the book Chapters in the history of the theory of evolution, penned by David Wall, reviews, for the first time in Hebrew, the ideas conceived by scientists beginning in the eighteenth century until the end of the twentieth century regarding the origin and origin of diversity in the animal world. Each chapter focuses on one of the personalities and is intended to highlight the uniqueness of his contribution to science against the background of the views that prevailed in his day. Especially emphasized is the importance of Darwin, whose book On the Origin of Species (1859) was a milestone in biology and science in general, as well as the contribution of his contemporaries in the mid-nineteenth century. Darwin's idea of natural selection was incorporated at the beginning of the twentieth century into the young science of genetics. At the end of the twentieth century, theoretical studies on the quantitative-mathematical expression of evolution (the "modern synthesis") were added to them, and with the deepening of knowledge about the structure of genetic material and the use of molecular technologies to study populations, the theory of evolution was established as the central guiding idea in the life sciences
We will present here, in four parts, the 13th chapter of the book, a chapter entitled The war of existence of the theory of evolution.
In the introduction to the chapter it is written:
Creation or evolution? Bishop Wilberforce vs. Huxley: The Public Debate. Wilberforce's Critical Essay. The difficulties that Darwin noticed. Reservations to the theory in the scientific community. St. George Miwart. Fleming Jenkin.
Does the fame go to Darwin rightly? To Mark and Darwin - the common and the different
Here is the first part.
To the book page (and purchase option) on the Magnes Publishing website
Creation or evolution?
Even before the appearance of the "origin of species", the discovery of fossils in the geological layers raised the question of gradual development and change compared to the belief in the creation of the world. Darwin quotes a letter from Huxley, quoting William Hewell (Whewell), who was head of Trinity College in Cambridge:
Geology shows us a spectacle of groups of species that, throughout the history of the earth, have replaced each other: one group of animals and plants apparently disappears from the surface of our planet, and others - which did not exist before - become the sole inhabitants of the globe. The dilemma arises every time anew: should we accept the theory of transmutation of species, and assume that species of one period changed and became those of another period in a continuous process and by natural factors, or should we believe in many cases of the creation of species and their extinction not by the normal course of nature - Cases in which we must see miracles1.
Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" was a great success upon its appearance (the first edition, of 1,250 copies, was all sold that day). But the theory of evolution was not received sympathetically by the public when the book was published. The fiercest opposition came from circles close to the church. Many religious people rebelled against the appeal to the creation of the world by a higher power and the assertion that species are not fixed units in nature, and one species can transform into another. A particularly strong opposition raised the question of man's descent from monkeys. "One of Darwin's opponents highlighted [the contrast between] the two possibilities when he asked: Should we believe that man is an improved mud - or an improved ape?"2
Although Darwin did not address this issue in "The Origin of Species", except for a general statement that natural selection would "shed light" on the origin of man, his clear position, which was expressed eleven years later in his book "The Descent of Man",3 It was no secret.
Bishop Wilberforce vs. Huxley: The Public Debate
A highly publicized event was a public debate at the English Zoological Society's conference, held in June 1860 at the Natural History Museum in Oxford. The discussion was intended to scientifically consider Darwin's theory, following his book that was published a few months earlier. Before the debate it was widely announced that the Bishop of Oxford, Samuel Wilberforce, would attend. The bishop, who was known as an excellent orator and a fierce opponent of Darwin, promised to "eliminate" his teachings in that capacity. According to letters from that period, this discussion became a turning point in the "war for existence" of the idea of natural selection.
Darwin himself was not present at the discussion, because all his life he avoided a personal struggle for his opinions and rarely appeared in public. Those who represented his views and fought for him were the botanist Hawker and the zoologist Huxley. Huxley hesitated whether to appear for the discussion, because he estimated that a particularly hostile audience was expected due to the participation of many clergymen - but was finally convinced. About seven hundred people were crowded into the hall and it was necessary to move the discussion to a larger hall (however, it was renovated and changed its purpose, and today houses the paleontological collections of the museum). A plaque commemorating the event is still placed at the entrance to the old lecture hall in the Oxford Zoological Museum.
No protocol was recorded during the hearing, and what is known about it is based on letters sent to Francis, Darwin's son, from people who witnessed the event - twenty years after the fact, when he edited his father's letters for publication.4 The suit of letters on this matter also appears in the first volume of Huxley's collection of letters.
The discussion opened with a lecture by a visiting scientist from America (who opposed Darwin's theory), and several other speakers gave short speeches. After them, Wilberforce took the stage and attacked Darwin "without saying anything new except mentioning the fact that Darwin's theory contradicts what is said in Genesis chapter XNUMX".
Wilberforce relied on information he received from Richard Owen, an Oxford scientist with an important position in zoology and especially in anatomy. Owen stated that there is a fundamental difference in brain structure between gorilla and man, and therefore it is not possible that man evolved gradually from apes.5 According to the report of the hearing witnesses, after speaking for about half an hour, Wilberforce turned to Huxley and mockingly asked him which of his relatives was related by origin to the monkeys - his grandfather or his grandmother.
There are different versions of Huxley's response to the personal attack on him. Unfortunately, Huxley himself did not record his words, and when he was asked about it twenty years later, he did not remember the exact words. According to the report, when Chairman Henslow invited Huxley to respond, he patiently explained that the honorable bishop apparently did not understand that Darwin's theory does not speak of one or two generations, but of a common ancestor and gradual changes that lasted thousands of generations. Then he contradicted the anatomical data regarding the structure of the brain. Since he himself completed at that time a detailed comparative anatomical study of the structure of the brain in vertebrates (and even devoted six lectures to this topic), he could completely eliminate the "factual" basis of Wilberforce's words. Only at the end of his speech did he refer to the bishop's mockery. According to one version, he said that the matter of the origin of man deserves a serious scientific discussion, but:
If you ask me, who would I choose as a relative - a wretched animal with little intelligence and a bent gait, who grins at us in the zoo, or a person with high intelligence and an impressive social status, who uses his virtues to dismiss and mock people who sincerely seek the truth, because then ( Here a burst of deafening applause is heard) I am debating who to choose.6
According to another version Huxley said:
A person has no reason to be ashamed of grandfather monkey. If there was a father I would be ashamed of, it would be a man of impressive intellectual ability, who was not satisfied with his fields of activity and knowledge, but broke into a field of which he has no idea, only in order to obscure things with senseless rhetoric and divert his listeners from the real question at hand, by turning to religious prejudices.7
According to the same sources, the discussion did not end with this argument. Darwin's friend, the botanist Hawker, spoke at length about the importance of the theory of natural selection as an explanation for the development of the plant world. On the other hand, Captain Fitz-Roy (the captain of the "Beagle" on his trip around the world) walked around the hall waving a Bible, and explained that even during the trip he argued with Darwin about his ideas that were contrary to the Holy Scriptures. According to the report, Huxley's vigorous reply received much publicity in the press, and the popularity of the theory of natural selection increased considerably.
The public impression of the results of the debate was expressed in the words of Henry Baker Tristram, the priest-zoologist who studied the fauna in the Land of Israel: "In 1859 there was a stormy meeting of the 'British Association for the Advancement of Science.' Bishop Wilberforth launched a head-on attack on Darwin's theory, and the meeting ended with the unexpected victory of Hachsley, who defended Darwin - who was not present - without preparing for it in advance."8
Footnotes:
- Darwin, F. 1887, II: 192
- "One of Darwin's critics put the alternatives strongly by asking 'whether we are to believe that Man is modified mud or modified monkey'", Lyell 1881, II: 376
- See chapter 14.
- Darwin, F. 1887, II: 320–323
- Huxley L. 1900, I: 183
- Green to Huxley, in: Huxley, L. 1900, I: 185
- Vernon-Harcourt to Huxley, in: Huxley, L. 1900, I: 187
- Bodenheimer 1957, p. 18
36 תגובות
Gentlemen who support as well as oppose, evolution is not a doctrine, evolution is a process (fact),
Darwin, who recognized the process and defined it as evolution, tried and succeeded in explaining it, Darwin developed a theory (theory) whose purpose is to explain evolution, to explain the process and the facts that the process produces,
The explanation or other attempts at explanations can be considered teachings (or assumptions),
As soon as it is clear that we have a process before us, the creationists and other opponents will also have to deal with teachings and assumptions
that try to explain the existence of a process, that explain a sequence of events and facts, where the emphasis is on
The existence of a process / fact!
In other words, they too will be forced to try and explain the process - which will make it difficult to ignore facts.
to: d.
As a side reader, it is amazing how people like you react philosophically without scientific understanding and in such a decisive manner to ideas that are studied in laboratories and are a 'hot' topic of the first degree.. The fact that the origin of life interests different people but not scientifically but in a religious context, does not exclude the whole practice from its proper context ie: systematic testing, 'reverse engineering' of various structures in nature, and serious tracing of these basics. The whole preoccupation with the probability of life is similar to the statement that 'it is probabilistically illogical that a structure as complex as a snowflake would spontaneously form without a creator', a statement that obviously ignores the very specific physical context... The preoccupation with 'whether there is a creator or no creator' is a philosophical question that does not advance anywhere, and consider To the question of whether the 'monster from Trael' created us or not.. these last questions are not part of any discussion but only a religious reference..
D:
The ridicule towards the creationists is not because they are creationists but because they talk nonsense.
Even if you try to tell someone that one plus one equals three then - with all openness - he will laugh.
There is no escaping it.
If you think they said something serious that they laughed at then feel free to say specifically what the same thing is and you will get an answer.
Regarding the probability issue - you are simply wrong.
In addition to the fact that this is an experiment that takes place in hundreds of billions of galaxies, each of which has hundreds of billions of stars - something that increases even small probabilities - there are also quite a few hypotheses about the way in which life could have been created gradually by processes of the kind known to science.
You are also welcome to read the Which creationists systematically choose to ignore.
It has already appeared in this discussion but since it was not written to you personally I repeat it.
At the end of the article there are links to other articles of its kind.
I also explained to the creationists that in order to use the term probability you need to understand what it is and that includes - understand when it can be used (only when there is a model of the reality you want to investigate) and know how to calculate.
The creationists who have appeared here so far have sinned in misunderstanding in both areas.
Judge for yourself whether you are guilty of the same misunderstanding or not.
Of course the whole idea that in order to create life life is necessary is an idea that from the beginning has no ability to give an explanation for the formation of life. It is a matter of definition and the creationists also sin in not understanding this issue.
Your focus on probability shows that this point has also escaped you.
incidentally:
I thank you that in response 31 you bothered to repeat part of what I explained in response 21.
Led. The fact that we can automatically produce life does not imply that we were also created this way, according to Ockham's razor, if there is a simple assumption and a more complex assumption, it is always better to choose the simple one, and it is clear that life had so many opportunities to be created, and that all it took was one time of the ability to reproduce to become A dead planet to fill any huge surface area (and maybe even volume) with life and over a long period of time, so this is clearly the preferred approach. The availability of organic molecules in space also leads to the fact that there is a reasonable chance that life was created by a natural process. The friction for creationists stems from the fact that they don't even understand how stupid and without any scientific basis their arguments are, and if you see a debate with creationists, they never try to prove their theory, but only try to find loopholes in evolution and they have been doing it for 150 years.
The second approach, known as panspermia, also does not solve the problem, but moves it backwards - how were those creatures that created life on Earth created?
Don't forget that each stellar generation enriches the universe with heavy elements that are essential for life, 5 billion years ago there may already have been materials that did not exist before, so it was difficult for more ancient creatures to form.
The solution with the appendix can be really simple: the ancestor of all these creatures had an appendix... some of the branches lost it (or it changed) and some continued more together.
To my father and the others who sneer at the creationists: you sin by the actions of those who disbelieve in the theory of evolution.
There is no doubt that the idea of evolution and developmental dynamics of species, which led to the thought that nothing is static in nature, and everything changes (even the universe is expanding) is a great idea and has catapulted our understanding "meteoricly" forward.
But like any scientific theory, it is only a stepping stone, however important it may be, in the search for truth and the attempt to find answers to the knowledge of reality.
In my opinion, the idea that primordial life was "probably" created is no less ridiculous than the idea that a supreme intelligence (let's call it God) created it, today it is even a more logical opinion, because we ourselves in a not long time will be in a situation where we can produce "living beings".
There are no answers and the discussion should be open and yes (as Hexel claims) - and without disdain
in thinking otherwise.
Yigal:
To really establish, I need to study more anatomy and understand what the differences are - if any - between the appendages in the different species.
The eyes - for example - developed differently in the different pathways and the differences can be noticed.
I was exposed to this information without studying anatomy in particular and my feeling is that if the same was true for the appendices I would also have been exposed to this fact.
Michael,
I wonder if you can substantiate the feeling. By the way, the word convergence is a bit problematic because it has more than one meaning (1. connection of several trends 2. withdrawal).
lion:
Indeed that is what I meant
Michael, is that what you meant? Parallel in our matter (parallel development) is two different ways that arrived at a similar thing. But the basic (at least mathematical) meaning of parallel is that you never meet, but convergence is that years come to something similar - as if they do meet. That is, the curiosity in our case is that two seemingly opposite words express the same thing.
Name on island Name:
Your comment regarding Ida is justified but wrong.
It is justified because it is indeed not possible to state in rulings that Ida is placed on the evolutionary tree in the same place that was attributed to her before.
It is wrong because it cannot be established that it is not.
In other words - you rightly commented on the confidence described in the previous response, but you replaced this confidence with another confidence that is also unjustified.
Yigal:
What you said is basically true - for example regarding the eyes, but my feeling is that this is not what happened here.
The feeling is based on a number of facts, but since it's just a feeling, I don't see any point in detailing it, because all in all - the scenario of parallel development also seems possible (I just noticed a semantic issue that there might be someone else besides me who finds it a bit funny: when we talk about parallel development - we We are actually talking about convergent evolution).
Regarding the appendix - there are certain organs that appeared more than once during evolution, there may be another possibility for an answer.
Ida is not a missing link. In fact, quite a few scientists disagree-
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/scientific-american-quietly-disowns-ida-missing-link-fossil/
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/time-mag-of-all-places-exposes-media-hype-about-ida/
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ida-the-lemur-and-media-manipulation/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinius_masillae
There was a series this week on Channel 1, about this creature. According to the findings, scientists are sure that he is the ancestor of all monkeys and man.
someone:
I suddenly noticed your question.
Most of the conversation was hijacked by a troll and your comment disappeared into the mountains of trash.
I do not know the facts - that is - I do not know exactly which animals among those that exist today have an appendix and which do not.
If I had known - the answer could have been simpler because I might have answered you that the factual claim is not true and comes to Zion Goel.
On the other hand, since even if the factual claim is true, it does not create any problem in terms of evolution, so maybe it's good that I don't know the facts about the appendix because it forces me to give a principled explanation that clarifies the logical mistakes made by those who think that such facts disprove evolution.
First of all - what is the appendix?
The appendix is a part of the digestive system that has an important role in herbivores (a kind of pocket for the fermentation of food).
It evolved in herbivores and the extent of its preservation is partly related to the animal's dependence on eating grass (including leaves, vegetables, etc.).
Therefore, if an animal does not consume a lot of grass, over the generations - it is likely that its appendix will degenerate.
Now let's think for a moment what evolution looks like.
The monkeys of our time did not evolve from the monkeys of a "lower rank".
In a framed article it is worth noting that this whole matter of rank is a chauvinistic description of the matter. Both the "low rank" monkeys, the "high rank" monkeys, both humans, cockroaches, mice, and bacteria are all at the current end of some branch of the tree of evolution and in terms of their position in the tree - they all have the same rank (because they living at the same time).
Both the "low ranking" monkeys and the "high ranking" monkeys probably evolved from an ancestor that ate grass and therefore had an appendix.
This ancestor no longer exists and only his descendants - the monkeys of various kinds exist.
It should be understood that we have no way of finding out if the animal whose remains are fossilized skeletons had an appendix because the appendix is not part of the skeleton.
In order for us to see if a particular animal has an appendix, its soft tissues are necessary and those are almost never found in fossils.
Apparently the "low rank" monkeys at some point switched to a diet based on less grass and as a result lost their appendix, while other monkeys - including our ancestors - continued to eat grass and therefore did not lose it.
Other animals with appendices have a common ancestor with the same ancestor (with an appendix) of the monkeys and they also did not lose their appendix because their diet included a lot of grasses.
Name on island Name:
You must be somewhere in some imaginary world.
In reality, she is not there anyway (if you are there).
Since when does evolution calculate calculations?
Since when does anyone who is not a person or a computer do calculations?
So it's true - there are scientists who deal with evolution and also know how to do calculations, but you are far from being among them.
You do not understand the meaning and importance of the model for the calculation and you also do not understand how the calculations are done.
The interesting thing is that you also do not read what is explained to you because there are many descriptions of the processes that could gradually create the genetic language.
You're just wasting our time and trying to win an argument through attrition.
You will not succeed in this.
There you go, I'm sure that R.H. gave you a good and professional answer about the chances that are much greater than those you describe, but you continue on your own, and of course you didn't answer my question about what you propose instead. To say that a supernatural being has always existed is not an answer that can be relied on in science. To remind you, the science site is a site of science news, neither New Age nor Old Fashioned Religion
hi my friends
The theory of evolution itself calculates chances. Otherwise, it would have been willing to accept any possible chance (so don't bring up the argument of "the fact that it happened because it's a fact that we are here" again, because it doesn't hold water even according to the theory of evolution). In other words, it would have been willing for an entire cell to be created at once But since no self-respecting evolutionist is willing to accept that an entire cell was created in its entirety (because it is hopeless), then evolution claims gradualism. You are welcome to consult Dawkins' books such as The Blind Watchman (Chapter Three - Small Steps) or any other book that deals mainly with the principles of evolution. The claim that there are countless other useful sequences is also true. But studies that checked synonymy showed that jumping from one to 500^20 is hopeless, even if there are countless Other useful sequences. Therefore, evolution also does not believe in jumping from one to 500^20. But as mentioned - this claim is hidden in the laboratory.
Belief in God will never disappear, many families have been making a living from this story for many years, apparently it is a mental need of certain people, and it is no different from astrology, coffee and palm reading and other kinds of superstitions, therefore logic does not work in these cases.
Name on island Name:
It's nice that you ignore the answers you get.
Although the theory that man has never lived is delusional, but - as mentioned - even it is much less delusional than the one you are trying to sell us.
It's already been explained to you but probably already censored in the ears (actually eyes).
It was also explained to you that it is quite understandable how what you say cannot happen actually can happen.
In this matter I will bring you in this matter I will bring you Another link you can ignore
Proteosome has also already explained to you that it is not at all possible to operate the theory of probability without a mathematical model of chemistry.
The matter of a model is very important. Think for a moment about the strange fact that the moon always faces us on the same side.
A fool will say that it can't happen (it does happen) because there is no way that the speed of the moon's movement around the earth will exactly match the speed of its rotation around its axis so that it completes both rotations at the same time. It will be argued that the chance of two random numbers being identical to each other is zero (and zero, as we know, is smaller than all the chances you calculated for RNA). He will conclude that God took care of it. But he is, as mentioned, stupid, because he did not take the laws of physics into account. A sane person who notices this point will try (and succeed) to find the laws of physics that cause this and will be able, therefore, to free the god of gaps for more important tasks.
This is the importance of the model
But let's touch on another point for a moment.
You repeat and rely on the topic of chances, which apparently you have not even a faint idea about.
Let's check if when you use words like probability and chance - you even understand what you are talking about.
I will ask you a question based on the ability to calculate chances.
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?
there by no there,
What you say is true if life is like a Hungarian cube, meaning there is only one correct combination. However, if there are countless combinations that result in a molecule replicating as soon as the first one is formed, it will immediately break out and multiply.
"Mathematical problems in abiogenesis"... what a joke.
If we knew all the physical factors that lead to the creation of such a different molecule, it would be possible to think of a mathematical model and run simulations and really check how logical the formation of those molecules is in this time frame.
It's strange that you choose to treat such 'mathematical problems' as if all the variables are known, known and easy to calculate and the formation of molecules is a simple probabilistic problem of the meeting of atoms in space... Go back to the textbooks, friend, and stop confusing our minds
Avi-some assumption here is supernatural. Because everything that happens in nature is by definition natural. Hence the assumption is completely natural.
And regarding the time that abiogenesis has - if we understood that approximately 5 molecules with a total length of approximately 500 bases (in my opinion more) are required here, then you will need about 500^20 mutational events since the creation of the universe. The problem - even according to the theories of abiogenesis themselves, you will not be able to get more than 80^10 mutational events. Which is much less than a drop in the ocean the size of the universe in comparison. No chance.
to my father,
In my opinion, it is not tens of millions of years, but two billion years.
What's more, when you talk about the surface of the earth, you appreciate that life was created on it.
Our universe has existed for 14 billion years or so and its area is large and everywhere there is a chance for the creation of life.
If life really was created on Earth it simply means that it is not that complicated to create it as we think, in our ignorance how great it is.
Best regards,
Ami Bachar
I came across a creationist website with the following question:
"Monkeys have an appendix, while their less direct relatives, the monkeys from the lower rank, lack this organ, but the appendix reappears among various mammals that are also of a lower rank, such as the opossum. How do evolutionists explain this?”
I would love to get an answer
Rach. Not only a huge time of tens of millions of years but also a huge area of the whole earth for one molecule. Their product creates a number so large that even an event with a chance of something to the power of minus 100 will arrive quite quickly.
Name on island Name:
How do you know man had a beginning if not based on the things you disbelieve?
The fact that you don't find human skeletons before a certain geological layer only means that until then humans didn't die at all, but maybe they never lived and only then started dying?
Those who understand evolution know that man had a beginning and this beginning was born to some monkey that was before it, but those who disbelieve in evolution can hallucinate anything they want
6, indeed simple and easy.
So maybe try something simpler and even easier? Chemical creation of RNA from a "soup" of molecules that are bombarded by lightning and meteors with varying temperature and enormous time?
Your assumption is supernatural, and a supernatural thing cannot be dealt with using scientific tools, so there is no point for scientists to mess with it, as with any other supernatural thing which is known to be the product of the developed imagination of the group of Bible writers and the mythologists from which he drew the stories.
Who determined that the planner also requires a creator? Man knows that there was a beginning. Man's creator does not, and therefore it is certainly possible that he always existed. And something that always exists anyway does not require a creator. Simple and easy.
Supports evolution:
I do not wish anyone and any subject a "supporter" like you. With such supporters there is no need for enemies.
You probably haven't read anything about evolution or you've ignored everything you've read.
Not only is evolution possible but they have seen it take place.
In bacteria it is seen every day and in more complex animals it is seen occasionally.
Whoever claims that what is actually happening is not possible is simple (I have no words).
My father's answer to "Shem Bai Shem" is very to the point and you didn't understand that either.
"Shem Bai Shem" deliberately asks about a subject that, although there are certain hypotheses about the process of its occurrence - there is no way to verify whether these hypotheses are correct because it is not a process like evolution that occurs all the time, but about something that we only have one evidence that it occurred at some point and in the absence of a time machine - we will never be able to know for sure.
Despite this, as mentioned, many plausible scenarios have been proposed.
So he still asks the question and doesn't notice that the alternative he implies - God/spaghetti monster/intelligent creator (delete the redundant - and between us - they are all redundant) - requires a much more improbable explanation.
If the formation of RNA seems improbable to him - what is the probability that God will be formed?
That's exactly what my father told him.
The truth must be told, that there is no orderly and proven theory to describe the spontaneous formation of life.
Of course, this does not mean that instead of continuing to investigate the matter we will jump to conclusions about the existence of a Creator.
Of course, this has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, although some insist not to understand it.
Avi,
It's a shame that instead of dealing with the question asked (which is very serious in my opinion) you choose an irrelevant answer.
I would be happy to receive a balanced and scientific answer to the question asked and in general to the collection of claims that evolution is not possible because too many things have to exist at once in order for useful organs to be formed.
An interesting question for all evolution deniers, why instead of being productive and offering a theory that makes sense both mathematically and practically (not always the same thing) do you just look for flaws in evolution and if there are none, invent them? Why don't you apply the same strict standards to your theory of intelligent design that you demand of evolution?
If we leave the theory of evolution aside and refer to abiogenesis. The critical problem is the creation of the genetic code. The minimal genetic code must be based on at least 2 letters (instead of 20). And two letters means a minimal translation mechanism that includes: 2 guide RNA (75 nucleotides each), 2 aminoacyl transferase RNA synthetase (hundreds each) and a minimal ribosome (hundreds of nucleotides). Which means that for a minimal translation we will need hundreds of genetic letters to be created in one go in a specific order (equivalent to how the above message was created on by randomly mixing letters) and if one of the parts is missing, no translation will occur (can be easily proven in the laboratory). That is why there are also many mathematical problems in abiogenesis.