any scientific theory, and the theories of undiscoverable realities do not meet a necessary requirement, which makes them a belief and nothing else.
The theory of evolution is a solid scientific theory that offers predictions and ways to disprove it, so it is not a belief at all.
my father
Fair enough, although I didn't mean postmodernism.
Elisha, if there are other realities than the one we sense through our senses (what you call materialistic science), then your reality probably requires other scientific sites, ones that are willing to agree to these pseudo-scientific arguments. The science website follows the footsteps of Science and Nature. If they publish postmodernist articles I will also consider publishing them here.
Noam
The evolutionists make an easy life for themselves when they present those who claim "intelligent design" as primitives, who believe that the world was created in six days and other nonsense.
By observing the world, one can reach several common sense conclusions, and one of them is the conclusion of intelligent planning. You and Michael present yourselves as fanatics of science, but you are only jealous of *materialistic* science, whose premise is that there is no reality beyond the material reality we feel with our senses. This means that if our five senses were really created according to natural selection and there was no intelligent planning in their design, that is, if they were not designed in advance to see *all* of reality, who next to you will be stuck that you really feel all of *all* of reality with your five random senses, and that there are no other parts of reality, that the blind watchmaker did not create tools for us to feel them? That is, the only way to assert an inherent claim of the non-existence of a reality that is not given to our senses, is to state that in the development of our senses from the beginning there was an intention that they would sense *all* of reality. After all, you yourself say "I personally adopt the opinion of Dawkins who denies the existence of any kind of superhuman and natural intelligence" - adopt Dawkins's *opinion*, not his *knowledge*. In this sense, if you call creationism, or whatever you call it, "faith", then the theory of evolution is equally a faith.
And again, pay attention to the words - after all, now the required claim is that "evolution has been tried and proven millions of times in a scientific way", etc. - this claim is based precisely on the assumption of the non-existence of another reality, a claim that is not a proven truth. As mentioned above, it can only be ruled out by a circular argument that must include the five senses, which means that in order to prove the non-existence of an intelligent planner you must first assume with certainty that he exists, from the Bible (what we wanted not to prove). This is therefore your personal opinion, just as it is Dawkins' personal opinion.
One of the aspects to the lack of the possibility of another reality in materialistic science, is organic actions that are taken for granted when in fact they do not have any comprehensible or intelligent explanation. For example, the premise that the four bases of the genetic code when they are arranged in units of three bases will always constitute a code that will be translated (meaning "understood") as "something" - an amino acid or a sign for a certain action. No way? It will be understood by whom? By what set of rules do you take this for granted? The physical law system? of course not. How can any code, whose importance is in the *mathematical* sense and not in its chemical composition, be understood in a certain order as an instruction to create hemoglobin, in a different order as an instruction to produce dentin in a tooth, and in another change be understood as a tendency to schizophrenia? Is there any physical law in the universe capable of explaining this? Of course not. (I remind you that Darwin stated - and this statement was unquestionably confirmed by his successors - that the condition for the entire theory of evolution is the assumption that the formation and development of living organisms is a continuation of the fiscal system of laws).
Another example is consciousness. The idea that matter will begin to think, feel and express its opinion, and not only that, but that its thinking will have a logic that corresponds exactly to the logic that is outside of it in reality - is an idea whose degree of absurdity is the same as the idea that physical matter will overcome gravity within itself and begin to float in the air. Whoever claims that the physical system of laws explains or there is a chance that it will ever explain thinking and consciousness, is, how to say it - a liar, as Michael likes to say.
So in the expansion of the possibilities of reality to those beyond our senses (of which the genetic code and consciousness are examples), it is possible to expand scientific thinking (I say "scientific thinking" because science is currently seen as a narrow field that only includes material reality), and to look at the world in a more inclusive way. The question of whether this will lead to more insights than the limited view, is a question of personal interpretation. But why is such an approach less legitimate in your eyes than the narrow approach you advocate?
Noam:
I have long since come to the conclusion that disinformation is just a troll who does not refer to any argument that contradicts his lies.
The question arises as to how to stop the endless loop he creates by simply repeating his lies after each response.
Perhaps the solution is to try to let him prove what he understands about probability - the Torah on which many of his lies are based on his misunderstanding.
Therefore, I suggest that Mr./Ms. Disinformation/Nir/Irmak or whatever name he chooses, deal with the following question:
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?
To check if you trust yourself answer the following practical question:
It was said that I and 99 of my friends are willing to pay 10 shekels each to participate in such a game that you will finance the prizes distributed in it.
This means that for each cycle of the game you are paid 1000 new shekels.
Do you want to commit to playing with us, let's say, twenty such games?
biological information,
You wrote: "Basically there are 2 options: rational or natural. Assuming that the natural explanation falls away, we are left with the rational explanation"
Wow, what a huge logical fallacy there is in this argument...
Reminds me of someone who buys a lottery ticket every week, since he thinks the chance of winning is 50%: after all, there are basically 2 options, either you win or you don't...
The natural option does not fall even if it turns out that the theory of evolution is wrong from beginning to end. Many phenomena in nature were first explained by some higher power, later by a fundamentally wrong scientific theory, and with the incessant progress of science, by a reliable scientific theory confirmed by thousands of experiments and observations. The intelligent design option is certainly not the default for refuting one or another scientific theory, so your presentation of things is certainly incorrect, not to mention misleading.
You also wrote:
"As a principle, proving the existence of an intelligent creator does not entail any religion, it is basically a logical fallacy"
Well, so that there are no doubts, I personally adopt the opinion of Dawkins who denies "the existence of any kind of superhuman and natural intelligence, which deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us."
Elisha:
You wrote: "Just as the opposite claim is true - even if I proved that intelligent design is possible and maybe even reasonable, I still have not disproved the theory of evolution"
You and your friends keep mentioning the "proof of intelligent design"
Maybe you will finally bring a shred of such proof? All your reasons for the existence of intelligent design are based on the way of negating evolution and there is no reasoning on the way of affirming it. Maybe you should direct your tremendous efforts to find positive reasons for the existence of what you believe in?
Relying on the denial of scientific theories is dangerous for you: the incessant progress of science leaves fewer and fewer unexplained gaps, and the part of the intelligent designer or omnipotent God is dramatically reduced throughout history. Today will not be far away, and you will be forced to come to the conclusion that even if there is such a planner, he probably didn't do anything throughout his long life.
Elisha-
I agree with what you said in principle. However, it must be remembered that the two theories are not refutable - what has become unscientific.
Roi-
If evolution is based on the recombination and mixing of different proteins, then the question arises, what is the chance that part of protein x will meet with part of protein y and part of protein z at the same time and in a genome of tens of thousands of different genes. What's more, for this you have to find *identical* parts in other systems. Miller I did not find any. This is similar to mixing parts of man-made devices. It does not seem to me that we will get an airplane by mixing parts of existing devices. Another problem is that those parts themselves are supposed to be part of another complex system, so we did not solve the problem but removed it. But in principle this way that your offer seems more reasonable than other ways, or not.
St-
1) "The genes were transferred in their entirety. No new system was created here." Not true, oncogenes have not passed completely, the control component is missing and therefore they cause cancer." - and therefore it is the destruction of existing genes. No new gene with a new active site was created here. A simple mutation can cause the control to go out of control (as in the famous citrite example)
2) "Do you also have positive evidence and not only through the negative?
Between us, if you think about it, I suppose that the reasons for believing in an intelligent creator are not rational but rather emotional and stem from the upbringing and circumstances in which people grew up. Most people adopt the faith of their family and a very small minority really choose their faith. A cold, objective and logical look at the findings will inevitably result in favoring the evolutionary model over the intelligent at least until new findings are received that support another direction (if there are any). What is your choice? Why did you choose it?
3) Where is a trilobite found in human footprints? Maybe it's just a fossil that "floats" on the surface? Like today you can find fossils in the places they walked?" - see here for example (by the way, there is another hidden prediction in evolution from genome comparisons)
http://www.epochtimes.co.il/news/content/view/8922/88/#
By the way, scientists referred to this example except that they claimed all kinds of scenarios. But this demonstrates my claim - you cannot disprove a theory like that.
"Programs that change in a random way and selection is applied to them, and a development parallel to that of biological evolution was obtained. The key word here is selection." - So this is only in simulations with a predetermined goal. In nature, after the appearance of the first component on the way to a complex system, you simply get stuck, because there is no point in it .
, the cog wheel from a toy car and the screw on the side was taken from a music box. You will see that here we have created a watch with a new activity from existing parts while creating a new function as happens in horizontal gene transfer." - See my answer to Roy.
good day…
Information, I have a lot to say, but I will address only a few things below:
1) "The genes were transferred in their entirety. No new system was created here." Not true, oncogenes have not passed on completely, the control component is missing and therefore they cause cancer. Likewise in many genetic diseases such as Kleinfeld syndrome and others.
2) "If we don't have a natural explanation for the formation of biological engines, then we will prefer the claim that engines require creation". From this I understand that you assume the existence of God/an intelligent creator or whatever you call him only by way of elimination??? Do you also have positive proofs and not just negative?
Between us, if you think about it, I suppose that the reasons for believing in an intelligent creator are not rational but rather emotional and stem from the upbringing and circumstances in which people grew up. Most people adopt the faith of their family and a very small minority really choose their faith. A cold, objective and logical look at the findings will inevitably lead to a preference for the evolutionary model over the intelligent at least until new findings are received that support another direction (if there are any).
3) Where is a trilobite found in human footprints? Maybe it's just a fossil that "floats" on the surface? Like today you can find fossils in the places they walked?
4) Regarding the electronics analogy, electronic evolution has not really been done, but attempts have been made to simulate evolution on the computer. Programs that change in a random way and selection that is applied to them, and a development parallel to that of biological evolution was obtained. The key word here is selection.
5) "It is not possible to create a clock with hands (let's say) gradually, while maintaining functionality". True, but if you think that the hand came from a speedometer, the glass is used, the gear wheel is from a toy car and the screw on the side is taken from a music box, you will see that here we have created a watch with a new activity from existing parts while creating a new function as happens in horizontal gene transfer.
I will write briefly, because there is no point in arguing here.
The mistake of Mr. 'Biological Information' is in wanting to find the separate parts of the whip motor, whole and perfect, in bacteria without whips. Ken Miller points out that such separate parts can indeed be found in bacteria without flagella, but they are not exactly the same as the parts inside the motor. This is no surprise. To a large extent, a car engine and an old airplane engine are very similar to each other. The main difference is in the sizes of the parts, and in their connection points to each other.
Similarly, there is no reason to expect that the individual parts that make up the rod motor will appear in exactly the same way in other bacteria. In these bacteria they have a different action, which requires them to be somewhat different. The beauty here is that the same basic parts are already there, and need only be minimally modified to work with each other and become a primitive engine.
(Miller also showed that you don't need all the parts for the engine to run minimally efficiently, but oh well)
In general, the 'irreducible complexity' argument is never provable, and can be ignored as creationist rhetoric and nothing more. He works on the principle of "If we don't understand how it was created, then God did it." And the saddest part is that the creationists who cite him make sure to ignore any evidence that we already understand how these systems came into being gradually.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/did-burst-of-gene-duplication-set-stage-for-human-evolution-130209/
And with that I left the argument.
Happy holiday,
Roy.
my new blog - Another science
biological information
A slight correction to your last sentence: … we can show that evolution is theoretically possible, so *there is a possibility* that the intelligent design claim does not hold.
Just as the opposite claim is true - even if I have proven that intelligent design is possible and perhaps even probable, I still have not disproved the theory of evolution.
Must be precise.
Addendum to your words-
The rod could not have been created from the ttss since these are not identical parts. It's like the difference between an airplane and a car, although there are similar parts: wheels, screws, wiring, etc. However, this does not mean that you can go from a car to an airplane in gradual steps - again my analogy holds here. Try to understand why it is not possible to create a clock with hands (let's say) gradually, while maintaining functionality, and then you will understand everything actually.
"It is quite clear that the bacterium acquired it from the warehouse, a classic example of the horizontal transfer of genes. Like the oncogenes in viruses and many other examples" - yes, but the genes were transferred in their entirety. No new system was created here.
St-
You touched on some very interesting points. I will try to focus mainly on: basically there are 2 options: intelligent or natural. Assuming that the natural explanation fails, then we are left with the intelligent explanation. And if we do not have a natural explanation for the formation of biological engines, then let us prefer the claim that engines require a creator, rather than the claim Because they are not binding (a natural explanation). Anyone who claims that a (biological) engine can be created through a natural process is a strong claim and requires solid substantiation. That's why I gave the classic example - Shotton. In all the articles and scenarios that I read, I did not find a single serious scenario for medicine that can be empirically confirmed. That's why I turned to Also for the field of human engineering and I showed why the gradual creation of complex systems would not be theoretically and technically possible. The claim that each component was used by itself for some purpose is hidden by the electronics analogy. Note that there is no fundamental difference from biological systems since these are systems with three-dimensional values, in both.
As a principle, proving the existence of an intelligent creator does not lead to any religion, it is basically a logical fallacy. And regarding clear predictions - some findings were found that were supposed to contradict it, but they were somehow adjusted to the theory. For example, a fossil of a trilobite next to human footprints. As a principle - if they succeed in showing how the shoton was created or any other complex system) in gradual steps - we will be able to show that evolution is theoretically possible. And in fact we will disprove the design claim.
Another thing,
I didn't understand what the problem is with the model in which the shoton is created from (Type 3 secretion system (tts)? So what if the components are not the same? After all, the whole point is the changes, isn't it?
Take cholera toxin for example. It is a eukaryotic adenylate cyclase that is expressed in a bacterium without any apparent function in the bacterium. It is secreted and destroys the storage cells. It is quite clear that the bacterium acquired it from the warehouse, a classic example of the horizontal transfer of genes. Likewise, the oncogenes in viruses and many other examples.
biological information,
Yes, the bat of the bacterium. It is the so-called "cannon" in the arsenal of weapons of the creationist argument even though barrages of explanations have been poured into it. See, for example, an excellent review of a microbiological manufacturer from 2006.
http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v4/n10/abs/nrmicro1493.html
The truth is, if I were you, I would perhaps use the ribosomal RNA as an example. This molecule is preserved from the simplest and most ancient creatures in the light of the evolutionary tree to the newest creatures so that it seems that the perfect molecule was created at the beginning and since then there is no advantage in any change, which may be a little against the accepted view.
Of course, there are many explanations for this as well.
In any case, as of today the evolutionary explanation is the best for the variety of species, for what we see in the fossils for phenomena such as the creation of new species, resistance to antibiotics and hundreds of other phenomena.
If you have a better explanation then please listen and discuss.
Remember that the explanations based on extraterrestrials, God, some kind of "intelligence" or countless gods (Hinduism) that hundreds of millions of people believe in have many more holes, there are no experiments or observations capable of confirming or refuting. Beyond that, no matter what happens the believers will not leave their religion . I bet that even if the heavens open and let's say Jesus comes down and announces that Christianity is the true religion or alternatively the Messiah who announces that Judaism is the true religion even a believer will not change his religion and they will find peppered explanations for the phenomenon, and the only ones who will be convinced will be the scientists(!)
On the other hand, evolution, like any science, has very clear predictions and observations, show me human bones under a layer of dinosaurs and we will have to reconsider the whole theory.
My father and Noam:
I'm guessing that the guilty word is (I'm spacing out so that this comment doesn't block) that the Arabs
According to the article, the new picture of evolution can be described in one sentence:
"monkey after a human"
The reason is not clear to me, maybe a keyword once used by a troll but I don't recognize one at the moment. It is a fact that the second comment was not censored.
Avi,
Did you start censoring me?
Is there any specific reason I should know about?
Joseph,
Why extraterrestrial visits at the dawn of evolution?
Why not aliens today?
Why don't we assume that half of the earth's population are extraterrestrials, who interfere every day in our molecular biology?
Or maybe the chimpanzees are aliens from one planet, and the gorillas are aliens from another planet?
Am I an extrovert myself who is unaware of my origins and abilities?
Well, I have a few more useful hypotheses of this kind, but my father might get angry (and rightly so) and censor me.
The leap in evolution and the lack of intermediate elements in the chain can be explained by the intervention of extraterrestrials who visited at the dawn of evolution and manipulated the genes of living beings so that a higher form of life would develop (just as it is also possible that they gave the Torah to the tribes of Israel in order to develop a progressive society and not idolaters )
The article is indeed interesting, but it is difficult for me to see how and why they will go from walking on two to walking on all fours. Bipeds have an advantage in the context of spatial vision for hunting or detecting dangers, and they can use their free hands for various purposes.
It is likely that this hypothesis is wrong and that the bipeds evolved from the four-legged ones - from the shrinking of the forest areas and living in open areas - the two-legged ones. Those who continued to walk on all fours on the ground in an open plain did not survive.
Hi. Regarding the lizards - in principle I don't see a serious problem if it is indeed a pseudogene. Since it is a simple mutation. However, the problem is how this is reconciled with the takeover of the population in such a short time.
St-
All examples of homologues are hypothetical. We must show that recombination and duplication are indeed possible and that it will indeed lead to the formation of new genes. This includes homology. Did you know, for example, that the genes encoding the olfactory receptors are 40 percent different from each other? and recombination. I understand that the subject is a bit deep and I understood that you have knowledge of biochemistry, so I will give you a specific classic example and I would be happy if you refer to it: the bacterial shotton, for example. Ken Miller, one of the leading explainers of evolution today, claims that the shotton was created in small steps, when each part was used on its own for something else ( The scaffolding method). As evidence of this, he brought the example of the bacterial injection system (ttss) and claimed that it is an intermediate stage of the Shotton. The problem is that its parts are not *identical* to those of the Shotton, but similar, and therefore his claim is incorrect. That is why I also gave the explanation in my first response - not possible to create complex biological systems, just as it is not possible to create complex electronic systems in small steps. This takes place at the level of the individual enzyme - every average enzyme requires several necessary sites: an active site, the skeleton that creates the active site, a promoter, an additional site (for example, a pocket for the "hem" molecule in cytochrome or globin protein) and more.
biological information,
Where did you get the firm statement that "bacterial resistance to antibiotics is not achieved by creating new genes but by destroying existing genes and changing their spatial structure by point mutation."???
What about multi drug resistance pumps? What about horizontal gene transfer that during the transition and integration create new genes?
Just for the sake of illustration, take for example the "Rosetta Stone" method for finding protein activity based on the fact that there are proteins that have split or merged and therefore their role can be tapped based on the non-spliced homologue. Which actually shows the creation of new genes.
A second example, the formation of the problematic strain of Staphylococcus aureus MRSA -
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/11/7687.full
Elisha, I really don't understand much about evolution, but isn't the example of the lizards a matter of genetic drift?...
Genetic drift, similar to natural selection, is a process that changes the hereditary load of the population. However, unlike natural selection, genetic drift only works in small populations and is not related to the adaptation of the individual's genetic load to the environment. Genetic drift works due to the randomness that exists in the process of inheritance for sexual reproduction, and it is not expressed in large populations but only in small populations due to the weak law of large numbers in probability theory.
And if they already give you study material, then here's a little more:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p15.htm
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-speciation.pdf
I know, however, that nothing will convince you.
I'm just reminding you that all the disinformation is nonsense that was answered, among other things, in the link I provided at the beginning of the discussion and which I repeat now:
http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/Creationist_Arguments
I also suggest to all disinformation partners to continue to cultivate the feelings of magnificence necessary to read without any substantive argument - a challenge to what is agreed upon by the entire academic community, as mentioned here:
http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf
Of course I won't stop you if you want to read here too:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
There is another option, epi genetics. Read Chava Yablonka in her book Evolution in Four Dimensions or for short http://www.odyssey.org
biological information. Irreducible complexity is a concept invented by creationists and defined in such a way that it will be impossible to attack it with any logical argument because what is not argued falls within this circular argument. If we have to teach a lesson in biology to anyone who wants to know why this is not true and in the end not to convince that the man is already a prisoner of his mistake, then the pans have achieved their goal of exhausting us and delaying us.
for biological information
We will accept the assumption that there was a "dormant garden" in some way that came to life (by the way, I really believe that is what happened). The question is: why precisely here, why precisely now? Why not before?
my father
And all this happened for 30 years? A bit excessive.
As I wrote, to assume the scenario you describe, then to leave *only* those left to tell about it, and that in the blink of an eye of 36 years given to it, natural selection would have had to murder without any qualms at least 75% of the newborns in each generation (in the case of 50% mutation probability), and a correspondingly higher percentage with each decrease in statistical probability. Since a statistical probability of 50% is entirely imaginary in advance, the probability of the entire occurrence can easily be calculated. For example, if the statistical probability of the occurrence of a mutation and continued mutation is 10% in each generation (also an imaginary number beyond any chance), then we should have found a population of lizards of the new species on Pod Mercaro Island - which numbered no more than fifty or sixty individuals, because 95 Approximately % of all individuals born would have been killed on the spot by natural selection, even before they were old enough to reproduce.
If the mutations are gradual, and assuming that we have somehow solved the statistical probability problem, then the definition of the problem is as follows:
One can understand why the owners of the first mutation so easily overcame the individuals without the mutation. It is also possible to understand why the continuous mutation (in the second generation) overcame the first mutation; She was considerably better. What cannot be understood is how the 28th continuous mutation overcame the 27th mutation in a complete knock-out, only one generation after the latter overcame the 26th mutation with the same amazing knock-out. Did the 27th mutation suddenly become completely unsuitable and instantly disappear without batting an eyelid, just because a slightly better mutation was created? And by the way, a complete waste.
I hope I was able to explain the problem.
Note: the Italian wall lizard breeds once a year, in spring and early summer.
dope = just dope
And as a result
To the spirit, Elisha and the rest of the company' - I will disperse the fog a little with your permission.
some facts-
a) Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is not achieved by creating new genes but by destroying existing genes and changing their spatial structure by means of a point mutation. As a result, the antibiotic is not adapted to the three-dimensional shape of the target enzyme and the bacteria shows resistance. This is of course not similar to the creation of new genes with New sites.
b) The rule also applies to recombination, inversion, "prime shift" mutation and pseudo-genes. The chances are the same (apart from pseudo-genes that have been activated).
c) Regarding the example of the lizards - it is possible that this is the activation of a drug that was already in the distant past of the lizard and as excrement from a simple mutation has returned to function.
4) In order to understand the meaning of "irreducible complexity" take a good look at my first message. Questions are welcome from both sides.
Elisha, it is no coincidence that the constellation created is exactly what the organism needed in the changing environment. Simply an organism whose constellation was different, did not survive and did not produce offspring, therefore only those who happened to fit the changing environment remained to tell about it.
Rach
Definitely possible. But the strange thing is that in this case, amazingly, the resulting constellation is exactly what the organism needed in the changing environment. That is, you solve the problem of statistical probability at the level of the individual gene, but all you did was transfer it to a more general level - how could this "random" recombination have happened at the exact time, place and organism that needed it, and not, for example, in the original species of lizards (After all, a mutational jump of this kind would undoubtedly have received attention if it had occurred).
By the way, in this case you can easily check the matter. Since this happened once in an uncontrolled way, the researchers had no choice but to repeat the experiment, but this time in a controlled way. I dare to guess that the results will be as I predicted. I am amazed at the researchers, who did not jump at the chance and carry out a controlled study, which would have lasted at most 36 years - no more than half an hour in evolutionary terms.
Rah:
This is not about not reading the material, but lies.
I am not ready to accept the claim that one should be tolerant of a lie and be intolerant of complaining about it.
Elisha, there are several very important aspects of genetic changes that for some reason tend to be ignored in the debate about evolution, and that is horizontal transfer and recombination. Using the first, large sections including genes are transferred from cell to mother cell by viruses, plasmids or direct absorption of DNA (transformation). Recombination leads to the disconnection and connection of large genetic segments and can lead to the destruction or construction of new genes.
These two events can cause large evolutionary jumps that are difficult to explain through gradual changes by point mutations.
Noam and Michael Rothschild, although I agree with your opinions, but my friend, calm down a bit, this is a scientific discussion and it is allowed to raise objections, questions and counterarguments. Note that in all of your responses you immediately descend into personal lines and call for gagging, "unbridled" liars?? A bit of discussion culture.
It is true that these things have already been discussed and discussed on the science website, but not everyone has read all the thousands of posts you have published and it is also permissible to repeat arguments that have been answered at times. And you, even if it seems to you that the subject has been discussed, you don't always have to answer, and if you answer, then please without all this ranting.
Noam:
Remember the Parable of the beggar
I have already shaken him off me.
Elisha,
One more puzzlement:
Do you mean to imply that there are non-accidental mutations - that is, mutations caused by your intelligent being?
This is of course a wonderful argument, although it must be said that it is a bit circular. Every time natural selection explains something, it can immediately be argued that it is not natural selection but mutations created on purpose by some divine force.
In such a case, we do not have such a common basis for a real discussion, because every phenomenon can be explained by the intervention of some divine power, and the discussion simply becomes boring and unproductive.
Elisha,
Can you provide us with positive confirmations (that is - not why other theories are not true!) for the existence of an intelligent force?
As you know, the theory of evolution provides thousands of confirmations. In your case, let's settle for a few dozen.
And again - if the only confirmation you can provide is: "because that's what I believe", that's perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned, but then you should look for another more suitable site - it's not exactly a confirmation that meets the strict criteria of science.
Until you manage to provide confirmation of your belief, to claim "that the degree of reliability or unreliability of it (intelligent power) is at least equal to that of the materialist theory of evolution" is a casual statement without any basis, and is not suitable for the type of discussions here.
Another addition:
The above prediction cannot under any circumstances be made from the theory of natural selection. If two years ago I had talked about the possibility of such an occurrence on the "Hidan" website, everyone would have accepted it as a joke based on ignorance, because this goes against the most essential basic principle of the theory of natural selection - a period of time of at least hundreds of thousands or millions of years - which is the only condition which is able to overcome the low probability of staggered continuity mutations occurring at random. Note that I was talking about extreme speed of processes, 5-6 generations, and I'm not sure that today it would be as funny. We must admit that there is an impressive and radical change here.
As for the question asked about how I see the world - first of all I do not close myself to any possibility. If I am asked by Dawkins, for example, to believe in the possibility that, according to his own version, is one that cannot be reconciled, why should I close myself to the possibility of an intelligent force, the degree of reliability or unreliability of which is at least equal to that of the materialist theory of evolution?
Michael,
I would use a little more delicate words, but it's a matter of personal style.
I don't think these are liars, but rather people whose spiritual world may collapse if they realize that the theory of evolution is well established (as well as other contradictions between science and religion, which have been noted here many times).
This is not a trivial matter, for some people it is a very serious matter.
The situation in which the theory of evolution only explains more and more things is a shameful situation for them, but as you rightly said more than once, science is only obliged to search for the truth and not to personal whims.
Noam:
Elisha is just wasting our time.
Did you see an example he failed to understand?
And now he takes clear examples of evolution and claims that they prove that evolution does not exist.
After all, these companies don't want anything. They are simply rampant liars.
Elisha,
You don't see the forest because of too many details. I tried, apparently without success, to explain a central point in the multitude of differences between religion and science.
Let's assume for a moment that another mechanism was discovered, which was unknown until now, that allows change by random mutations within 36 generations - so what does this mean?
It is simple that the existing theory must be updated, and it is possible that after the update, it will be known by a new name: "The Elisha theory of evolution".
It has happened many times in the past, and it will happen many more times in the future - this is exactly the process that allows science to advance without interruption, and not be stagnant and fossilized - like the ancient and fossilized house of cards that you believe in.
The differences of opinion between us are much more basic than one or another snake - they touch the essence of the way to understanding reality and researching the truth.
I briefly explained the path I chose. Please explain what guides you in the perception of reality and the search for truth.
Noam
I studied the theory of evolution, I read Dawkins' books, and molecular biology is an amazing field, which I delve into.
Let's summarize processes: Dawkins talks about one condition that cannot be passed to prove the theory of natural selection - very slow and gradual processes that extend over very long periods of time, "far beyond what our thinking is capable of absorbing", as he said (quote from memory). He quotes Darwin more than once, who said that if it were proven even in just one case that some organ could not have developed by slow and gradual evolution, it would disprove his entire theory.
And here, about a year and a half ago, it turned out that in Italian wall lizards that were moved from an environment with little vegetation to an environment rich in plants, the organ called the cyclic valve developed - and this after less than 36 years, in addition to another mutation of the length and strength of the jaws. After 36 years, all individuals in the species had a perfect cyclic valve, and there was no individual that had an imperfect or smaller valve, which would indicate some process of additive mutations resulting in a small advantage. The same goes for the elongated jaws.
If this is not a complete refutation of the theory of random random mutation, as defined by Darwin and Dawkins themselves, I do not know what is. Even if we accept the fantastic premise that the chance of a continuous mutation in each generation was 50% in each and every individual (a chance several billion times greater than the realistic chance), even then the chance that after 36 generations all the individuals will carry the perfect mutation and of all the carriers of the partial mutations not a single individual will remain, And in the combination of two completely different mutations, it is zero. According to this, natural selection should have acted not as a slow and gradual selector, but as a mass murderer in a rage (assuming a 50% probability, we must assume that in each generation natural selection killed at least 75% of the members of the generation, and even then it takes a miracle to reach the result found after 36 years ).
This is one example, although it stands out, out of many, of the refutation of Darwin's theory from within itself. Will this change the minds of natural selection believers as such? of course not. Also the fact that Dawkins does not cite a single case in which it was proven that some organ developed from a series of mutations from K-R-Y-T (repeats a second time: *coincidences*), and not only that, he does not even see himself as obligated at all to provide such a proof , won't change your mind. (If you intend to bring me for the thousandth time the adaptation of viruses to antibiotics, it can be spared; by the same token it was not proven there that the mutations are *accidental*).
All I'm coming to say is that a little modesty wouldn't hurt.
Michael
I'm sorry, but I really didn't understand the matter with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Apparently I really have some defect. That is, according to my poor understanding, from the article it turns out that I am indeed a descendant of Yitzchak (Ardi).
Elisha:
There is no contradiction in my words. There is only a lack of understanding and unnecessary length in your words.
Soon there will be no choice but to draw you a picture (hopefully you will understand pictures after all).
Let's take an example from the Bible (maybe you won't admit it, but all the objections to evolution come from there):
Avraham is the father of Isaac and Ishmael.
He is the common ancestor - a type of monkey from which both apes and humans evolved).
Yitzhak is for that matter - Ardi.
Jacob is Isaac's son and he is already Lucy.
I am a descendant of Jacob.
You are a descendant of Ishmael and therefore Yitzchak (Ardi) is a step in my development from the common ancestor of both of us (Abraham).
However, you are not his offspring and therefore he is not a stage in your development.
You'll see:
It seems to me that we have an irreconcilable problem here because you don't understand the simplest things, so let's stop.
Elisha,
It is evident that it is difficult for you mentally to free yourself from prejudices and misconceptions about the theory of evolution. You play with the words: "regression, not decline", but are not ready to internalize the simple fact: evolution has no direction and there is no God.
After all the explanations you received from Michael and others, I see no point in repeating them once more.
At the same time, your frustration is understandable. Here comes a theory that, with the help of a very small number of logical and basic assumptions, manages to explain in a wonderful way the whole variety of life and its development.
An ingenious theory, which has only one small drawback: it threatens to collapse the entire ancient and huge tower of cards, which you call "religion".
This is a very unfortunate situation for you, and therefore you and your friends invest huge efforts to find contradictions and refutations in it. If you invested only a small part of your efforts in finding contradictions in the deck of cards you believe in, you would have long ago found tens and hundreds, and you would have had to make another U-turn.
The theory of evolution has stood up to the refutation attempts of great and wise people like you and me, and it is still a stronger fortress than before, a fortress that gets stronger from discovery to discovery.
You need to understand an important point: the science. In complete contrast to religion, it is not afraid of contradictions or refutations, it only advances more towards the discovery of the truth by careful tests and receiving confirmations or refutations.
In the end, everyone chooses their own path. If you believe that the ancient story, which lacks any factual basis, that everything was created by the hand of God, is more reliable than the scientific method - I will bet on you.
Finally, just a friendly warning: the more you persist in your efforts to find contradictions in the theory of evolution, the more you will be forced to study it in depth, and you may very well find out one day that it makes much more sense and is true than you currently believe.
you have been warned
There is a slight contradiction in your words. After all, if "Ardi is not a stage in the development of chimpanzees and gorillas", then how can it be "a stage in our development from a common ancestor for us and them"?
And from this sentence it follows that the possibility that the ancestor of monkeys and humans was actually more human-like than ape-like, is a necessary conclusion from the article, if the data provided in it is correct. The denial of this possibility as a necessary conclusion can only exist if other findings, not mentioned in the article, seem to contradict this possibility.
And now, the ability to walk upright is conditioned by evolutionary developments which on the face of it are an *addition* to the developments required for those who walk on all fours and not a subtraction from them, such as the development of more sophisticated balance organs, a valve that prevents blood from accumulating in the legs, etc. If we do not want to assume that the same ancestor began his lineage as an upright creature (which is a mystical assumption), we must state that the ancestors of the aforementioned creature (Ardi) reached their upright position from more ancient ancestors who walked on all fours, which themselves evolved from even more ancient ancestors who crawled on the ground or move in water
That is, if the determination of the age of the skeleton in the article is correct, we must necessarily conclude that from the same ancestor two streams were created, one that continued the direction of development that was earlier (which I will not call an ascending direction so as not to raise your anger), and the other that began regression back in the opposite direction (which accordingly I will not call it descending direction). It follows that:
A. We must necessarily assume that the two currents developed in two different environments, each of which required a different and even opposite evolutionary adaptation. A reasonable assumption in terms of the theory of natural selection, but the question arises as to whether it has support from other sources, which do not depend on "Ardi".
B. If this is the case, on the face of it we have no reason not to assume that the evolutionary line, which we call regressive, will stop in the apes and will not continue any further, and hence the possibility that the frog-like, for example, evolved from the ape-like, just as the ape-like evolved from the human-like, is not far off, which makes the The whole evolution is based on it. Of course, according to this line of evolution, the chance that we will end our existence on earth as toothed-snout molluscs is no less likely than that which claims future brains of monstrous dimensions, with mental skills to match.
Elisha:
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you want.
I repeat:
Don't ask me to solve and add and take fragments of your comments from here and there.
Write one neat response that can be understood.
I do not know which parts you are talking about (especially in light of your claim that Noam did not address your words either).
If you want me to answer the question of whether evolution will make eights in the air, it can be answered on several levels:
Evolution is not a flying craft and therefore does not make eights in the air.
Evolution is just a theory (a very good one) and theories at all do nothing because they are not living beings.
Evolution is consistent with all the developments you can deduce from the article so that not only evolution but also evolutionary scientists do not need to do anything about it.
It does not appear from the findings that the monkey evolved from a bipedal creature. This is indeed a possibility, but it is not a necessary conclusion - Ardi is not a stage in the development of chimpanzees and gorillas - it is a stage in our development from a common ancestor for us and them.
Even if the monkeys evolved from a creature that walks on two - there is no meaning here for the phrases you used - there is no ladder in evolution, there is no up and down.
Noam already told you all this, but you say that he didn't pay attention to your words either.
I ask you, therefore, to reveal to us what your words are.
Michael
Quote from article:
"...these and other skeletons describe the stages of transition between our ape-like ancestors and our present form." I didn't say that.
So maybe we will go to the second part after all?
Elisha:
Maybe for you reliability is a bland detail, but for us - humans - it is not.
The new wording you offer for the first part of the sentence is incorrect.
Maybe you meant something else but I really can't read minds.
I suggest that if you want to say or ask something, sit down for a moment, formulate things clearly and in such a way that you don't have to rewrite in light of the questions that will be asked, and then we'll see if there's anything to address at all.
Michael
And you still did not address the Sipa of my words, which is the main point, and is the emphasis, only because it is more convenient for you to address the more bland detail.
Harini hereby declares that I fully repent, and reformulate the first part of the sentence as follows: Until today we did not think that man descended from monkeys.
If we have thus solved the problem of the first part of the sentence, we can approach the second part.
Elisha (Response 14): "Until today we thought that man came from the monkey, now it turns out that the monkey came from man"
Michael (Response 18): "If you learn to read, you will see that it is not written here that the monkey descends from man."
Elisha (response 24): "There is no connection between what your answers are and what I wrote."
conclusion:
Someone has reliability issues.
Lenaam and Michael
There is no connection between what your answers are and what I wrote. I'm just thinking of the famous illustration of a stooped ape progressing to a less stooped ape, progressing to an even less stooped hominid, and finally to an upright human. What I wrote can also be phrased this way, perhaps the illustration should be looked at as correct but in the opposite direction. For that matter, it doesn't matter who caused the disaster. If it was natural selection that did this - may her name be blessed forever and ever; If it was God - as above.
crescent:
There are so many holes that the entire academic establishment (but the whole!) accepts it.
http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf
They must all be idiots who don't see the holes.
That it seems to you that it takes many ingredients to jump at the same time is simply a problem with your imagination.
You can maybe start reading on this site
http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/Creationist_Arguments
And then order Dawkins' book The Greatest Show on Earth on Amazon
A good start -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
Regarding the response "Met Inofo'..." and the responses to it:
I don't believe in God and certainly not in creation, but I have studied a little biology and a lot of probability.
It seems to me that there is a significant hole in evolution as an explanation for the formation of species. It really seems that a "jump" of many components is required at the same time to explain the formation of complex organs such as an eye or a brain. And such a jump seems improbable if it is based only on random mutations and natural selection.
I am not claiming that there is no evolution, simply that it is a very inadequate explanation for the complexity of life.
It was clear from several comments here that people have serious answers to this question. Can someone reply or provide a link?
Itzik:
Read here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE5904Z920091001
It says that the height of the creature is 1.2 meters.
It is also written that they are 4.4 million years old.
Both here and in the above article it is written that the discovery indicates that the hominids split from the apes earlier than thought.
In any case, the phrase "the missing link" is a meaningless phrase and nothing that is ever found will be the missing link in the knowledge.
What is the height of the creature?
And if he is a million years before Lucy, then he is 4.2 million years old, still not in the realm of evidence before the split between chimpanzees and gorillas. (estimated at 4-8 million years from the article) So this is not the "missing link" yet.
Elisha:
If you learn to read, you will see that it is not written here that the monkey descends from man.
Should I conclude that, after all, you wanted to demonstrate your claim to your very existence?
Elisha Elisha,
Thought you found a lot of loot?
Regardless of the specific article, when will you realize that evolution has no definite direction?
Natural selection chooses traits that are suitable at a given time for the constraints of the environment.
There is no pre-planning, no intelligent planning, nor is there a divine planner.
You should read and understand a bit before publicly expressing ignorance for the sake of it.
What purpose comes out of these bones other than a bit of archaeology.
These are speculations and interpretations. Many other speculations can be made from these.
Why should one be better than others?
After all, apart from a beautiful story, there is no way to do something practical, a direct projection of the interpretation, these are just speculations.
In connection with the opening of this article. Today in Maariv, Alex Doron ends his news with the words "The discovery puts an end to a series of uncertainties regarding the evolution of man from the chimpanzee". Doron serves as a "science reporter" in Maariv. Not just with quotation marks, but that's what it is...
Oh well. Things are slowly progressing and becoming clear: until today we thought that man came from the monkey, now it turns out that the monkey came from man. Would it be too much to expect that the whole theory of natural selection would now do eights in the air to try to explain how the ladder of evolution actually went down from walking on two to walking on all fours?
I discovered who is the father of the one who argued with Roy
Really interesting article, I enjoyed it.
Roy, as a scientist you must be skeptical.
The assertion that he did not wear a kippah does not fit with a number of ideas that I think support the hypothesis that the roots of religion predate the roots of modern man, and according to this it is very possible that these human-like creatures walked around with kippahs and observed mitzvot.
Roy,
How did you respond to that impolite person?
How dare he even say anything about your father?
You should have punched him. Then tell him, "If my father is a monkey, then your father must be a lemur."
I'm guessing that before response 15, creation will enter here
And dismiss everything in two words or two words in a lot of unrelated word combinations
As usual, very interesting. The time travel is a bit strange (since we are expecting a discovery whose details will only be completed in about two years...) but we cannot let small mistakes ruin our lives.
The rearing up on the hind legs renews the thought that the release of the pressure of the spine on the base of the brain allowed its accelerated development and occurred prior to such development.
As for the (non)biological information in response 1: the engineering example is the worst because the fundamental difference between engineering and evolution is that in the former there is a long planning phase and rapid execution while in the latter there is no planning at all but only a very long and slow execution and therefore there are also no possible solutions to the problems but a slow step-by-step adaptation , not the addition of one component after another but a tiny change of an existing component. In addition, the changes do not occur in the creature itself (the toaster) but in its descendants (the ovens...). You should read a little what the scientists write and not just the words of the religious people, all the knowledge in their hands is thousands of years old and not updated.
On behalf of this entire forum, I thank the honorable Mr. Bugs Bunny for the great honor he bestowed upon us, and I am sorry for him that he was left behind in the amoeba stage (at least mentally)...
And Mr./Ms. Disinformation:
Your words have already been answered here hundreds of times - whether they were said by you or by your duplicate.
Go lie somewhere else.
Bugs Bunny:
As you progress in the evolutionary ladder, you distinguish between more animals.
It may be that as a rabbit it is difficult to see the difference between a human and a monkey.
With all due respect, I don't see any difference between you and the monkey.
With more than 99% genetic identity between humans and chimpanzees, they are not distant cousins but more or less siblings. I haven't read the original article, but jumping to conclusions is too hasty. First there is no certainty that Ardi belongs to the human chain. There were several species of Australopithecines, each of which could have been the link between Aipe and Homo habilis, which so far, including the new genus, is the candidate for the third advanced stage in human evolution. The claim that the gorilla and the chimpanzee switched to walking on all fours from walking on two is surprising, although not impossible, but far from an explanation. After all, all monkeys and apes go for 4. It is much more likely that Ardi is a descendant of common parents with a chimpanzee - and not with a gorilla, according to her size, 120 cm. The detailed DNA test published in Nature a few years ago concluded that the separation of the human and chimpanzee lineage was between about 6 and 4 million years. Not only that, the same authors even suggested that after separation there was a return to co-birth again! Ardi's estimated age of 4.4 million years does not contradict the previous findings but raises another possibility for the human chain. We may have to preempt the retirement of our chimpanzee ancestors and eliminate the Australopithecines. What casts doubt on Ardi's belonging to the mother chain is the size of the brain: only about 400 grams, or about the size of a chimpanzee's brain nowadays. Australopithecines contained an average brain of about 500 grams, a finding that supports them as belonging to hominins more than Ardi.
I think it was published in Science and not in Nature - I could be wrong as usual.
Greetings friends
Ami Bachar
Another copy-paste of creationists who ignore all the knowledge of molecular biology that exists today.
It doesn't sound serious that every month or two a find is found and announced as the find of the decade or the century (not long ago there was already one). But basically the real problem in evolution is not in the field of fossils but rather in the field of biological information. Certain researchers in the field claim that there is no chance for mutations to create Systems are complex in small steps. A good analogy would be from the world of technology - is it possible to create a computer, toaster or clock in small steps of adding component after component, while maintaining functionality? This is only possible by jumping several components at the same time. Therefore also There is strong opposition from certain scientists (they are indeed a minority but very influential). A scientist named Doug X (an expert in protein engineering as I imagine) took a single domain and performed mutagenesis on it. The results of the study showed that the chance of forming that domain was around one in 74^10. The evolutionist response did not She came late, but she doesn't answer the question either -
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/92-second-st-fa.html