Evolution or bievolution?

679 תגובות

1. In fact, in all creation there are 4 levels:

   The first and lowest rank - "Still" (stones, etc.)
   The second higher - "plant" (plants, etc.)
   The third higher - "living" (beasts and animals, etc.)
   The fourth higher - "speaker" (this is the person who also has the ability to speak)

   And it will be explained below that each rank is a different "type" in creation...

   The reason that the claims of evolution are heresy is not because they do not make sense because they are not crazy people who invented it if it were so... no one would consider their claims...
   The problem lies in the fact that most of their claims are based on the fact that they claim that man is basically an animal and only has a superlative quality added to him which is the power of speech and wisdom and understanding and opinion...

   While according to the Holy Torah the opposite is true - it is written when God created man "and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" which means that man is a divine creation that has no relation to an animal and as it is written "in the image of God created man" a photograph means a "photograph" man is Photo and reflection of the divine qualities in man there are good qualities of mercy and compassion and benevolence, etc. that these qualities are far from animals,
   (And although it is possible to find animals in which "part" of the good qualities belong, but a human being has the set of qualities that are a photocopy and reflection of the divine qualities),
   Therefore, man in essence is the handiwork of the Creator of the world who inflated in him the "soul" which is a part of the blessed God (and as it is written in the holy sages "Mann DaNafh Madiliah Nafah"... translation: He who inflates... from his part is a producer... that is - the soul of man is a part from God).
   And in contrast... the animal is of lesser rank because it only has an "animal soul" it does not have a "soul" (since as mentioned... a soul is a part of G-d) and therefore does not have the ability to speak which in its essence derives from the ability to distinguish by wisdom between it and the knowledge that their essence is from the power of the soul that creates Natan's world in man.

   Therefore, it is not appropriate to claim that man came from the animal, but rather the Creator of the world created in man both a "soul" (which yearns for spiritual life) and an "animal soul" (which yearns for physical life) and gave him the ability to choose through wisdom and knowledge to distinguish between good and evil so that man can choose In a good way, and thus he will be able to realize his destiny, especially in the world to come, by being able to "delight in the Lord and enjoy what He has called" (as the Holy Book says, "Mesillat Isharim")

   Secondly, evolution is only a certain "approach" and it is against Judaism for a simple reason because "Torah" is the language of instruction, that is, to instruct the many who knew the path they would follow... while the claims of evolution do not belong to be called "Torah" and certainly the reason its inventors called it that "Torah" is surely to instruct many in a certain way...and that is that if man is indeed an animal in his essence, it means that he will not have an obligation to the laws of the one who created him, and this is the root of the heresy that invents an approach and turns it into a "Torah" so that they do not feel an obligation to the Creator of the world, there is no more Atonement for this…

   The great apostasy lies in the fact that while Judaism is constantly engaged in the attitude of "heralds of God's embrace" that is, to look at creation and myself and to notice the greatness of the Creator of the world who created everything... and then the desire to observe his laws and commandments will arise in us, then evolution completely ignores all of this and observes the attitude that everything that happens in the world Everything from everything is just "through chance" that by chance man was created from animals... and by chance a world was created... and by chance animals were created... etc. when the main goal of this approach is to isolate all admiration from creation and not to attribute it to the Creator of the world at all and therefore they call this approach "Torah" and thus It serves every interest of lack of commitment to the Creator of the world...

   Finally, the holy sages already said, "God made man honest, and why did they ask for many accounts" - everyone should look at the honesty of the heart that the Creator of the world created within him and by this he will not be followed by the "inventors" of the many accounts of theories that will become "Torah" "H.V.

2. Great article. Finally someone who speaks only about scientific issues and firmly refuses to discuss matters of faith!
   Full disclosure: I am a religious person but recognize the scientific correctness of evolution.

3. Simon,
   What findings does evolution fail to explain?

4. Evolution is a fact. Nevertheless, the current theory is a bad theory. She does not explain much of the findings in the matter. In the future, in my opinion, a better theory will be developed for the findings that includes reference to the many indications that evolution is active and not just a choice.

5. Dov Henis
   The story of Genesis is more coherent than this nonsense.

6. Natural selection, defined by Dov Henis:

   Natural selection is E (energy) temporarily constrained in an m (mass) format. Period.
   Natural selection is energy temporarily trapped in a mass configuration. point.

   explanation:

   - All the energy of the universe was in the form of an inert mass, unity, a second particle about 14 billion years ago. All the grutons of the universe were then at zero distance from each other.
   - In order to create the unity, all the many groytons in the universe were required because the groyton is very small and therefore the inter-groyton force of attraction, the mass's gathering force, is very small.
   – The Big Bang was the beginning of the transformation of mass back into energy, into matter in motion.
   - Since the bang, the grotons have been released at a constant rate from the mass cluster formations in which they are stored. The pace is constant because they are small and weak.
   - Every mass configuration contains energy to stay in a mass configuration, otherwise the energy contained in it is trapped (destroyed) by another mass configuration because all mass configurations burn
   To devour, to imprison energy, because the universe is energetic, in motion, expanding, the clusters of galaxies move away from each other as the masses fuel their movement.
   - The process of natural selection for the preservation/restoration of the original-primary mass configuration of the groytons, the fundamental particles of the universe, is gravitation, the force of attraction in the universe.
   All the processes and formations in the universe are derivatives of this gravitational force, in the paths of the release of the Grotons and their regrouping for the restoration of unity and the restoration of the Big Bang
   And the restoration of the universe...

   And so on…

   point. Simple and clear.

   Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
   http://universe-life.com/

7. Hello Daniel and welcome,

   I hear frustration in your words regarding the poor communication between the currents of our people and I have nothing but to agree with you.
   Gratuitous hatred and prejudices have nothing to do with establishing understanding and personal growth, but mainly fortifying a person in his position, and it would be good if he were with each side, he would learn a little more about his side he opposes, if only so that he can improve and understand what he opposes.
   This is also true for the secular public, which often errs in a disparaging and simplistic view of the public and Jewish thought, as well as of the observant public, which commits similar sins and comes with the arrogance of experts and learns fragments of explanations from so-called scientific rabbis who twist the words of scientific findings.

   Although bringing hearts together is desirable and welcome, the aforementioned column deals with the theory of evolution. Do you have thoughts, questions or comments on this topic?

   Best regards,
   cedar

8. As a religious person who believes that there is a Creator and that He is all-powerful and that He created the world, I will explain the story of Noah to you in a more in-depth view. When G-d said to Noah build me an ark the whole essence of the ark and building it was "so that they will see and be seen" maybe they will stop from their bad deeds, and really from the point of view of logic as a believer of God who is omnipotent he does not need an ark in order to save whoever he wants because he is omnipotent. What about Noah building an ark for 120 years, does it sound especially logical that it is not really big and he has helpers (his three sons) but surely the whole essence of the ark was for the people to stop their actions. And if so, the ark itself miraculously exists, all the animals enter, and there is room, and there are also three floors. If we pay attention to the Torah, it is written that G-d said to Noah "And you shall take for yourself of all the food that he eats" - the meaning of the word 'go', foods that are worthy of you and even though every animal has its own food after all "and you had 'and them' to eat". It is not because the whole essence of the ark was one great miracle and did not come except to bring back the wicked to repentance. (And in truth Noah was accused of not trying to bring the people back to repentance, which is why the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah there) calls the flood 'who Noah' means because of him the flood came). And in relation to the theory of evolution, how and when did we stop growing a tail, was it because our ancestors no longer wanted it? Or maybe because it was no longer used because of all the changes that took place in Africa as they say? This is nothing but nonsense since as Jews we have been circumcising since the beginning of time and we do not want a foreskin and it does not help us at all!!! It is impossible to change the reality of things by ourselves and there is a creator and he sets the rules of the game. What you see people with such and such eyes only reinforces the greatness of the Creator who in his mercy makes sure that the Chinese and their neighbors are poor because they come from the east where the sandstorms hurt the eyes or the Africans who have wide feet because they are without shoes It is very important to learn and get to know the other's opinion before judging his words!

9. *we
   And sorry if there are mistakes

10. Peace
    I try to live as a Jew and study Torah
    And the whole thing about the disdain is terrible because it's a lie!! We (those who strive to follow the path of Rabbi Kook and the great believers)
    Asking probing and difficult questions and also sometimes disagreeing and in extreme cases even disagreeing but one thing I do that you don't do is really willing to hear both ways (yes yes I know the 2 cultures and worlds (also the scientific one)) and willing to hear answers to connect so we will see you do it (And no, stigmatization and communication does not count)!! Most of the things and arguments against Judaism stem from a lack of knowledge (no, learning from a professor of Judaism is not a rabbi (and some currents) {just a religious guy (even with a beard) doesn't count. There are criteria for a rabbi: measurements, Torah knowledge in all Torah subjects including faith and thought) because then it is external without really listening and also!! Talking to a guy on the bus doesn't count because it takes (at least an hour or two of self-discussion or sleeping on top) to digest the things and make it easy and reply,
    So good luck and may we get to not discuss the merits and hear each other and find out the truth,
    All the best and happiness!! 🙂

11. This is how Bat Chava - a free and liberated woman - writes:
    "Saturday morning...the endless million dollar conversations about faith
    In God..and the essence of secularism after the loss of God
    And the understanding that secularism is the construction of a new based system
    On an alternative significant source - man
    Secularism is a very complex tower in itself, which had to be built with great effort. What really happened in modern times is that thousands of thinkers, poets, writers, scientists, politicians and ordinary people worked very hard to create a Godless story for the world. Only when this story reached a sufficient degree of completeness and stability could people abandon belief in God.
    As long as God was the only plausible source of meaning, there was no choice but to believe in Him. The heart of the secular revolution is the creation of an alternative source of meaning for the world - "man".

    And nowadays when a person has the real and right choice and he chooses to stick to the lies of faith and the lack of religion, what will we say and what will be said????

12. Haim, I wonder if you have read all 667 responses to it that also discuss the topic of "faith". And on this subject, in the manner of the people of the Masora, I will require a sermon on the meaning and essence of "religion":
    What is the difference between "opinion" and "religion"? In total, one letter A. The name of the Lord is "Eye" the name of the most important secret organ that a person has. The main human organ to sense, understand and know the world, along with the other senses and of course - the intellect. A person whose eyes are removed walks around the world like a soma and his understanding of reality from A-D is defective and problematic. Displacing the Lord from "religion" will leave man with only "religion". Is it just a coincidence that our Abedkan scholars preach to us in the yeshiva houses and madrassas to believe "blind faith"? Is it for nothing that the believer is called a "complete believer" in the meaning of "gullible". Fati believes in everything (anything that will destroy his mind, of course. Everything). Just like the mitzvah in our holy Torah "and you said about the right the left and the left the right"...!!! That's right. Against reality, against the obvious, against logic and in favor of logic, in favor of absolute surprise, in favor of blind faith. From the time he was a baby in a Rabbi's house, his parents and educators plucked out the "eyes" of the orphan and raised him blind and prepared him to live in the world as a soma in the dark, his mind is flooded with superstitions, most of which are bland (in their taste) Many, too many of our people go around trying to spread the gospel of lies and words of vanity which they hold. Thus the obvious is described in the Holy Torah, about the stories of the sages, their sayings and their words which is clear, certainly there is no truth in the matter (did someone mention the "medicines of the sages from the Talmud or the medicine of the Rambam? Who is brave and will turn to these medical teachings today????) The skeptic answered with the magic word "faith".
    "The Torah has an explanation for everything, even things for which science still has no answer. You just have to believe in the ultimate truth and not just in explanations that sound logical but are partial." This is how the believer answers without understanding the absurdity of the matter, the blindness, the open and obvious stupidity of the man who sees, whose eyes are in his head, to the free man whose intellect and reason are not forced and enslaved to his faith, to the man who chose "opinion" over "religion".

13. Haim, your last sentence sums up your entire response nicely in my eyes:
    "The Torah has an explanation for everything, even things for which science still has no answer. You just have to believe in the ultimate truth and not only in explanations that sound logical but are partial"
    You just have to believe, you say. and implements.

    But Haim, most of the visitors of this site and I in general are not interested in just believing in blind faith. We want to know and understand.
    Therefore, your beliefs in the Creator of the world, and that the Bible is no longer a book written by people, are of course your right, but these are your beliefs and nothing else. They have no explanatory value.

14. There are many contradictions in the article that I am surprised that the commenters did not address them at all. The first one is about Adam and Eve whether they had the same genetic load or not. Whether or not the faith claims that God created Adam and Eve and from them came all human beings with all possible different genes and therefore the differences between human beings originate from creation and not necessarily evolution that created different types of human beings. For example, Adam and Eve carried all types of genes within them, and depending on the choice of name, some "turned on" and some remained off, thus creating different people with different characteristics, etc. It is a well-known fact today that genes that are turned off or on create different and different proteins and enzymes, which in turn create traits, vaccines, or weaknesses etc. that pass or not pass from generation to generation and everything is in the hands of God. Regarding Noah and the ark, who said there was a need for food... As far as I remember from this story, the instruction that Noah received was not a mention to manage all the animals, but only to group them, therefore the calculation of space, living needs and economy are not correct at all. For anyone who claims that how they established forty nights and days, the explanation is simple, even though it doesn't "make sense" to all the "scientists". God provided for them and provided for all their needs just as he provided for hundreds of thousands of Israelites in the desert not only for forty days but for forty years... The Torah has an explanation for everything, even for things that science still has no answer for. You only have to believe in the ultimate truth and not only in explanations that sound logical but are partial.

15. Hello Amir
    I consciously dedicated a single sentence to it. This is because this is not the topic I wanted to cover in the article. The idea of ​​species emergence is a topic for an article in itself.

16. You can't seem to sneak in a sentence like: if we take evolution and spread it over a relatively short period of time (say, hundreds to thousands of years), we will get small changes in the characteristics of the population, ... and in some cases even new species - and not give clear evidence that new species were created in short periods Those, who are a significant part of intelligent people who are really interested in learning and understanding the world, are already aware of evolution being a settled fact, but claim that new species did not really evolve but were created and changed through morphological changes.

17. An argument like yours like "Hidden are the ways of God" is a general argument that can be given as an answer to anything. If we are dealing with hocus-pocus, this is the point where, for me, the scientific discussion stops.

18. Regarding what you wrote: "There is no gravity, there is an almighty God who guides every object that falls in exactly the right path and does not deviate a millimeter to the right or left, etc."
    I do indeed believe this, and not only me, but this is the clear position of Judaism, and is explained in detail in many places. In the language of the Torah, this position is called "Private Providence", and when it was first voiced out loud by the Beshat, most of the Torah greats of the time (for the same reason you present) really disagreed about it, except that during the three hundred years that have passed since then, this position has been explained in many different ways, Until it was completely clarified that this was the original Sage position, and today, as far as I know, there is no observant Jew who does not believe in it.
    For more information on the subject, you are welcome to contact me, I will be happy to direct you to the sources.

19. Israel,
    It looks like a formal wording, but different from what I know. Anyway, I quoted below a passage from Landau and Lipshitz regarding the second law that clarifies the matter.

    Regarding the question - in the eighth edition there are 21 questions, so the number of the question you are talking about is probably different or it has been deleted.

    Quote regarding the second law:
    "
    Thus, if a closed system is at some instant in a non-equilibrium macroscopic state, the most probable consequence at later instants is a steady increase in the entropy of the system. This is the law of increase of entropy or second law of thermodynamics, discovered by R. Clausius (1865); its statistical explanation was given by L. Boltzmann in the 1870s.
    In speaking of the "most probable" consequence, we must remember that in reality the probability of transition to states of higher entropy is so enormous in comparison with that of any appreciable decrease in entropy that in practice the latter can never be observed in Nature. Ignoring decreases in entropy due to negligible fluctuation, we can therefore formulate the law of increase of entropy as follows: if at some instant the entropy of a closed system does not have its maximum value, then at subsequent instants the entropy will not decrease; it will increase or at least remain constant.”
    "
    (L. Landau, E. Lifshitz, Statistical Physics part 1 3rd ed., p. 29-30)

    This is of course the tip of the iceberg, and you can find more extensive discussions in the books I mentioned.

20. a student
    Did you mean the wording: A NATURAL PROCESS THAT STARTS IN ONE EQUILIBRIUM STATE AND ENDS IN ANOTHER WILL GO IN THE DIRECTION THAT CAUSES THE ENTROPY OF THE SYSTEM PLUS THE ENVIRONMENT TO INCREASE?

    It seems to me that in question (not a problem) 31 in the chapter (if we have the same wording) I would bring up the issue of FLUCTUATIONS.

    Michael
    The example of the water cycle is indeed a beautiful example of spontaneous "positive" work. But if we take "work"
    In its classic definition: force multiplier on the way, it seems that in the way of nature the vase always falls from the table and breaks, never the other way around. We need someone to paste it and upload it back. Of course, in the article I could not go into all the details.

    Erez - you can find the non-final version including the two chapters at:

    http://www.meirtax.com/Shapira/third.htm

    Of course, much of what is said is the author's opinion only. The rebuttal test is in the paragraph in red letters that deals with the matter of addicts. (If you persevere and get there).

21. Israel:
    In part of the article there is still a trace of the positive and the negative and in another part you wrote that there is no work at all without life.
    Let's leave the same wording, which I assume also basically only refers to positive work and which probably only entered the glory of the recommendation.
    What I am saying is that in any case there is work in both directions whether there is life or not, and in any case the negative work outweighs the positive - both in life and outside of it.
    I say this - although I'm sure you know this - only because you wrote otherwise.
    No matter how you define the positive direction - every cyclical phenomenon in nature must contain both negative work and positive work (important, for example, about the water cycle on Earth).

22. Israel,
    I don't have the third edition, I have the eighth (I think there is even a ninth). In any case, even in the eighth edition there is the chapter you are talking about, but I skimmed around and couldn't find the section you quoted. The law is also formulated in this chapter in a formal way. Read it and see that it is not the wording you presented.

    By the way, if the field interests you, there are specific recommended books:
    F. Reif, Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics
    F. Reif, Statistical Physics (Berkeley Physics course-V 5)
    F. Mandl, Statistical Physics
    L. Landau, E. Lifshitz, Statistical Physics
    (Holiday and Resnik's book is of course excellent, but it is an introductory book and as such is limited in the depth of the material)

23. Israel Shapira,

    The article on the "second law of psychodynamics" sounds original and fascinating, is it possible to read it?

24. a student
    Third Edition, Chapter 25, ENTROPY AND THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS Right at the end, before the questions. The book also states how low the practical probability of the actual entropy decrease is, but does not provide any formulas. The last problem in the chapter, #30, deals with the entropy of a deck of cards.

    Michael - In the article you mentioned, the difference between "positive" work, such as raising an elevator to a height, and "negative" work, such as lowering it, is noted. The terms are mathematical, simply to give a vector direction to the work. In editing for some reason, they saw the B as the N and wrote "vital" instead of "positive". The intention was that the natural direction of things for elevators is to fall and not to rise. Although there is no obstacle to the rise by the first law of thermodynamics, because of the second it will always fall and not rise spontaneously.

    In the second, mathematical chapter (edited by Galileo but not published), an attempt is made to reach the probabilistic roots of the law, and to point out a possible connection between the second law and the state of the world from a social point of view through what I defined as the "second law of psychodynamics" - the increase of psychomechanical entropy in the world, which is A closed psychomechanical system.

25. It all depends on starting conditions. Boltzmann understood this.

26. Michael,

    Yes, I read your words. I didn't quite understand the purpose of your example, so I elaborated. I described that you are trying to show that treatments related to other teachings in physics except thermodynamics should be applied.

    I understand that apparently when you said that you should be careful with the term "order", you meant that "order" does not only refer to spatial concepts. It's clear to me - I imagined to others as well. I already mentioned (https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-319222) that using the term order is not the correct terminology. Usually the term is used to create an intuition.

27. Israel,

    Which edition? I'm looking at the eighth edition and the page you mentioned talks about standing waves.

    In any case, this is not a formal version of the second law. Look for one in the book. And in general, the passage you quoted talks about the state of the S.M., not about a change that the system undergoes over time. In the SM state there are macroscopic fluctuations, which become smaller with the increase in the number of particles (in multi-particle systems these fluctuations are negligible). When it is written that if we wait long enough, even the least likely cases can occur (such as the creation of a local vacuum or the freezing of water, i.e. a decrease in the entropy of the system), it means infinite time - and this is not physical (or practical. These are not processes that occur in nature), but You said you already understood that before.

28. student:
    I know all this and if you had read my words you would not have needed your response.
    Do you really know how to calculate the combinatorics of the number of possible states in all degrees of freedom?
    Do you know how to define the relationship between them?
    Obviously, as I mentioned, the system will eventually find itself with a higher probability in a reasonable state than in an improbable one.
    All I was trying to say is that looking at things in terms of "order" is largely an idealization of reality.

29. Technion student.
    I already wrote to you in

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-319186

    "You convinced me.

    Beyond a finite and not very large number of factors - a spontaneous order in the system cannot practically be created in a period of time on the order of the age of the universe. Certainly not in a system on the order of Avogadro's number."

    What I meant by: "I will also remind Israel, who said about the second law: "He does not claim that order cannot be created out of order. He claims that the probability of this is low, but it exists."

    You can find in the book by: RESNICK AND HALLIDAY: PHYSICS page 558:

    WE HAVE SEEN, HOWEVER, THAT FLUNCTUATIONS MAY OCCUR ABOUT AN EQUILIBRIUM DISTRIBUTION FOR EXAMPLE, BROWNIAN MOTION. FROM THIS POINT OF VIEW, THEN, IT IS NOT ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THAT THE . ENTROPY INCREASES IN EVERY SPONTANEOUS PROCESS. THE ENTROPY MAY SOMETIMES DECREASE. IF WE WAITED LONG ENOUGH, EVEN THE MOST IMPROBABLE STATES MAY OCCUR; THE WATER IN THE POND SUDDENLY FREEZING IN A HOT DAY OR A LOCAL VACUUM OCCURRING SUDDENLY IN A ROOM

    Sorry for the crappy punctuation, it's a bit hard to write here.

    Hope that's what you meant. If so, I can find you the extensions.

30. "For example - if you take water and oil and mix them well - you will increase the "disorder" right?
    And what will happen to the mixture when you leave it alone (in a place where there is gravity, like, for a while, in your house)?"

    We will define the moment of end of mixing as t=0 and that the entropy at this moment is 0. We will also assume that the system is isolated. From the second law we know that the entropy will increase up to a maximum value that it will receive in shm. It is clear that the system is not at zero at t=0 and therefore at t'>t the entropy must be greater than 0 (because it is known that the process is irreversible).

    The mixing does indeed increase the entropy of the translational degrees of freedom, but all the degrees of freedom of the system must be considered, for example those related to the interactions between the molecules - vibrations, rotations, electric potential, couplings of all kinds, degeneracy of states, etc.). As a simple example, when the water molecules are mixed with those of the oil it is not possible to form hydrogen bonds between them, while when they are in one phase it is possible. The possibility to form hydrogen bonds also allows the hydrogen to migrate, which increases the entropy.

31. R. H.,

    You are talking about an open system and in my example (for Israel) I was talking about a closed system (since he was talking about the second law, and the second law talks about a closed system). The correction I mentioned to Israel's words (https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-319113) is due to the misrepresentation of the second law in his response - that "order" can arise from "disorder" with low probability. The example with the cards is not related to thermodynamics, but even if it was related, it is not good, because statistical mechanics is not used on a system of 4 particles or 50 particles, but on orders of magnitude of Avogadro's number of particles. The number of particles in a system strongly affects its behavior, and this is one of the reasons statistical mechanics is useful. For example, in the simple system I described, we accept that the probability of returning to the initial state is practically zero.

    You are talking about open systems. In an open system, by investing work it is possible to reduce its entropy - and not necessarily with a small probability. I will point out that such a process is not called a natural process. The direction of natural processes is the direction of entropy growth - the direction of the arrow of time.

    Regarding the discussion about the creation of life - I suppose that the decrease in entropy as a result of the creation of life can be reconciled with the claim that the earth is not a closed system and that the environment did work. However, for me, personally, it is difficult to reconcile intuition with this statement, because the decrease in entropy due to the creation of a living system such as the human population is enormous and difficult to grasp. In practice, of course, life was created, so this move contributed to entropy in the universe. Of course, I am not familiar with the combination of statistical physics with evolution (if such exists) or the combinations of statistical physics with theories in astrophysics. It is possible that such combinations do manage to create an intuitive understanding.

    I will also remind Israel, who said about the second law: "He does not claim that order cannot be created out of order. He claims that the probability of this is low, but it exists."
    I have not come across such a wording of the second law, and I would be happy if he could give me a reference to one (formal).

32. Friends:
    Without getting involved in the debate - I just wanted to express my opinion on some questions that seem to me to be ignored.
    One is the one that came up in the sentence of the second law as quoted from Galileo by Israel Shapira (the old Galileo readers can read in the previous issue the first sentence on the same subject that Israel Shapira wrote with great grace - although I do not agree with his claims entirely).
    In my opinion, the second law of thermodynamics is really not a law and is simply a consequence of the laws of probability.

    The second thing is that there is nothing in life that acts contrary to the second law of thermodynamics (and Israel's claim in the previous sentence, as if only life creates work "against the law" is incorrect because they completely obey the law)

    The third thing is that one must be very careful with terminology: "order" is in the eye of the beholder and the high probabilities of disordered situations arise from the fact that we are usually not talking about exact situations but about groups of situations.
    Every exact situation (for example - every exact distribution that determines a position for every molecule in the room) has the same probability. The point is that the group of situations we call "disorder" is simply infinitely larger than the group of situations we call "order"

    The fourth thing is to be careful when you start talking about all the laws of nature in terms of thermodynamics.
    The second law of thermodynamics is true only for thermodynamics. When you want to expand its use to other areas, you have to base yourself on many definitions that I don't know if anyone bothered to define.
    For example - if you take water and oil and mix them well - you will increase the "disorder" right?
    And what will happen to the mixture when you leave it to its own devices (in a place where there is gravity, like, for a while, in your house)?
    Order will return!

33. Sedon Technion,

    I think you didn't understand what I meant. All I wanted to show was that order can be created in a random system provided there is appropriate selection and we don't have to wait throughout the life of the universe as you say for chances that seem very small to materialize like the chance of creating a certain protein from a sequence of amino acids.

34. I think there is room for a new term:
    Slow motion troll

35. R.H. (December 19, 2011 at 14:50 pm #)

    To the questions you asked, add in the background the following confirmed fact - reincarnation, after-death experience and consciousness leaving the body
    See here:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/does-evolution-disprove-god-0711/#comment-298876

    It puts things in a completely different light.

36. Cedar Birch:
    Talking about the first living cell will always remain vague - just like talking about the first person.
    When did the creature stop being called a monkey and justify the nickname "man"?
    These are not so important questions.
    There is a sequence here and the definition is necessarily vague because on a sequence you can only name a finite number of points.

37. Israel Shapira,
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-319279

    If the self-replicating feature is a speed-determining step for you, then cell is already a pretty advanced event.
    An earlier step is autocatalytic RNA bands which can, as oil suggests, promote their own synthesis. According to the "RNA world" theory for the formation of life, a fairly widespread theory, these were apparently the first enzymes. Since they are not proteinaceous, they are called ribozymes ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribozyme ).

38. R. H.,

    1. The selection factor you are talking about is a system - because it has to "know" how to move a molecule to one side and not allow it to return to the other side. The process you describe is not natural (in the system I described) and therefore for it to happen you have to invest work.
    If you look at this switch as a subsystem in the vessel system, you will see that its entropy increases at the expense of that of the gas: once it has moved a molecule to one side, it has to "remember" not to move it back - and this increases its number of states.

    2. The same factor that performs selection is also a system, and in the process of selection its entropy increases.

    3. In this example you see it clearly: if the letter matches it is kept. As a result, the computer's memory fills up - and this is a situation that is identified with an increase in entropy.

    I assume you know "Maxwell's Demon", but if not - I recommend reading it.

39. Talking about the "first cell" would require the speaker to define what the necessary conditions are for identifying an object as a cell.
    Without doing so, the concept of "cell" remains vague and intuitive.

40. Some speculations about the formation of the first living cell you can find in this article
    http://sciam.co.il/archives/1833
    and in the links at the end.

    At the moment we still don't know how to create a living cell even by design, so it would be presumptuous to point out the way it was created in nature.
    We will probably never know for sure how the first cells really came into being but I guess in time we will know much better how they could have come into being.

41. Israel,
    Of course, there is no answer to your question and there probably won't be, how was the first cell created.
    However, works examining the question of what could be the mechanism for the production of a replicating cell are also being done.
    See, for example, the works of Nobel laureate Shostak from MGH in Boston:
    http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/

42. Hello my father c
    The sword of natural selection kills living beings mercilessly, and although I don't have exact numbers regarding the number of species/traits that appear compared to those that disappear, the frequency of mutation is definitely known and it is much higher than the frequency of appearance of the traits, meaning that most of the new traits (and mainly referring to changes for the worse in traits) disappear.

    Regarding the analogy you gave about the screw factory, you are right that an unprofitable factory like you describe will go bankrupt very quickly, but what will happen if a multi-billionaire investor comes and invests in this factory huge amounts of money that will allow it to continue to exist for a long time? (As the sun has been bombarding the earth with energy for 4 billion years).

    First, I'm not enthusiastic about the terminology of "Creation of Creatures" this appearance is more scientifically accurate. Second, what is a soul? What is it made of? How was it created? how does it work Is there anything trying to research this and give real answers? Let's say she was created by a higher being. What is that entity? What is it made of? What is the source of her infinite powers? Where did it come from? Who created it? These are questions that no one seriously investigates, certainly not those who claim their existence.

43. Student, regarding spontaneous creation of amino acids:

    http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%99_%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%A8-%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/dna-building-blocks-can-be-made-in-space-2308111/

44. R.H.
    I didn't even get to that.
    The only question for me is how even a single cell was created that is capable of replicating itself. From there it's easier.
    It seems to me that crystals are capable of replicating themselves. We must ask Shechtman.

45. Technion and Israel student,
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-319121

    In your discussion of probabilities, you ignore the fact that evolution does progress with random mutations, but there is selection that is not random, and that is what makes all the difference.

    1) If you conduct your gas experiment with selection - after opening the door between the two parts of the tank, you will place a one-way valve instead of the door so that the gas molecules can pass to one side only and not return. You will see that after a reasonable time (depending on the speed of movement of the particles) all the gas molecules will be on the side One and you don't have to wait for the universe time.

    2) If you shuffle cards and pull one card each time, if it fits the sequence keep it aside, you will see that again in a short time from a random process you reach a sequence that is not random at all and mainly because of the selection.

    3) Write a computer program that randomly selects a letter. Each letter chosen is compared to a letter in the book "War and Peace". If it is in the right place it is kept and if it is not thrown away, you will see that in a short time the book War and Peace will be written to you out of a random process. This is the power of non-random selection.

46. Friends:
    What are you arguing with Avi C about the second law of thermodynamics?
    Is it not clear to you that he has no idea what he is talking about?
    After all, according to the "logic" in his words, even the development of the snowflakes with their hexagonal and orderly structure contradicts this law.

47. My father c.

    OK let's say you are right and evolution contradicts the second law. What is your explanation then? Do you have a better explanation? which will answer in a simple way (as evolution does) to questions like
    Why are animals extinct? Why are there degenerated organs? Why do children get cancer? How come there are genetic diseases? Where do new creatures that appear today come from? Is there a creation? If so where does it take place? how? Why are fossils arranged in layers from simple to complex? How is it that we see in the field and in laboratories the creation of spontaneous mutations + selection (since this is the essence of evolution)? How is it that in islands and remote areas you find endemic species (which are limited to a certain area)? Was there a specific health for each area? How do you explain that for dogs we have a documented evolution ranging from the wolf to the chihuahua versus the great dane? Isn't this macroevolution? Likewise in "civilized" plants from the mother of wheat to the wheat of today (note that man did not create them but only made selection)?

    Other than saying on a gut feeling that evolution is wrong, can you give convincing creationist explanations without twists and turns for all these questions? If so I would love to hear.

48. Technion student
    I really wasn't wrong about you
    The opposite is true, it is clear to me that you control laws at one level or another from various laws that science has revealed to understand visible and measurable life.
    At the same time, your style shows that you are not belligerent and are ready to conceptually examine situations that are not clear to science or to man.
    I do not expect you to see intuitive spiritual mystical perception as a guide for you even though there are scientists who have learned to utilize this path to a higher leap in the field of science.

49. Abi C,
    Don't be mistaken. My claims do not concern an external or superior force at all. I responded to claims that were incorrectly presented in the context of statistical thermodynamics.

    In any case, here is a television program called "Genesis" with the participation of Prof. Elam Gross in which he discusses with the host the subject of science and faith. I think all participants in this discussion will benefit from watching.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlLgloP_Gcw

    Israel,
    "Still, a system can "suck" order from the environment, so that the total entropy of the system and the environment will increase, while in the system itself the entropy will decrease.
    which can explain evolution,”

    "Order" (incorrect terminology in general - the correct term to talk about is a number of states), is just a way of describing a system. It's not a physical parameter that you measure directly, so you can't say that order goes from one system to another. You can say that in a system consisting of two subsystems (for example, the Earth and the Sun), the entropy of one system can decrease and the other can increase, so that the entropy of the system increases or remains constant (in the case of natural processes, increases). But this already concerns my response to you (https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-319141) which for some unknown reason was released only now, when I asked to do so.

50. cedar
    Thank you, you opened my eyes to see the cloud of flies, even without a telescope I see that you lead them.
    "Laugh as much as you want, history will always laugh at you"

51. Abi C,
    To the rabbi, I don't bother myself with those who have all the answers (they don't excel at listening and the rabbi also doesn't have any useful words from which to learn) but there was something that caught my attention in your style, so convinced, mocking, saying "it's not possible" and relying on "Common sense". I thought to myself that at the dawn of history voices like yours accompany the caravan of progress like a cloud of flies:
    "The earth is shaped like a sphere?! where are your eyes be reasonable"
    "what are you saying? We who revolve around the sun? When was the last time you looked at the sunset? Obviously the sun is moving!”
    "Small and invisible animals make us sick?! Tell the truth, have you been drinking again?"
    "How did you say? "Vaccination"? Will something from a sick person make me healthy? Do you listen to yourself sometimes?”
    "Every baby knows that a heavy machine cannot fly. Watch this stone fall. Such nonsense.."
    "There is no reason for a private person to want to own a computer, it is too big and there is nothing to do with it"
    "Solve the structure of the ribosome? Not a chance. Much smaller things we cannot solve"
    "There are no quasi-crystals, only quasi-scientists!"

    Laugh all you want, history as usual will laugh at your expense.

52. Abi C,
    To the rabbi, I don't bother myself with those who have all the answers (they don't excel at listening and the rabbi also doesn't have any useful words from which to learn) but there was something that caught my attention in your style, so convinced, mocking, saying "it's not possible" and relying on "Common sense". I thought to myself that at the dawn of history voices like yours accompany the caravan of progress like a cloud of flies:
    "The earth is shaped like a sphere?! where are your eyes be reasonable"
    "what are you saying? We who revolve around the sun? When was the last time you looked at the sunset? Obviously the sun is moving!”
    "Small and invisible animals make us sick?! Tell the truth, did you drink too much again?”
    "How did you say? "Vaccination"? Will something from a sick person make me healthy? Do you listen to yourself sometimes?”
    "Every baby knows that a heavy machine cannot fly. Watch this stone fall. Such nonsense.."
    "There is no reason for a private person to want to own a computer, it is too big and there is nothing to do with it"
    "Solve the structure of the ribosome? Not a chance. Much smaller things we cannot solve"
    "There are no quasi-crystals, only quasi-scientists!"

    Laugh all you want, history as usual will laugh at your expense.

53. Technion student.
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-319121

    You convinced me.

    Beyond a finite and not very large number of factors - a spontaneous order in the system cannot practically be created in a period of time on the order of the age of the universe. Certainly not in a system on the order of Avogadro's number.

    Still, a system can "suck" order from the environment, so that the total entropy of the system and the environment will increase, while in the system itself the entropy will decrease.

    which can explain evolution,

54. My father c.
    Not only Darwin but also Einstein repented.
    The fact that the two things have no connection to reality is not a bad thing, after all, to be a rabbi you don't have to be smart and what you say doesn't have to have a connection to reality. The main thing is that you don't believe in anything institutional.

55. Israel
    I'm also not really well versed in the law beyond the fact that I relied on the senior astronomer in Britain, Fred Oyle
    I guess he's not just a fool who doesn't understand or doesn't want to understand.
    You know the story of the king's new clothes, so this is the parable with many scientific theories that come up until the boy comes and says that the king is naked.

56. My father c.
    What you say sounds perfectly reasonable. I have read several books on the subject of evolution, but do not feel that I have enough knowledge about how the trick exactly works. I take the word of scientists on a subject I don't really understand.

    All I'm saying is that evolution does not contradict the second law. that's it.

    We will continue to read and learn.

57. White Cedar If you take the nuke that was bombed inside the closed tunnel under Switzerland, it will feel in the system in an open system like the Earth being bombarded by solar radiation.
    What is a closed or open system? The whole universe is in one closed system whose parts influence each other, or there is some hole in the universe beyond which there is an open system. Are you science or fantasy?

58. Technion student you 10 really understand the sophisticated meaning of science that wants to prove the impossible without an external force (currently or forever hidden and beyond the reach of science's measuring tools).

59. Erez my friend
    The truth is there is empirical proof that has been tested by findings that for every creation of production, millions of creatures become extinct due to failure.
    My factory produces a million buckles a year if according to your statistics this factory was working it would have gone bankrupt before it started.
    Leave the snooker when there is an infinite force in the system (the human soul) is the one that creates reality.
    Without man, the world would not exist. Without his observation of nature, nature would not exist, and I certainly would not be interested in anyone.

60. Israel
    When the complexity of man is so great, who knows how many billions of connections there are in the brain, how will this perfect order called man be created, all emotions, imaginations and such complex motor skills and such an amazing eye, and this can really be created out of the order that evolution claims?
    I thought that people of science also work a little with common sense beyond the desire to quantify everything in order not to fall on the path they follow in life.
    If the claim that the evolutionary process was made over millions or billions of years slowly and gradually then you will find the proof in the fossils of this gradual change.
    Even astrology is more science than evolution, a sick invention of scientists who don't even want to accept the fact that Darwin in his late days wrote that his theory was based on a number of misunderstandings in the Galapagos Islands

61. very nice : )

62. A somewhat amusing explanation of the probabilistic nature of the second law can be found in:

    https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:TGGo8ywckw8J:www.amalnet.k12.il/machine/articles/20040009.doc+%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A8+%D7%9C%D7%94%D7%91+%D7%94%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShrWK5OTiLdbOQEGvBOvWwXu_kql0mu-iHW54GS8yd3SB_8hfQbAez83E3mK7Sr6AViimguN97URKsBtYT5QRQzNfODcISLDGsGieRiaN4IcpaNYvG97f_H87SnbT6nMEANESCx&sig=AHIEtbRfnG2AzznePdCiM1rEmaC91PSVyw

63. Your response is not partial or informal enough, it is simply not related to mine:
    You gave a link to something I didn't ask for, and you tried to show (as far as I understood) that an event like the one I presented in the example with the gas is possible over a period of billions of years - which is not true.

    I don't know if the researchers I know will have answers about evolution in the context of thermodynamics and statistical thermodynamics. Usually chemists and physicists don't understand biology, and professors of course don't like being asked questions they don't warm up to.

64. student,
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-319135

    Not only did I read, I also devoted my time to thinking about your words and formulating a response.
    I am not a physicist but a biologist. If my answer is partially to your liking, or informal enough, that is only legitimate. You are welcome to challenge the researchers at the academic institution closest to your home and let us know what you came up with.

65. Israel,
    The truth is you could have long ago. (I finished the degree, but I did not close it, so I am still defined as a student. I also still function as such, because I am carrying out a research project.)

    And no, Erez did not answer - see message above. And the example you presented still does not match what you tried to draw from it (as far as I understand).

    Regarding the amino acids - which are formed spontaneously and under what conditions? From the syntheses I remember for amino acids, the reactions to create them are not necessarily spontaneous. I have no idea about evolution, so I don't know what the argument is for the formation of amino acids in the universe - so I didn't respond to the subject of amino acids.

    In any case, you are now talking about probabilities related to the theory of evolution and the formation of cells - the treatment of a biological system in terms of statistical mechanics is infinitely more complex than the treatment of a gas system (all the more so in a pack of cards, where it is simply a probability), so it is not clear to me what you were trying to show in the example with the cards.

    If cell formation is the issue, it seems that your argument should have been from the beginning that there is a probability of cell formation despite the second law - it has nothing to do with the example you described with the cards - because that would actually show that the probability of cell formation does not exist, at least not in an isolated system. It can be argued (rightly), as we have argued, that the earth is not a closed system because it is influenced by the sun. Then my question is: how do you show that in a system that includes the sun and the earth the entropy increased over time? The increase in entropy as a result of processes in the sun should be greater than the decrease in entropy resulting from the formation of life - what is the indication for this? How do you compare entropy changes in a "living" system to those in nuclear processes?

66. That's not what I asked for. I asked for a link to the wording (I should have stated: formal) of the second law that claims what Israel Shapira claimed.

    "We are not talking here about engineering and feasibility given reasonable limits, but about an engineering-impossible time (billions of years)."
    Did you not read my entire comment? The possibility you are talking about is not practical and therefore has no meaning. For example, even in the simple example I described with the gas - you don't have enough time in the universe for such an improbable event to happen. Mathematically, you are right - even a probability of 10E-30 is not zero, but physically - you are wrong.

67. Technion student. (Well, when can we already call you a Technion graduate?).
    I think Erez has already answered you, and I have to fly to work.

    To the point: it is clear that the probability of the spontaneous creation of even one cell that replicates itself (a necessary condition for evolution) is zero. But that is not the argument. Amino acids are formed spontaneously, also more and more complex. And of which there is a (small, true) probability of spontaneous formation of a primary cell. This does not require spontaneous creation - and it is very possible that in the millions of compatible ones in the universe this did not happen. But the probability exists - despite the second law.

68. Dear Technion student,
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-319121

    You asked for a link to refer to the second law of thermodynamics as a probabilistic law and not a mandatory law (given infinite time resources). Please see the TED talk at this link:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-312667

    "It is obtained mathematically in statistical mechanics"
    "So that's it, this probability actually becomes zero for all practical purposes when you're dealing with multi-particle systems with several states of orders of magnitude of Avogadro's number"
    —
    As for that second law, please note your (correct) words regarding it, the second law of thermodynamics derives from statistical mechanics, i.e. probabilistic, not deterministic. It provides an incredibly accurate prediction precisely because the probabilities of entropy decrease in a closed system tend to zero for any practical purpose. Ambitious but not equal to zero. We are not talking here about engineering and feasibility given reasonable limits, but about an engineering-impossible time (billions of years).

69. Birch cedar, plaited to know big ones

    "What the sun produces in an hour, can be used for electricity consumption for an entire year. So there is still a lot of room for improvement in the field." This is what Nobel laureate Prof. Walter Cohen, laureate of the 1998 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, says at the event on the occasion of receiving an honorary doctorate in Bar-Ilan in May 2009
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/walter-kuhn-urge-to-move-to-wind-and-solar-energy-1312099/

70. Abi G.,
    Following on from the words of Erez Garti, Avi Blizovsky and the (excellent) response of Israel Shapira, with which I agree, a small anecdotal detail about how the Earth is not a closed system but rather a system bombarded with enormous energy (and therefore is not a closed system to which the second law of thermodynamics refers) :

    The Earth is irradiated every year with solar energy with a power 6000 times the energy consumption of all mankind.
    Another way to say it is that the amount of solar energy that washes the earth in an hour and a half is enough to drive every car and machine in the world for a year!

71. cedar,

    And how do you measure or calculate the entropy of a system that includes the sun and the earth, and show that the total entropy has increased?

72. "He does not claim that order cannot arise from disorder. He claims that the probability of this is low, but it exists."

    - I have not come across such a wording of the second law (can you link it?).
    In a process that does not include external intervention and occurs in an isolated (closed) system, entropy can be preserved or increase, but never decrease. This is obtained mathematically in statistical mechanics. Since, to calm the intuition, entropy is linked to the terms of order and disorder, you can never create "order" from "disorder" in such a system - a system will never pass from one macrostate to another so that the number of microstates corresponding to the most probable macrostate will decrease. We will say that the system is in the NMS when the entropy of the system has reached its maximum - otherwise it can be easily shown that this state has no practical chance of existing (all this for multi-particle systems).

    "6. Tap a full pack of 52 cards. You will see that there is a probability - small, but it exists - that a completely random mixing will arrange the whole package as new, and therefore a great order is created out of disorder."

    - So that's it, this probability practically becomes zero for all intents and purposes when you deal with multi-particle systems with several states of orders of magnitude of Avogadro's number.

    7. I realize that creating order out of disorder is only a matter of time and quantities of mixed systems."

    - You "forget" one thing: that a system of 52 particles (cards in your example) is not equivalent and is not a suitable example for representing the universe (or even for representing a system of gas in one cubic meter in the room where you are sitting). Are you talking about 52 cards? In this experiment for example:
    A closed and insulated vessel, divided into two parts, in one of which there is a gas outlet (ideal for the purpose). At some point, the partition is lifted and the gas spreads throughout the vessel.

    You can wait for the age of the universe and the situation where the gas is on one side of the vessel will not return.

73. My father c.
    Making a common claim that is fundamentally wrong and tainted by a twisted interpretation of both the second law of thermodynamics and evolution, and I will explain.

    The definition of the second law of thermodynamics says that the total entropy (disorder) in a closed system increases with time. According to you, evolution is a factor of order, therefore it contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. Well first, evolution is the biggest messing factor I know, for every successful trait that appears there are a million unsuccessful traits, and for every living creature that succeeds there are a million creatures that failed and died. This is like islands of order in an ocean of chaos.

    Since it is likely that the above biological argument will not convince you, then I will give the thermodynamic argument:
    As mentioned, the second law of thermodynamics deals with closed systems and total entropy. The earth is not a closed system at all, it has been fed by energy from the sun for about 4 billion years, so we must (at least) introduce the sun into the system. I assume that there is no debate about the increase in entropy in the sun, therefore if we examine the total entropy in the complete system we will get a constant and constant increase. And with your permission I will add a small metaphor:

    Let's imagine you and I are playing snooker. I win and I say to you, "My father, you lost, so set the table" and you claim, "I can't. This will lower the entropy in the system, it contradicts the second law of thermodynamics." Is this possible? of course not. Setting up the snooker table involves putting energy into the system. The entropy in the table itself may decrease, but the system, which now also includes your body that arranged the balls on the table, brought with it an investment of energy that came from the energy reserves in the body, the breakdown of sugars and ATP and an increase in entropy in the body which also entailed an increase in entropy in the entire system.

    cedar

74. My father c.

    The second law of thermodynamics does not contradict evolution.

    He does not claim that order cannot arise from disorder. He claims that the probability of this is low, but it exists.

    Do not believe? Try the following:

    1. Take 4 diamond cards number 4,5,6,7

    2. Mix them up.

    3. Ask yourself: what is the chance that a random shuffle will arrange them in ascending order?

    4. Conduct the experiment 200 times.

    5. You will likely argue that one out of every 24 shufflings the cards will sort themselves out in ascending order, and thus we got order out of disorder.

    6. Tap a full pack of 52 cards. You will see that there is a probability - small, but it exists - that a completely random mixing will arrange the whole package as new, and therefore a great order is created out of disorder.

    7. You realize that creating order out of disorder is only a matter of time and quantities of mixed systems.

    8. We have 15 billion years and billions billions of planets. The question should therefore be: what is the probability that order will not be created out of disorder?

    9. A tornado will not create a Boeing. Amino acids, on the other hand, of which proteins are composed, are formed spontaneously in space all the time. Also in the lab.

    10. Beautiful hexagonal snowflakes of all shapes are formed spontaneously.

    11. Mistakes?

75. As for Hoyle, that's why he's an astronomer and not a biologist. By the way, he was such a great astronomer that he refused to acknowledge the Big Bang. But to his credit, he lived and worked at a time when it was accepted that the universe was infinite and matter was created all the time - enough atomic nuclei per cubic meter per year to maintain the static universe.

    And of course, the second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems. The whole earth is an open system. It receives energy from the sun and therefore the creatures eat and manage to maintain order, something that would not happen without energy.
    But your response reinforces my opinion that if someone does not believe one set of scientific evidence (in this case you represent the supporters of astrology), neither do they believe other sets of scientific evidence such as global warming and certainly evolution which has passed all the tests for 160 years.

76. The theory of evolution is impossible because of the second law of thermodynamics (it's a law not a theory) according to it
    In any closed system to the world, order precedes disorder.
    Like a glass that falls and shatters into pieces so they never bounce back and become a whole glass again.
    Therefore there is no possibility that life evolved from disorder to perfection from randomness to perfection.
    Astronomer Professor Fred Oyle, one of the UK's leading scientists, says, "The chance that developed life forms will develop randomly is like a tornado passing over a scrap yard and as a result of their flying a Boeing 747 will be created

77. How does science explain the great gap between the stages of evolutionary development.
    No intermediate stages have been found in the fossils that can explain the gradual development from the cell to the human.
    There are too large jumps between stages, so it is unlikely that there is a transition from ape to man without many intermediate stages that will see the development of the human brain with its complex technical capabilities.

78. Nir,
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-312654

    I'm sorry your comment was not published. I hope this is just a technical glitch.
    For cases like this, you might want to save the response as a backup and if there is a problem send it again.

    "You put words in my mouth, which I pretend to say, and I don't !!."
    —
    It is possible that I am interpreting your words incorrectly, and if this is the case I am ready to listen to a correction. However, considering that I am not the only one to whom you come with a similar claim, it is possible that this is due to your lack of clarity in the wording. If you want us to understand, please aim for us to understand.

    "It's just convenient for you to understand what you want"
    —
    Nir, we started off well and then you started to screw up. What do you think is convenient for me?

    "Because (factual) science doesn't know everything, it doesn't see the full picture...one should not draw conclusions from a section of a picture but from the picture in its entirety...in this issue it cannot answer."
    —
    Definately not. According to your method, it was forbidden to receive any medical opinion, because doctors know even less than scientists.
    Science always has something left to discover, and the picture is not complete, but the fact that we do not understand everything from A to Z does not justify your conclusion that no conclusions should be drawn. Science is the best mechanism we have (in my opinion) for understanding physical reality and as such constitutes the most reliable basis for establishing conclusions, even in its partial form. Sometimes this partiality is enough to hint at what is right and wrong, what is desirable and what is harmful.

    "Regarding the subject of the definition of God:
    It was quite expected that you would avoid the definition, perhaps because you never bothered to learn it."
    —
    Look how fierce.
    You ask me to define what I don't believe and then you don't accept my answer either, accuse me of evasion and send me to study.
    You wanted to know what the God I don't believe in is and that's what I addressed. I don't believe in a rubber duck. I believe you got what you asked for, and if you want a better answer you'll have to attach a better question to it.

    "Let your ears hear what your hand writes, "the lawfulness of the universe" .. Who is the universe? Is there anyone like that? Please explain to me who are you talking about? "The laws of nature that are understood by us".... Who are the laws of nature? I asked you a definition of natural, so you write nature for me.. hahahaha, well then what is nature?"
    —
    Hear my ears and you will not save her.
    Who is the universe? Who said it was someone? Maybe it's something?
    Who or what are the laws of nature and their origin, I have no answer. I don't have answers to many things, so what?
    Science is the human enterprise embracing history and the world that aims to get to the root of this question.
    Einstein once said that if we knew what we were doing it wouldn't be called "research".
    ("If we knew what we were doing it wouldn't be research")

    "You know, and I know, that reality did not exist at all (before the big bang), neither space nor time nor matter. The laws of physics as we know them were not born yet. And suddenly, out of nowhere, all the material appeared in the world, in a natural way?!?!”
    —
    I don't know any of these. I know the theories on a popular level.
    And I'm guessing you don't either.

    What's more, the end of reality is probably not in the great contraction, but in an endless dispersion in space until a corpse. The meaning of the bang event is a one-time event that probably rules out a multi-time universe.
    —
    Not only does it not deceive, maybe even confirms the assumption of multiple universes. I already gave the attached link during this discussion, and here it is again, for you.
    A short and fascinating lecture by Prof. Sean Carroll at TED about a possible explanation for the origin of the Big Bang. As mentioned, this is a scientific opinion that has not yet found its way to consensus, but is certainly thought-provoking (there is a Hebrew translation if you select below):
    http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sean_carroll_distant_time_and_the_hint_of_a_multiverse.html
    (There is also a longer and more comprehensive version, but not necessarily better, in two parts:
    http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sean_carroll_on_the_arrow_of_time.html
    http://www.ted.com/talks/sean_carroll_on_the_arrow_of_time_part_2.html
    )

    "The problem I have with people who rely on physics as the way to discover God (the rubber duck in your case) is that they are trying to see through physics what happened before physics was formed"
    —
    Don't include me in any of these people you mention.
    I am not trying to use science for what is outside the boundaries of its jurisdiction.
    Not for nothing is physics separated from metaphysics.

79. A few days ago I posted a comment that did not appear on the site.. Too bad.

    Larza:

    You want to withdraw from the discussion and move on to other things, nobody pulls a gun to your head

    You are once again repeating the words of your friends, and it's a shame because I understood the first time, maybe you just don't have anything more to add, so you don't need to force it.

    You put words in my mouth, which I pretend to say, and I don't !!.

    You claim that I am saying that the fact that science is perfected over the years is a disadvantage. So know that I'm not saying that, it's just convenient for you to understand what you want.

    What I'm saying, for the millionth time, is that because (factual) science doesn't know everything, it doesn't see the whole picture, and you as a person who claims to be intelligent should know that you shouldn't draw conclusions from a section of a picture but from the picture in its entirety, I'm not saying that because science sees a section of the picture He is not good, I say that on this issue he cannot answer.

    It seems to me that you are so in love with science and research that you kind of forget that we have not yet scratched the tip of the tip of the tip of the tip of the ice cube on the glacier.

    Regarding the subject of the definition of God:
    It was quite expected that you would avoid the definition, perhaps because you never bothered to learn it.

    Regarding the subject of the definition of "natural":
    Your quote:
    The "natural" that probably interests you, even though you didn't give enough information, is everything that is subject to the laws of the universe, that is, that obeys the laws of nature as they are understood by us, as opposed to "supernatural" which is not obliged to obey requirements such as gravity, repulsion of identical charges , the uncertainty principle and the like.

    Let your ears hear what your hand writes, "the lawfulness of the universe".. Who is the universe? Is there anyone like that? Please explain to me who are you talking about? "The laws of nature that are understood by us".... Who are the laws of nature? I asked you a definition of natural, so you write nature for me.. Hahahaha, well then what is nature?
    You write "as opposed to "supernatural" which does not comply with requirements such as gravity"
    If this is how you would please define the moment of the big bang for me as "natural" and not "supernatural", without getting confused please - the moment of the bang as a natural moment, if possible also a bonus minute before the bang would be nice.
    You know, and I know, that there was no reality at all, neither space nor time nor matter. The laws of physics as we know them were not born yet. And suddenly, out of nowhere, all the material appeared in the world, in a natural way?!?! I know there are those who claim that reality was concentrated in a singular point, there is no end to time... I will not go into the philosophical problems that this idea creates, but even in this version - there is no physics of today. What's more, the end of reality is probably not in the great contraction, but in an endless dispersion in space until a corpse. The meaning of the bang event is a one-time event that probably rules out a multi-time universe.
    So the problem I have with people who rely on physics as the way to discover God (the rubber duck in your case) is that they are trying to see through physics what happened before physics was formed. The chronological order of the events is: first a bang and then physics, so how is it possible to have a natural bang without modern physics and call it a natural moment???

    Hopefully this content will be published unlike my previous post.

80. Nir,
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-312038

    Unfortunately, I have to inform you that my interest in talking with you is diminishing and not because of the depth of your recent responses. It is not impossible that I will be forced to divert my time to more interesting challenges if you continue this. for your consideration.

    "What I wanted to say is that science always changes its approach and perception. And the difference between the articles only shows how easy it is for even the most senior scientists to make a mistake.
    The sad thing is that sometimes things are discovered years late, and in other cases they are not discovered at all, and people base claims of a lifetime on mistakes, a good example of this is what happened to Professor Shechtman. Which indicates that the combine culture that characterizes the human race has not escaped the top of the scientific community either (it is recommended to see Dov Elvaim's interview with Shechtman and hear his harsh words)."
    —
    Science is not a sacred canon, it is a dynamic process (and even, look what a miracle, progresses in an evolutionary way where only the theories that fit the observations survive the test of time). It is evident that this dynamism, which is science's greatest strength, you recognize as a shortcoming. You are not the first and probably not the last to do this, probably because religion and science speak very different languages.
    In religion (and not only the religion of Moses and Israel) it is unthinkable that a scholar in a yeshiva would dare to find proof that there is a fundamental concept in the "Shulchan Aruch" or the Mishnah, while he has a sensational innovation in his hands. If he dares, he might even be denounced as insolent and not welcome in the yeshiva. In contrast, a scientist who undermines the foundations of a well-established scientific theory and succeeds in challenging it, will not only earn himself the status of a brilliant scientist, he will receive recognition, research budgets, invitations to speak and prizes. The process of researching science under its own foundations ensures that scientific theories are constantly being tested to reveal their deficiencies. Thus, over time only the most immune theories remain against these relentless attacks. Therefore, the unjustified (and premature, it should be added) joy at the discovery of an error in science, makes it clear that you do not understand that this process is essentially scientific and not an embarrassing failure.
    There is really no sacred theory. There are no sacred cows. There are at most "sacred cows for now", until something better comes along. One example of many is modern physics. The two major theories of physics in the 20th century are relativity and quantum mechanics. Both are enterprises of tremendous significance in their ability to explain to us the world in which we live. However, Elia and Kotz Ba, they are not compatible with each other, and the first task of the physicists today is to find the unifying theory (GUT - Grand Unifying Theory), which will include the advantages of both. Until we succeed in this, we will not be able to understand, for example, the first second of the Big Bang. What does this imply? that the two great teachings are necessarily flawed, because they do not encompass all knowledge and therefore must be corrected. So what? Does this mean that science changes its mind and that senior scientists are also sadly mistaken? nonsense. This means that it is the best that humanity has reached so far, and with a lot of work I hope that in our lifetime some of the mysteries will be solved.

    "I'm very interested in you defining for me this God that you don't believe in"
    —
    My friends son has a rubber ducky that he likes to take a bath with.
    I don't believe it's God.

    "I would also like a definition of the word "natural".
    —
    Like many things in everyday language, words have different meanings in different contexts.
    "Natural" can be non-synthetic, meaning a product whose chemical composition is not artificial.
    "Natural" may refer to a certain norm, in which what is within the norm is considered natural, while what is outside of it is considered abnormal.
    "Natural" may be a description of a required action in a given context, in the common saying that it is a natural action in such and such a situation.
    And so on and so forth.
    The "natural" that probably interests you, even though you didn't give enough information, is everything that is subject to the laws of the universe, that is, that obeys the laws of nature as they are understood by us, as opposed to "supernatural" which is not obliged to obey requirements such as gravity, repulsion of identical charges , the uncertainty principle and the like.

81. to Nir
    Quote: "I'm not saying anything, I wrote what is written in the articles I linked."

    For some reason, you previously came to the strange conclusion that theoretically if science expands experimental knowledge beyond what Einstein knew, - there is a reason to disdain the knowledge that has already been accumulated. that Erez took the trouble to demonstrate to you) and we have already made progress.
    That's the whole idea in science: someone discovers something, someone else adds a layer that the previous one didn't discover and that's how we know more about the world.

    "Very well, that's exactly what I'm saying. Science is constantly changing, knowledge is increasing, and with that, knowledge is increasing, about how much knowledge is still missing."
    First of all, it's good that you agree to the fact that 'knowledge grows'..and again: what exactly are you trying to say? After all, the way of science is the way to conquer more and more knowledge, that's the whole idea. Knowledge does not start from scratch but cumulatively. In fact, the 'information that is still missing' actually emphasizes why science is so important. If we knew everything, we wouldn't need science.

    Maybe before expressing an opinion, you should go back to zero, and understand simply what science is in general:
    (Nice article from a site you already know..)
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/what-is-science-0101011/

    And another reference to important things you said: for example:
    "..you understand.. we in this world can continue to invent medicines, technology, wars, peace, discover world laws, fly into space, inhabit other stars, etc.. but if it all ends one day, and science believes that it will all end (do you believe In science, isn't it?) It has no meaning, nothing came of it, because everything strives for nothingness and absence."

    Your words clarify precisely why there is so much religious opposition at times, to a dry reality that science describes... Suppose you yourself knew for sure (just know for some reason, period.) that 'everything is expected to end one day', and someone would tell you 'but listen: If everything is expected to end one day, then there is no meaning' I suppose you would say back to him: 'Brother, what do you want from me? The fact that there is no meaning neither raises nor lowers, if I - know - that 'everything is expected to end one day' - then everything is expected to end, period.'
    Think about it..

82. Nir:
    Is this comment the fruit of your keyboard?
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-311750

    If so - then I was not wrong.

    In fact, your words in the last response also prove this.

    Besides, your words regarding God are really funny.
    The vast majority of the more intelligent people have already reached a negative conclusion on the question of its existence, but you are, of course, smarter than all of them:
    http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
    http://www.nrg.co.il/online/55/ART1/748/479.html
    http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3480323,00.html

    The funniest thing is that you ask us to define a God we don't believe in and you don't understand that what needs to be defined is actually a God we believe in (after all, the failure to define it is the classic evasion method of the rabbis).

    If you define God as high heels I will be the first to admit his existence.

    Give me the definition according to which you think he exists or it is impossible to know if he exists and I will tell you what I think about such a God.

    Actually, you know? I can't decide what is the funniest thing about you.
    Perhaps it is precisely the fact that you are trying to present the more successful points of power of science, such as the fact that it constantly improves its predictions (=renovates the theories) as something that harms its credibility.

    Sweet dreams.

83. To Eric:

    I am not saying anything, I wrote what is written in the articles I linked.

    Have there been any changes since then? Very well, that's exactly what I'm saying, science is constantly changing, knowledge is growing, and with that knowledge is growing, about how much knowledge is still missing.
    I don't believe in the "theory of creation" of Genesis that you don't believe in.
    After you invest in studying "what the Jewish saying in relation to reality" says, I will address your religious imaginations.

    Michael:
    You may be confusing me with others, I do not despise science (in all its shades), on the contrary, I enjoy its fruits and appreciate it very much.
    Both you and I know that they will never crack the reality we are in, time travel, transition between dimensions (if it exists), the size of the universe, its exact age, black holes, wormholes. And not to mention questions like where did all the matter come into reality, what is the shape of the universe, where exactly does it expand, what preceded reality.
    In our generation, you won't get answers, and you know it, so what's the point of establishing a claim that God doesn't exist if you don't have something solid to base it on, that's why a person who advocates science (not a person of philosophy) must be an agnostic and not an atheist.

    cedar:

    Not only was I not wrong, but they helped me prove what I claimed. If you look at the context in which my words were said (to Camila), you will understand that what I wanted to say is that science always changes its approach and perception. And the difference between the articles only shows how easy it is for even the most senior scientists to make a mistake.
    The sad thing is that sometimes things are discovered years late, and in other cases they are not discovered at all, and people base claims of a lifetime on mistakes, a good example of this is what happened to Professor Shechtman. Which indicates that the combine culture that characterizes the human race has not escaped the top of the scientific community either (it is recommended to see Dov Elvaim's interview with Shechtman and hear his harsh words).

    2 questions for the three of you to finish (if it's not difficult):

    1. I am very interested, that you define for me this God that you do not believe in.

    2. I would also like a definition of the word "natural".

84. Nir,

    This time my opinion is the opinion of Michael and Eric. You jumped in the head.
    It's okay and even honorable to admit a mistake. It is a shame that you will continue to dig deeper holes for yourself with idle insistence.

85. Nir:
    Science is not wrong because it claims nothing.
    Scientists make mistakes sometimes and then others correct them.
    People like you who are not scientists - are much more wrong.
    You personally are probably one of the greatest experts I have met in the field of making mistakes.
    Your main mistake is the disdain for scientists and this is expressed, among other things, in your stupid claim that Camilla is not a researcher when she clearly is.
    A sane person makes sure ten times that he knows the facts before making a defamatory claim about others.
    You do this without any checking so it's no surprise that you got it wrong.
    It is not surprising, therefore, that the situation is similar in relation to your other claims.

    Eric is right.

86. Nir
    I'm aware of the news and like everyone else I became aware of the new experiments.. It's really not related yet, to the smugness with which you express yourself..
    as in the sentence:
    "Then, the whole theory of relativity of the beloved Jew with the mustache is worth nothing, .."
    There is no sense in such childish disdain.. Do you have any idea how many experiments use the equations of the theory of relativity? Do you have any idea of ​​its practical implications?
    The greatness of science lies in the expansion of existing theories. Just like when Einstein expanded the boundaries of physics it didn't tamper with Newton's equations, - things didn't start flying in the air on the contrary, the knowledge about what surrounds us increased... that's all.
    On the other hand, as time goes by, the creation 'theory' of the book of Genesis, for example, turns out to be complete nonsense to my dismay.

87. Michael,

    Thanks a lot for the links, it's interesting and also reassuring to see that relativity is probably still in place (although it could also be quite exciting if it were the other way around, lots to discover).

    If I understand correctly (are there any physicists in the audience?), the theory of relativity treats the speed of light as an asymptote, meaning that it does not prohibit motion above the speed of light but prohibits motion exactly at the speed of light, while motion above the speed of light is theoretically possible.
    The theoretical particles that will travel above the speed of light are called tachyons, and although no one has yet seen one, there is a lot of theoretical research on what they would look like if they were found one day. One of the strange things about them is that they move later in time. odd..

    More about tachyons:
    http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%98%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9F

88. Michael, you said it well, there are mistakes, that's also what I'm saying, science makes mistakes sometimes.

    The issue is not the speed of light yes or no, but that science is sometimes wrong.

89. Nir:
    What a selective distinction!
    You only notice mistakes and not their corrections:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/special-relativity-may-answer-faster-than-light-neutrino-mystery-1910112/

    http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/news.2011.575.html

90. To Eric:

    http://www.mako.co.il/news-money/tech/Article-02b3b66a6849231017.htm

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/photons-challenge-the-light-barrier-1708070/

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

    http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4126417,00.html

91. ^ Of course I meant sentences like:
    "Recently it was published that there is probably a speed higher than the speed of light, so all the theory of relativity of the beloved Jew with the mustache is worth nothing, .."

92. to Nir
    It is better to be silent and be considered a fool than to write a few words and prove it.
    Where do you get the courage to write such absolute things about things you don't understand, let alone about people you don't know..

93. To Camila:

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-310647

    First, you don't do any research, you read a little and are a little interested in science, at best you are registered on all the relevant websites in Israel and abroad and follow conferences and meetings of scientists, at worst you watch space programs on National Geographic. I'm pretty sure that the news about the "Higgs boson" won't come from you, and you're not exactly a chief scientist at SETI either, so my situation and situation are quite similar 🙂 , maybe I even have the advantage over you, I've been interested in science for years and still am, (also in philosophy) and I was only exposed to the Torah In recent years, so I also know Torah.
    So, if you feel like playing by the rules of the game, then first of all admit it, science knows nothing, science does not prove anything and science knows that everything it discovers is temporarily true. Example: It was recently published that there is probably a speed higher than the speed of light, so the whole theory of relativity of the beloved Jew with the mustache is worth nothing, they also discovered that most of the cosmos is probably "dark matter" the numbers speak of over 90%. Just to explain if you don't know, "dark matter" is called by its name not because it is dark or mysterious but because we simply don't know anything about it.
    The conclusion is clear, you support a study that proves nothing, and just for the sake of good order I will emphasize that I also support this study, I am a passionate science supporter, I believe in medicine, technology, physics, chemistry, but I also understand in my mind that they do not prove anything. If gravity is a scientific theory then what are we left with.
    I know what you want to respond too - that science is so precise and so rational and the level of its standards is so high that for something to be called "truth" / "correct", it has to prove itself time and time again in the most important test which is the result test and not recognized Flood, Noah's ark and rainbow nonsense.
    If this is your response, firstly I agree with you and secondly I ask you to read the last two paragraphs from the beginning.
    What do I suggest? First of all leave science, science does not provide answers and never will, turn to philosophy and then we will talk..

    Regarding the miracle:
    According to your answer, I'm afraid you didn't understand the question...
    I asked you, "Assuming it's all true, do you think it's a miracle?" , unfortunately you avoided an answer (which should be short) and I did not receive an answer, but instead, I received a bad logical argument that such a thing is not admissible in a court of law, which did not prevent you later from putting the rabbi in jail. (It's not nice of you, just because he has a beard, like that without a fair trial).

    Regarding the subject of the meaning of your life:
    I'm sorry to disappoint you, but if there is no God, your life has no meaning, you can give your life as much meaning as you want, but realistically you are nothing. Not even the tiniest point in history. I'll explain to you, it's simple…
    According to science, the world we know was created 13.7 billion years ago.
    The entire world of science, without exception, believes that at some point in the future, reality will end. Some think that just as the big bang was, so will the "big contraction", and some think the opposite, that the galaxies and stars will simply move away from each other to infinity and everything will simply turn off / cool down, what is called thermal death.
    It follows that our world has no meaning, since reality strives for "nothing" and not "there is", meaning, this world has no meaning.
    Since everything, always, but always, takes on meaning only when we do another action following the previous action, and if there is no new action, the old one has no meaning. Example:
    A man plows a field, why does he plow a field? what is the meaning of this ? The meaning is found outside the act of plowing, in order to sow seed in the ground..
    And why does he want to sow seed? The meaning is outside the act of sowing, that is, for wheat to grow.
    And why does he want wheat? The meaning is found outside of wheat, that is, for baking bread.
    And why does he need bread? For him to have something to eat or something to sell..
    Now.. imagine a situation where a person sowed seeds in the ground, and that year it did not rain, and because of this the seeds in the ground did not grow, what actually happened? The act of sowing was meaningless... it was just... nothing came of it, he worked for nothing.
    You understand.. We in this world can continue to invent medicines, technology, wars, peace, discover world laws, fly into space, inhabit other stars, etc.. But if everything ends one day, and science believes that it will all end (you believe in science, don't you? ) It has no meaning, nothing came of it, because everything aspires to nothingness and nothingness.
    Another example:
    A man returns from abroad after two months away from home, and finds a nest of huge ants in the living room. He calls the exterminator, the exterminator tells him "I'll be at your place in two hours".
    The person sits on the sofa looking down on the ants working, running to bring food, building the nest and says in his heart, "Look at these ants, working, running, laboring diligently and all this for nothing, because soon the exterminator will come and everything will be over.."

    There is a famous play by Shakespeare (Towel') about a king who sums up his life, and he was able to articulate this matter there:
    a quote:

    "Tomorrow, and another tomorrow, and another tomorrow
    will slowly crawl like a turtle day by day
    to the last page of the all-time schedule;
    And all our yesterdays only lit a way,
    where fools went to devour dirt.
    Dim, dim already, short candle!
    Our lives are a passing shadow, a poor actor
    The bouncer for an hour on stage
    and evaporates:
    They are just the actions of a retard,
    a pile of frothy foam,
    without any sense. "

    Even though you wrote that you attribute any meaning to your life and even though you didn't give details of exactly what you mean, I'm more inclined to think that you're confusing meaning with pleasure.
    And regarding pleasure, I have something to say to you, and if you're honest, you'll agree with me: most of our lives we don't enjoy, we work, study, build the future, invest in relationships, make a living, raise children, deal with problems at home and at work.
    And in old age?? In old age we certainly don't enjoy ourselves, with all the sickness, and the pain, and if God forbid there is a problematic illness among us then at all... so I find it hard to believe that someone would hang the meaning of his life on physical pleasure. It is true that there are moments that are also enjoyed, but it is really not the majority of a person's life, and not even a few percent of his life.

    Regarding the following generations, you should know that:

    Your great-grandchildren will not even know your name, just as almost no human being knows the names of his four "great-grandfathers" and "great-grandmothers". And the funny (or sad) thing is that it turns out that they didn't die that long ago.. What to do is just not interesting.
    Check even with yourself..
    It follows that there will be no trace of you left in the world 80 years from now regardless of how old you are.

    In conclusion :
    Luckily for you there is God, and therefore despite your materialistic approach, your life also has meaning, not as much meaning as you give it, maybe because you pet animals on the street and help the elderly cross the road safely, but because when there is God, all our actions echo in infinity.

94. Thank you Aaron for the link to the interview with Prof. Payne.
    As I told Nir several comments ago, the rabbi does not tend to watch/listen to long content and asks for the gist of things, but I started listening and found the interview worth listening to the end. That's why I find it interesting to refer to things and encourages the "scientific camp" in which I also identify myself to respond objectively to things and not automatically rule them out. I will try my best to answer my questions:

    Prof. Payne speaks with sense and coherence, yet in my opinion he makes some problematic assumptions and assertions in his harshness.

    My main criticism is that I find in these things a logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance" (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam). The esteemed professor claims that there are two possibilities for the universe, a "closed universe" subject to the control of natural laws only (which is acceptable to atheists according to him) and an "open universe" which maintains something spiritual beyond natural legality.
    After that, the esteemed professor states at least three things which supposedly cannot be explained using the laws of nature alone: ​​order in the universe, the free will of man and the very existence of science. In his words, he was hanged by high and distinguished figures such as Einstein, Popek, Hume and Kant.
    Before we touch on the claim that these really cannot be possible through a natural explanation, let's assume that this is indeed the case.
    Let's also assume that they do exist (ie there is order, free will and science). It follows that there is something that cannot exist in the "closed universe", meaning, there is no closed universe. OK.
    But, and this is the main point of failure - who said there are only two alternatives? Even if there is no "closed universe" this does not prove that there is an "open universe". The definition of an "open universe" is not "a universe that is not closed" (the complementary group), but is defined as a universe with a spiritual entity. And maybe there are other possibilities that go beyond Prof. Payne's imagination. Hence his dichotomous stubbornness stems from ignorance or the inability to imagine alternatives. This is a false argument.

    This is enough to negate the entire thesis, but here are a few more mistakes:

    Prof. begins the interview with somewhat puzzling terminology in which he claims that the existence of God cannot be proven, but it can be proven that the world could not develop without him. It is not clear what the meaning of "developing" is, but if the meaning is that reality cannot exist without God, then he formulated a proof of God's existence. It is not possible to hold the rope at both ends and have both an apologetic view (which claims to prove the existence of God rationally) and not.

    Prof. Paine assumes that there is free will. Indeed, this is one of the most difficult problems in philosophy, if not the most difficult. Rambam raised his hands from her and not only him. When the esteemed professor says that "every sane person" feels that there is a will, he is of course right, but sanity is not a measure of the matter. Sanity is just the accepted norm and in a world full of lunatics madness was sanity. Therefore, it does not mean that most of us believe that we have free will to ensure that this is indeed the case.

    Regarding the legality at the base of nature, that is the laws of nature, I already wrote to Nir that these laws may be but one variation of infinite variants of parallel universes or alternatively that all laws may all derive from a single and necessary law which may be completely mathematical (for example something based on pi or e).
    These are speculations of course, but there is something in them to entertain the wonder of the lawfulness of our universe.

    Prof. Payne repeatedly says about various things that "it is impossible to explain", by which he does not mean "it is impossible to explain at the moment" (we mean temporary or practical ignorance) but that "it will never be explainable". For such an overwhelming argument I expect a stronger reasoning than the ones he gave and if he believes that he will be respectful and explain (and maybe he does in his new book).

    I will also note that the professor is very much in favor of the possibility that there is something beyond nature, something spiritual and not subject to the laws of nature, but he does not give any information about it. What is that something? What does he know about him? To say that he is "not subject to the laws of nature" is a definition on the path of negation. I would like to know what positive characteristics Prof. Paine has to give us to that essence beyond nature.

    Also, it should be noted that in this spiritual essence, so to speak, there is nothing that connects it with the Jewish God, so it could easily also be the Holy Trinity, the Greek pantheon of gods, Brahma, or the Lord. There is no great consolation for the rabbis in this.

    I wonder if that spiritual essence has some other legality of its own given. If so, then it can be considered simply as another set of laws which can be added to the laws of nature, and you, the spiritual being of Prof. Payne does exist, but is subject to the (extended) laws of nature, like the rest of us.

    Given all this, I think the things are thought-provoking (and for that, blessed) but not sensational.
    And with that I will finish.

95. I wrote layman, not idiot, I meant that, meaning that his opinion is no more important than that of a mere person who has not studied physics. I did not invalidate the existence of the religious, of all religions, but that with these people their education (or the preaching they went through - those who converted) got the better of their minds.

96. Father, thank you for your response. However, if possible a factual response to his arguments and not a condescending one (the layman is out of place)
    I assume that he has a very broad scientific view, since he has dealt with the subject and with other scientists. The attitude of someone who does not want to deal with it is closed, limiting and does not strive for the truth!
    You ignore the fact that you can see many, additional and senior scientists (professors, doctors) who are religious (are they also lay people?).
    Aaron

97. What to do that he is in a negligible minority even among his fellow physicists? And besides, he deals in the field of laser physics, not in astrophysics or another field of physics that deals with millions of light years and billions of years in the past since the big bang. Therefore his opinion on the subject of God is the same for every layman.

98. http://rotter.net/forum/scoops1/21907.shtml
    Claim - a blow to heresy: a physicist claims that there is no explanation for the world - without God
    For your humble consideration

99. Where is Dos Meman's long response

100. withering,
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-309937

     Unless we continue with a "war of digs" on every sentence, which I am right to do if you allow it, I turn back to the essence. Below are my concise answers to a selection of your claims. Expansion notes at the bottom:

     —
     —
     —

     Is enlightenment a right for every opinion?
     Yes.

     Are there illegitimate views?
     No, there are only illegitimate acts.

     Can an expression of opinion be illegitimate?
     Yes, but only in special cases stipulated by law, which do not include opposition to a scientific approach or method.

     Can expressing an opinion be unwanted?
     Yes, but this is subject to subjective judgment.

     Is expressing an anti-scientific opinion undesirable?
     depends on the context. On a content site like "Hidan" that allocates a discussion platform for raising opinions, every reasoned and interesting opinion is welcome.

     What is undesirable in a discussion forum for raising ideas?
     Verbal violence.

     In conclusion,
     Expressing anti-scientific opinions is legitimate and in the context of a discussion platform for raising ideas such as the talkback system of the "Hidan" site, is even desirable (or at least neutral). On the other hand, violent and offensive text, even if it is backed up with accurate content, is not desirable in this context.

     —
     —
     —

     "It is implied from your words that intellectual enlightenment means giving a right to any opinion".
     —
     Right.
     In a liberal country, everyone has the right to hold any opinion they want.
     This also includes things that are difficult for the reasonable person to digest, such as: that evolution is a conspiracy of evil-seeking scientists, that God's voice is revealed at night and whispers that he is the messiah son of David, that Jews were not murdered in the extermination camps, or that it would be nice if someone reached out to the soul of a prime minister.
     This, as long as the opinion is kept in the heart of its owner.

     "If it is agreed that there are opinions (as well as actions and in general - behavior) that are illegitimate, either because they are not purely moral or whether they are accompanied by the potential to cause harm (for example, to steal a person's opinion through lies, to damage a person's good name by materially distorting his words to the extent Their exact opposite, etc.), then it is necessary to at least condemn them"
     —
     It is obvious that your conclusions stem from an inadvertent exchange of concepts with different meanings, hence the disproportionate ethical extremism, in my eyes. There is a difference between "opinion" and "deed". Also, there is a difference between what is "illegitimate", "immoral" and "reprehensible".

     "opinion" and "deed":
     "Opinion" is something that is in the possession of the individual, between him and himself (or his God). Society, at least the one in which we live, has no say about it and there is no room for sanction or external intervention.
     An "action" (which you also refer to as "behavior") is a voluntary or involuntary action that may (but does not have to) arise from an "opinion". Since this is the interaction of the individual with those around him, this is where society's action becomes relevant through the means of law, morality, legitimacy and sanction.
     From this it follows,
     that it is "actions" that may be immoral or illegitimate, while "opinion" is not something that has moral or legitimate value. There is no point in discussing its legitimacy, since it is inherently legitimate in a liberal state.

     I am well aware that these opinions of mine, which take a person's thought out of the realm of moral judgment, will not be acceptable to everyone (this is, if you will, the recursive application of my words in which I exercise my right to believe whatever I choose). Judaism, for example, already decrees in the Ten Commandments the prohibition of the thought "Thou shalt not covet", while in Catholicism they have increased the practice and many are the sins of thought worthy of shame, and atonement for iniquities. It should not be surprising that my opinion does not agree with religious morality, because my approach is essentially secular and holds that society cannot (at least not with contemporary technology) penetrate the innermost parts of a person's soul, and therefore it is an impenetrable space, whereas those who worship God examine their kidneys and heart and believe that the soul is also visible. If you do believe that thoughts may also be immoral or illegitimate, I find it interesting that there is also a similarity here with your religious haters.

     "Illegitimate" and "deplorable":
     The company imposes various sanctions on actions that harm the desired texture in the eyes of the crowd and the sovereign. Heavy sanctions are imposed on an act that crosses the line of "not doing it", i.e., that is "not legitimate". On the other hand, actions that may be legitimate but undesirable, in the possession of "kosher but smelly", are given lighter sanctions such as "condemnation".
     From this it follows,
     that "legitimacy" is a boundary line that roughly and dichotomously divides all actions into permitted and prohibited, while "deserving of reproach" is a type of social sanction that can be imposed on both prohibited and permitted acts that are undesirable.

     With your advice, we grandfather the concept of legitimacy. In order for us to be sure that we are talking in the same language, I will point out that for our purposes "lies", "plagiarism" and "deliberate deception" are all undesirable, however, if they were not done in specific situations established by law, for example during testimony in court, when receiving something fraudulently or misleading a client , after all, this is an unwanted but legal act and therefore, unfortunately, also legitimate.

     Expressing opinions, in writing or by email, is a basic right in a democratic country and only in exceptional cases that are considered incitement to a crime, may be considered illegitimate.

     According to the above, there is no moral problem with a person denying the theory of evolution in his mind. Moreover, since it is highly unlikely that an anti-scientific opinion would be a criminal offense, any expression of such an opinion is also legitimate.

     If we agreed that the expression of such opinions is legitimate, we can still claim that these are undesirable actions worthy of reproach, and it seems to me that this is actually what you intended. Desirable and undesirable are a subjective matter, and what is desirable to someone may not be desirable to the unknown. Do we want anti-scientific views to be expressed? It depends on the context of course.

     When the chief scientist of the Ministry of Education, Dr. Gabi Avital, denies and distorts accepted scientific theories, woe to the shame. He embarrasses himself, his office and all of us, and the Minister of Education did well to finally get rid of him.
     As you know, the discussion between us revolves around another and much less official context: the expression of anti-scientific opinions in the talkback system of the "Hidan" content site. The talkback system is essentially a discussion platform for users to raise their ideas according to the Web2.0 approach. This is where surfers share opinions. Therefore, precisely here, any reasoned and interesting opinion is indeed desirable, and if it is not interesting or acceptable to Man Dhu, he can simply ignore it and move on.

     What is not desirable in a discussion platform for raising ideas, like the talkback system of the "Yaden"?
     "Contents or links to talkbacks, which contain threatening, blatant, racist, or insulting nature, such as offend others, their privacy, are defamatory, contain pornographic material or are of a blatant sexual nature or may harm the public's feelings"
     (Taken from the "Terms of Use" page of the "Hidan" website).

101. Yes, Michael! I was aiming for you. This is my conspiratorial head working overtime.

     The scope of your activity here is large. Roughly speaking, the time you spend on us is equivalent to at least a full-time job, and I'm sorry to hear that you're not getting paid. Really, in all honesty, I'm sorry because I'm on your side in your righteous struggle.
     and being you only One of the readers, at least one reader's time is wasted here; But in that you saved the time of other readers, your sacrifice was not in vain and all I have left is to thank you.
     In addition, during the months that I visit here, thanks to you, I became aware of a lot of good material that I also transferred to my NATO circulation. For example, just this morning I downloaded several versions of Betty Edwards's book - Drawing On The Right Side Of The Brain (and only God knows when I will put myself in the thick of it, but I have already spread his message among my family members).

     Some address you as Michal or Mikael or just push you points and stars. I, like them, am also guilty of impatience. But if I decide to disrupt there, it is not out of a positive assessment of its subject. See from now on: if I am addressing someone here without mentioning their name, then it is you.

102. Nir
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-310542

     It is obvious that the meaning and significance of concepts such as 'explanation', 'understanding' and even telling the truth are very different between you and me. I adhere to the rules of the game of the scientific method according to which I carry out my research and make my discoveries about this world. I try to stick to the same rules even when I try to learn something about other things in my environment. The same lesson you referred to does not explain anything and does not teach anything according to the standards I see as a minimum requirement (not in terms of the content but in terms of the quality of rational thinking that is demonstrated in them). To know that these minimum standards are not met in the same lesson, it was enough to listen to the first five minutes (even though I watched twenty minutes as I mentioned earlier). What constitutes a serious explanation and consideration for you is simply not enough for me. Since the faith of Israel and the Jewish religion (especially in the "modern" version) is not very interesting to me, I will be content with those twenty minutes. If I decide one day that the topic does interest me, I promise to look at the other links you recommended. The only reason there is any reference to what Judaism has to say is when people (usually religious according to their testimony) bring the things as a relevant source regarding scientific issues. In such cases, the ignorance of the facts and the thinking failures of those commenters are easily revealed. I can tell you with full mouth and with great confidence that if religious people stop trying to sell their nonsense as if it has something to do with something scientific then people like M.R. And like me, we will not address the issue of religion at all in this context.

     Regarding the "miracle", I do not know how to explain everything in the world (this is a natural situation in scientific research, otherwise there would be no need to continue the research because everything was already clear and known) but at least it is clear to me that not knowing anything does not logically entail a certain arbitrary explanation (say for example that there is a flying piglet that runs the world). But there are some perplexities that do arise from the investigation, one is that you talk to the people who tell a story but do not present any qualified verification (for example from the attending physician). I don't know how such an investigation went, but in court it was not admissible. There are enough cases of crooks who performed "miracles" such as bringing back to life, curing cancer, healing paralyzed people in wheelchairs, but it turned out that no miracles happened there, but greed for money and lust for power and control, and people who cooperated with the crook. Another puzzlement that arises there is why the X-ray is free and not behind bars, because if he really knew that the vehicle was going to cause disaster for that person and did not do much more than he did to dissuade him from using the vehicle, then this is true criminal negligence. Maybe there will be someone who will argue in his defense that he did see the things but knew he couldn't do it, in that case, why was there any point in warning him in the first place? If there was any point in the warning, I believe he realized that his warning might affect the course of affairs and the expected results, and in such a case it is clear that he did not do everything in his power and as a result of this omission, people died in a terrible accident. This is criminal negligence and it's a shame they didn't prosecute him. As I wrote before, what you postulate is insufficient by the standards of scientific research. If you're fine with that, great, I won't bother you, nor will I send you to study things that I think have a basis in contrast to the things you send people to Kram. Science is available to everyone and I have no need to be a missionary of science as you are trying to be a missionary of religion (which is quite rude of you to do so on this site and shows exactly what your moral level is). If they ask me about science, I try to answer, and if they talk about nonsense that is clearly not scientific, I try to show the flaws in what is demonstrated by the same talker.

     Regarding section 2 in your response to M.R.
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-310559
     It is quite sad to see that there are people who hang the meaning of their lives on religion. It is truly shocking when those same people believe that only their particular religion can provide real meaning. I thank you very much, but if in your opinion the true meaning of life can only be obtained through a religion with questionable morals, whose treatment of women, those with different tendencies and foreigners is cruel and contrary to the basic morality of sane people, then I immediately give up this meaning. It is unfortunate to see how low the self-confidence of certain religious people is to the point that they are unable to find support in their lives and they measure with crutches without taking responsibility for their lives. If you chose this kind of life, that's your right, but I pity all those babies that religion captivates and degrades.

103. jubilee:
     I don't know who your comment is addressed to.
     If Eli - then I didn't really understand her.
     Nobody pays me for my time.
     I am one of the readers.
     Are you suggesting that my viewing the link wasted the readers' time?
     Are you saying that me trying to save them time watching crap is wasting their time?
     What exactly?

104. I hope someone pays you for your time, then it's not really wasted. The time that is wasted is the readers', but we make this sacrifice out of choice.

105. Nir:
     I decided to watch until the end and realized that nothing had changed.
     This time too my time was wasted.
     The only thing it did for me was to remind me of the song that children used to sing "I will fly and he... and Moishla Kangaroo..."
     And yes - he also talks about that stone (and to me - does not solve the problem).
     By the way, it is interesting that he did not pay attention at the end and says that "Blessed are you, Lord" does not mean "you" but "he" and thus gives the aspect "he" that nothing should be known about, an attribute (blessed).
     Oh well. After all, all this bickering is so pointless.

106. Nir:
     Those who sent me to study Gemara were, as mentioned, Zvi Inbal and Aryeh Sarbarnik and they probably thought this was the way to convince me.
     They were wrong, obviously, that's clear, but you were also wrong, when you sent me to watch a lecture in which nothing was said for 20 minutes.

     So laugh as much as you want.

     Although you think you're laughing at me, but when you calm down from laughing, you might think a little and if that happens, you'll realize that you're actually laughing at Zvi Inbal and Aryeh Srebarnik.

     I guess they'll laugh too when they hear what you asked me to see.

     I don't know but if you don't have anything serious to write here instead of sending me to suffer through a boring lecture then you are clearly deceiving yourself.

     As for the meaning of life:
     Unlike your life, my life has real meaning.
     You think that meaning is given to something only by an external factor and therefore you lie to yourself as if there is such an external factor.
     The meaning that my life has is the one that I personally give it and since the meaning that we determine is the only meaning that there is, the one whose life has no meaning is actually you.

107. Michael Shalom

     1. It sounds very strange to me that they sent you to study Gemara, what does it have to do with Gemara?!?! Gemara is a protocol of discussions and commentaries on the Mishnah, which is supposed to give rise to Halacha (that is, how the commandments are supposed to look).

     It's even more strange to me that as a person who gives the impression of being intelligent (according to your writing) it took half a year!!!!! Realizing that you are in the wrong course - hahahaha, believe me great entertainment 🙂

     Next, ask me, - the "courses" you need are: "Faith" and "Inner Torah" (this is not Kabbalah, nor Zohar).

     2. I have a serious problem with your last sentence: "pure waste of time",
     - Since you are an avowed atheist with a materialistic approach (I assume), you should be aware that in other words you are saying: "There is no meaning to my life, never was and never will be, and in 100 years from now no one will remember my name including my great-grandchildren" You don't have any meaning, you can be calm, you don't waste any time, if anything the other way around, if the right religion is the only thing that can give you meaning and not wasting time.

     good evening.

108. Nir:
     While I was in the army, I met Zvi Inbal and Aryeh Sarbarnik, who received an open door there to convey people's opinions.
     After I was not convinced by their words, they suggested that I go study Gemara with a certain person from Bnei Brak for a few months.
     Agreed.
     For six months I wasted three evenings a week on Rick.
     My whole ultra-Orthodox life sends me to study all kinds of things and I'm always aware that it's a pure waste of time.
     There is a limit to every trick.

109. For Michael, Kamila and in general:

     Last week, I explained for two hours to some ultra-Orthodox that the bang theory makes sense and is accepted by almost the entire world of science. The gentleman cross-examined me with good and correct questions and I added that mathematics is learned from a mathematician, and engineering is learned from an engineer and sewing is learned from a tailor. Three for learning the basics, even just the general idea, this will also indicate seriousness from my point of view, I even promised him that I would be ready to print material for him and bring it to his mouth. Needless to say, in the end he gave up while saying that it is a waste of time and it gives him nothing, and science is wrong and will always be wrong as it has been wrong in the past.
     A week passed, and God arranged for me to stand in front of the other side, in front of you, and was bombarded with questions about my point of view, and the logical problems I was presenting. , 3 people responded to the lesson I uploaded, all three didn't see it at the end, one was honest enough to say that he saw a few minutes (Erez) one tells me that she saw 20 minutes and asks me a question that he starts talking about at minute 14:30 (it's called "the rounding of corners ”, Kamila) and one is not willing to waste time on a lecture but uploads homework for me with 3 links that I will read (Michael).
     So I say to you like this: the wrongdoer in Momo is wrong! There is no difference between you and the ultra-Orthodox, you base your entire view "on what Judaism says", on what you learned in Torah lessons at elementary school and reading the simple verses of Genesis as they learned from the evolution through the opening song in the program "Hiyo Hiyo".

     I am here and now offering you an offer, and I am making it precise to save your precious time, do you want to know what the faith of Israel says on a philosophical level based on the scriptures?? Once and for all to know who or what we are praying to?? What do we believe? Who is our God? And I repeat again, this is all based on the scriptures - so that you don't say this rabbi invents a religion that is not Judaism.
     For those who are interested and have the leisure and the objectivity to listen, I recommend listening again to the lesson I posted (even though it is part of a whole course of 16 lessons and entering in the middle requires a lot of intelligence to understand the type of person who is lecturing and the topic), patience in life is an important thing because the subject of the lesson It comes in gradually and although it looks like it is stepping in place it is constantly moving forward and building another floor and another floor. You will understand the low importance of the beginning of the lesson (that you did not connect) at the end (for example: like a National Geographic program that is dedicated to finding intelligent extraterrestrial life but opens the first 10 minutes to explain what the big bang is in order to get background for the continuation, the time limit causes a lack of accurate information due to not expanding the topic And reducing it to 10 minutes, the smart viewer knows that in order to get more accurate information about the bang, he needs to watch a program that deals with the bang and not an introduction to another topic).
     In addition, it is mandatory, mandatory, mandatory, again, for those who want to know what the faith of Israel says, it is to study in depth Rabbi Kook's article "Yusorim from soups", it is not enough to read it, but to study it in depth (if there is a requirement, I can attach links to a short series of lessons on the subject).
     Here is a link to the article "Agonizing from broths" - Rabbi Kook.

     http://www.meirtv.co.il/site/view_comb_idx.asp?idx=48112

     I can say with full mouth and with great confidence that if and when you do this minimum (and it really is a minimum) 2 things will happen:
     1. You will no longer have any questions about what the faith of Israel is in the depth of things (which is intended for serious people with philosophical thinking and not for Aunt Frida from intelligence).
     2. Even if you don't support the move, you won't be able to contradict it - more than that, if you contradict it, I'm ready to change my mind like I do in every area of ​​my life.

     In another matter:

     Camila:

     I want your opinion on the matter - is it a miracle for you?? : , on the assumption that everything happened as filmed and that Channel 10 did a real investigation and did not receive an instruction from Nohi Dankner or anyone.. Your reference "proper" to the filmed
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH8VWbdH6dU

     Have a good week and happy holidays.

110. Nir:
     Right. I didn't watch until the end. I broke down after about 20 minutes.
     There is a limit to the amount of time I am willing to spend on a lecture that I feel I am not getting anything out of.

     If he ever gives a lecture about "how he came to his strange decision" I will be ready to listen to it (up to a certain limit - if I see that his considerations are illogical I will stop watching that too).
     In general, the trend is usually the opposite and there is an inverse correlation between intelligence and education level and faith.
     You are welcome to read the following links:

     http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

     http://www.nrg.co.il/online/55/ART1/748/479.html

     http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3480323,00.html

111. To Camila:

     You would have been spared the entire scroll you wrote if you had simply behaved thoroughly and not hastily and finished the lesson, I'm sure you wouldn't have had a single question from what you asked me, if you don't have time, that's fine, just don't tell us about your homework.

     Regarding the fine sense of humor: I don't know about you, but the fine things that I know, are created slowly, from food to wine and continue with connections between people and feelings in general.
     If you were expecting Ketorza's rants about Moroccans and Poles, I'm sorry to be the one holding a pin and bursting your imaginary comic bubble over your head.

     A little bit of flight, what are they asking of you??? 🙂

112. Michael Rothschild:

     Your very question about the stone indicates that you did not listen to the lesson in the link until the end and I doubt if even until the middle, the rabbi there presents the approach of Judaism in a very deep, expanded way, with quotes from the sources (as he always does [ you can also download the source file in a pdf file if you desires it as in all his lessons]), if you are really looking for the position of Judaism, you have the opportunity to do so now and all this in a pleasant and simple everyday language.

     Your quote:
     "In my eyes, the lecturer in the link you gave is indeed a nice and smart person who, in his very existence, illustrates the enormous waste that religion causes when it causes intelligent people to engage in nonsense and believe in it."

     This is one way of seeing things, a second way is to ask yourself the following question: How does a person who comes from a completely atheistic culture immigrate to Israel, obtains 3 academic degrees (sociology, arts, and something else, I don't remember) repents, studies dozens of Gemara books, Halacha, Breslav, Kook, Mishniyot, Torah, Midrashim, Maharal, Rambam, Ramban Chassidut and more, in addition to learning Hebrew he also learns Aramaic, in between it is enough to read almost every philosophy book published (in one of the lessons he testifies that he has the The largest library of "heresy" books in Israel, and he is ready for the competition - I believe him) is up to date with everything that happens in science (and in science classes he implores students and internet viewers to test him for his level of accuracy), don't you ask yourself, wait... if the man This one grew a beard, it could be me too... maybe to give him a chance, maybe after all they are right or at least not wrong (because after all it always ends in philosophy)
     I can testify for myself that I have seen hundreds of his lessons, and I have never been able to contradict him, there are things I did not agree with his approach (mostly in philosophy) but he never gave wrong information. Unlike many rabbis (unfortunately for the majority) who circle corners, scatter from topic to topic in their lectures, and rather talk to an aunt from a room or a fence who doesn't know too much about the difference between a star and a galaxy) that's why I left them a long time ago.
     And since I am in love with him, I will add that I met him not long ago (in Jerusalem) and asked him if he would like to come and give a lesson here in the central area, that I can arrange for some people to come, he replied happily, when I asked him how it was going financially, he told me that as far as he was concerned, he was late And he doesn't own a car, if they come to take him it shouldn't cost anything. I wish for you and me. No financial interest.

     Birch cedar:

     I would be very happy if you read my words about the rabbi that I wrote to Michael, I am sure that if you give him a chance (until the end) you will have no more questions about the position of Judaism (whether you agree or not), even though I am a little "sinful" here that I am introducing you to lesson number 16 in the series without you getting the whole "movement", and without learning some of the basics of Rabbi Kook, such as his famous article "Agonizing from broths". Anyway, I promise you it won't be a waste of your valuable time.

     As for Baruch Spinoza, I really do not adopt his approach. And it is even very far from what I believe in.
     Since I am not a person of writing, and writing of very deep ideas on such a complicated subject as faith, I will once again refer you to the above lesson and there you will receive a clear answer to what my intention was (at least partially).

     A final question (addressed in general to anyone who does not believe):

     This God you don't believe in, I would be happy if you could describe him to me, what exactly do you not believe in. (Please if you could focus only on what you don't believe and not what you do believe).

     have a nice week.

113. Nir,
     When you say: "And this is exactly the meaning of idolatry - I and the Creator are strangers, in Judaism it is exactly the opposite, I and the Creator are one - Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one [Ehad from the word Ekhodot]), do you mean that you are part of the same concept that you call 'Creator ', because if you were exactly the same, absolute identity, then there is a problem - because both your friend and the Creator are the same, and the Christian priest and the Creator are the same, and the pig and the Creator are the same, and the stone in the yard and the Creator are the same and also a grain from the same stone And the Creator are the same thing and so on and so forth, and to summarize then everything, small or big, whole or partial, is the same thing. There are some problems here: if everything you can think of is the same as the Creator, then there is no one Creator, there are infinite creators, are you okay with that? Another problem is that although all the members of this group are the same, how are they still different? Therefore, I assume you meant to say that you are a part/component of the concept you call 'Creator', and thus everything else in the world, is also a part of the same concept. If that's what you meant, then it's really puzzling, because then the identity is between the world and that concept, and here several other problems arise, such as: if there is identity between things, then why do we even need the concept? After all, this is just duplicity, there is the world (which is what it is even without calling it by other and unnecessary names) and there is a clear and proven way to learn something about this world and that is the scientific way (and as evidence the technology that is based on this knowledge). Another problem regarding this identity between the world and the concept of a creator is the fact that, nevertheless, the Jewish religion claims in the same breath that this identity does not actually exist and certainly did not exist in the past before the creation stories. So decide, either there is identity and then it is impossible to claim in the same breath that the things are not the same, or there is no identity and then at least be decent and give up your claim as if the identity exists (the other option is of course that you give up the laws of logic and then there is no problem at all but if you choose this option then I wish Have a good day and I'll turn to other things because I have no interest in talking to crazy people.

     You wrote: "What is a miracle? Doesn't the fact that the statistics came out in our favor mean something." – Is this a miracle for you? The occurrence of an event whose probability seems incredibly low? Is winning the lottery a miracle? Not yet? Will a double lottery win already be considered a miracle? Can you name a certain threshold of probability beyond which we can say that a miracle has occurred? Or maybe it is enough if the Rebbe said?

     So I started watching the video (since I was a child I make sure to do my homework) and yes, it's just another religious one full of basic mistakes. I listened to your advice and listened only to the voice, I ignored the beard and the cap, and see it's a miracle, you can't miss the fact that he is religious who teaches a religious lesson full of holes and errors in everything related to the facts we know about this world. Being Russian, I noticed by the accent, I did not find the excellent sense of humor (I admit that I stopped listening after about twenty minutes, after all, I don't have much time to waste. The superlatives you gave him intrigued me, so I searched a bit and this is what I found (I did not check the truth of the things):

     Graduated from the University of Nationalism in Kishinev, master's degree

     In XNUMX he immigrated to Israel and studied at the 'Beit-El' yeshiva for about ten years

     PhD in Sociology and Teaching at Tel Aviv Art University
     For about ten years he has been teaching at the Meir Institute, initially in the department for Russian speakers and then in the Israeli department in the Faith class.

     He also teaches at 'Beit Orot', the 'Quarte Midrash' and more

     Sorry, I was not impressed, mainly based on his knowledge of the facts (on subjects not related to religion) and according to his way of thinking as expressed during the lesson. If that's what you'd call a first-class philosopher, then I conclude that we're probably not sitting in the same hall.

114. anonymous user,
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-310444

     Unfortunately I have to agree with your observation.
     But these are not the faces of all those involved in science, there are also other scientists, who are much more attentive and humble about the limits of their knowledge.

115. Nir,
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-310425

     I am also happy for the opportunity to talk and get to know another perspective.
     As for the conversation between us being "friendly, serious and not cynical", this is my starting point for this kind of conversation, and it can be said that this exhausts my approach in the discussion I am having with the surfer "Kamila Last" on top of this page.

     As for your interpretation of God,
     I find it different in your last comment than the one that preceded it when you talked about finitude versus infinity, but if this is your intention, so be it. Am I to understand from this that you accept Baruch Spinoza's pantheism approach, and create an identity between the universe and God, in a way that every detail in reality is a detail from the divine essence? If so, then many identify this with heresy and correation of atheism.

     The argument that our very existence here as intelligent beings affects the universe being hospitable to the existence of life, out of the multitude of alternative universes that could exist, is called the anthropic argument. There are different uses that can be made of this argument, and even different interpretations of the very argument itself. One of the claims arising from the anthropic argument holds that since only intelligent beings can give their opinion on the universe in which they live, inhospitable habitats simply would not allow observation of them. So that there is no wonder that we live in a universe that allows the formation of intelligent life and the supposedly miraculous state of affairs in the universe.

     As for the link you provided,
     I listened to him for a few minutes and then stopped. As a rule, I don't usually watch links to long lectures that are sent to me. This is not due to laziness or, God forbid, disdain, this is the order of the hour in our time, which is characterized by a flood of information on the one hand and a lack of time on the other. I would appreciate it if you could summarize the main points you wanted to convey from Rabbi Fairman.

     More on pantheism:
     http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A4%D7%A0%D7%AA%D7%90%D7%99%D7%96%D7%9D

     More about the anthropic principle (in English):
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

116. Nir:
     In my opinion, the lecturer in the link you gave is indeed a nice and smart person who, in his very existence, illustrates the enormous waste that religion causes when it causes intelligent people to engage in nonsense and believe in it.
     By the way - in relation to the question about the stone - I don't know why people don't simply answer that an omnipotent being - omnipotent and one of his abilities is to stop being omnipotent and one of the ways to stop being omnipotent is to bet such a stone.

     Birch cedar and my father:
     Regarding Erez Livna's response to my father - I agree with the claim that science does not need the assumption that there is no God, but I must point out that in general - this is a good assumption - not as an axiom from which conclusions can be drawn - but in terms of creating the motivation for research, since God is simply the God of gaps (and it appears Prominently from the words of the rabbi in the link) and the belief in its existence loosens the hands of those looking for natural explanations.

     This is somewhat related to the fact that I disagree with Erez in relation to aesthetics and ethics (also in relation to politics, but this has never interested me and therefore I have no written material that I can point to in this regard).
     The connection to the god of the gaps is in the idea of ​​the decision to exclude certain things from the field of science (an idea that is somewhat similar to the idea of ​​the god of the gaps) instead of trying to treat them within the framework of science and see what happens.
     I definitely think that science has something to say in these areas and to clarify my intention - I refer you, regarding aesthetics - to this article:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/meta-beuty-2911082/

     And regarding morality, to this article and the comments I wrote after it:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/the-science-of-good-and-evil-0704115/

117. Could it be that science itself is a religion, sometimes it is difficult to understand the fanaticism of some of the commenters, indeed God is not part of the game and is supernatural that some people believe is natural, what does that bother.

     I've read the hundreds of comments here and I'm not convinced that science has solved the question of origin and it's all guesses and theories based on the situation today (in Hebrew it's called faith) and I'm convinced that the scientists here are fanatics in their faith and have a hard time with different opinions just like those religious people who don't get along with those scientists.

     There is no doubt that if Prof. Shechtman, winner of the Nobel Prize, had been with one of the scientists here, he would have been banned to this day.

118. Avi,

     With great respect, I will disagree with the validity of your words, when you said: "Scientists are trying to understand how the world works on the reasonable assumption that there is no God." I do not believe this to be the case. We do not need such an assumption in order to carry out science as such.

     It tells of a witty meeting between the French mathematician and astronomer Pierre-Simon Laplace and Napoleon. Napoleon pointed out to him that in his thick treatise on the calculation of the movement of the planets in the solar system, the name of God is not mentioned even once. To this Laplace replied to him with wonderful fierceness, "I didn't need this hypothesis".
     My opinion is the opinion of Lapels. We do not need the hypothesis of God's existence to perform our calculations, nor do we need the hypothesis of his non-existence to perform them.

     The assumption of the non-existence of a supernatural force goes beyond the scope of science (as well as matters in the field of ethics, aesthetics and politics), since science by its very definition deals with the natural, while divine power, by its very definition, is supernatural. However, while science can remain indifferent to the question of the existence of God, it can certainly debate (and in most cases decide) religious interpretations that claim different arguments about our world such as the nature of things, their beginnings and their aftermath.

     Moreover, such an assumption weakens the validity of science, if we rely on the principle of Ockham's razor (which holds that the validity of a theory is inversely proportional to the number of assumptions it derives) because the assumption that God does not exist is an assumption for everything, like the assumption that God does exist.

     We know many science and math giants believed in some kind of higher power.
     As long as they did not need the intervention of this force in their field of expertise, I do not see this as a flaw in their contribution to humanity.

     More on the principle of "Ockham's razor" (I'm sure you know it, father, it's for those who are interested in the extension):
     http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95_%D7%A9%D7%9C_%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%90%D7%9D

119. Father, you are absolutely right!!

     Therefore, so that you listen to yourself, and watch the lesson, then you will know the man and not guess him.

     Will check later.. 🙂

120. They say a good sense of humor, but as you know, a sense of humor is not a substitute for real scientific knowledge and it may not bring back repentance from the line, but a pan is a pan, and its whole purpose is to prove that there is a God while the scientists try to understand how the world works under the reasonable assumption that there is not God.

121. Birch cedar
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-309018

     A little late, but that's also something..

     First of all I'm glad I was able to make you laugh with the mullet, believe me I laughed too writing that 🙂

     And beyond that, I'm happy that the conversation is being conducted in a friendly and serious manner and not cynical.

     Now to the point:

     After years of debates with religious and secular people when I stand on both sides of the matras I can say with a full mouth that debates about "does God exist or not" is a matter of attitude.

     Example: A person is terminally ill with zero chance of recovery, turns to the Creator of the world for the first time in his life and tells him "If I get well, I am ready to repent completely before you" - let's say and the person is saved, he goes to the doctor, and the doctor tells him "What happened to you is a rare thing , cell x talked to cell y, photosynthesis took place (humorously yes) and that's why you were saved, these things are rare, but sometimes they happen", an hour after that he goes to the rabbi and the rabbi tells him "God heard your prayer, it's a miracle!! ".
     This is where the dog is buried, because it is impossible to determine whether it is a miracle or a statistic because it is the same thing. The question is - did something happen here anyway?? Now imagine that you know such a story intimately.
     I know, in another variation, my sister is named after my mother's grandmother, after during my mother's pregnancy she never stopped dreaming about her and demanding that the girl be named after her. Years after my sister was born we found out by chance that my sister shares the exact same!!! Same date of birth as the same grandmother only 100 years difference. A case?! It could be.. but it could also be the Creator's way of talking to us, just like that through life, you just have to look and not dismiss prejudices.

     If you compared me to Descartes, it means either you misunderstood me or I didn't explain myself correctly or both.
     Descartes said that if there is a thought in him, it means that God planted it there, which means that Descartes distinguished between God and himself (and this is precisely the meaning of idolatry - I and the Creator are strangers, in Judaism it is precisely the opposite. one of the singular language]), and I'm not talking at all about the logical fallacy in Descartes's case.
     I say that I myself am the manifestation of God in the world. Everything is the revelation of God in the world, God is everything on the one hand and on the other hand he is not and that is why there is freedom of choice.... Complicated?? I don't really have a good example:
     Once upon a time (according to the bang theory) everything was in one point, and everything was one, all matter in reality was concentrated in one point, but at the moment of the bang, the matter went from a state of concentration in one point with certain characteristics to a completely different state with other characteristics. And I very much agree with what you say that the world today is one of the options out of countless options parallel to the world, the question is whether those options give birth to stars, laws and the end of life or give birth to death and absence. I know that the news is smooth in this matter, in any case it connects to the way in which I opened the words of "What is a miracle?" Doesn't the fact that the statistics came out in our favor mean something?

     "Can a creator create a stone that he cannot lift? ” - I strongly recommend you to watch Rabbi Reuven Fairman's class - on this very topic. In a framed article I will point out that I know what you are thinking, 'another rabbi full of basic mistakes who will try to brainwash me', I will only respond - if you ignore the beard and the cap you will not know at all that he is a rabbi, the man is educated, has 3 academic degrees, a university lecturer, a philosopher From the first class in Israel, a Russian, with an accent and a keen sense of homer. No more "repentant" rabbi from the ranks as you know.

     http://www.meirtv.co.il/site/content_idx.asp?idx=47843&cat_id=3814

     Happy holiday !

122. Joel:
     I've given up on you and I won't argue with you anymore because I don't see you as a worthy friend.
     In my opinion, you don't understand because you don't want to understand, but at least we agree that there's no point in arguing.

123. Michael
     If you insist, then please.

     "One option
     (1) Mr. Almoni punched Mrs. Plamoni, she fell to the ground, continued to hit her and did what he wanted.

     (2) Mr. Almuni did not hit Mrs. Palamoni but showed her the butcher's knife he brought with him and indicated that if she did not submit to him he would hurt her. Mrs. Flamoni barked, fearing for her life and Mr. Anonymous did what he wanted.

     (3) It is rape.”

     See element number two in the definition of rape in this case: threat, Mr. Rothschild, threat.
     And what is written next? "It's rape." This is not a reading comprehension problem. This is already a reading problem.

     Yes, below are other examples of opportunism.
     If you don't understand the difference between submission to a dangerous threat and opportunism, there is indeed a problem.

     Like I said: embarrassing, and not for the first time.

     Your claim at the end, regarding the party that according to you saved the country, to justify political opportunism is simply pathetic. Even they, Mapai/Merach and Likud, never claimed this - but you do. They clearly and explicitly preferred one thing to another; Who spoke about saving the country in this context? Where did you get it from? The leading parties included the ultra-orthodox in their coalition to enable them to rule more easily against their main competitors.

     And a small note: being a pedagogue and an editor is ethically flawed.

124. Eric,
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-309909

     The bad insult of "Rabbi Zamir" is well known to me and unfortunately there are many buyers of his nonsense, including people I know personally. I think it is important to denounce the things as nonsense and invite those who want to hear to get a clearer perspective.
     On the other hand, I see no point in entering into a dialogue, and certainly not an angry dialogue, with those who "have no real interest in dialogue". It is unnecessary and unfortunate when the intelligent chooses to descend to the level of the fool for no good reason. Moreover, it has already been said that "to be angry is to punish yourself for the stupidity of others".
     The exception to this in my view is when it is a public discussion with wide exposure. So the answer is not really aimed at the interlocutor but at the viewers/listeners/readers. Whoever takes on the considerable responsibility of representing a camp\public\ideology\Torah, should be very knowledgeable, very eloquent and also sound and calm in his conduct. Otherwise he will embarrass himself and the public in whose name he speaks.

     I have great respect for Roy Cezana, whom I know personally.
     The breadth of his knowledge and his talent for writing are exceptional and his contribution to making science accessible to the general public deserves all praise.

125. cedar
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-309513

     You wrote: "The exchange between us revolved around the degree of legitimacy of certain opinions and how one should behave towards those who are not sufficiently legitimate. This is not a discussion that deals with me and you but with the gap between two approaches, and as such, it is certainly relevant to our case how a website, company, country will be conducted according to the (in)tolerance codes you propose."

     I have already answered the degree of legitimacy of certain opinions and I do not feel the need to expand. On the (general) manner in which one should act in my opinion who is not ready to play by the rules, I actually hinted quite thickly in previous comments, but I refused and I still refuse to say how I would act if I had the power. I did say and I also showed what I think should be done in the face of such conduct, when the tools at my disposal are the tools available to every other commenter on this website, readable - correcting mistakes and setting things straight at the beginning, and condemning becomes more and more severe when it turns out that it is not just a person who is ignorant or Difficulty understanding. This way of responding is, in my opinion, infinitely more interesting than what site administrators and editors should or should not do, because I prefer "community policing" to be carried out by all responders for whom the rules of the game, including fairness, are important. I can understand your desire to go deeper in this direction also on a philosophical level, but it is less interesting to me, as I have already mentioned several times. As a pragmatist, the direction you are heading is futile. In subjects that are not completely scientific, I live in peace with solutions that even if they are not perfect in all cases, they are useful and achieve their purpose. You don't like it? your right I'm sure there are many places that would be happy to discuss this topic.

     You wrote: "Kant in the famous categorical order proposed a simple method for examining the morality of actions. What would a world look like in which everyone behaved this way and would you like to live in such a world?"

     I already answered you with my statement that I would always prefer commenters like M.R. For example, even if their style is sometimes blunt (and generally sweeping according to what I've read so far - rightly so) the content of their words is invaluable for those who want to receive accurate and rational information, in any field and on any topic it touches on. Surely I would prefer commenters like him over all those who invent their own rules of the game even if they wrap their dirty wares with politeness and nice words. So yes, I am certainly willing to live in a world where the people who play by the rules condemn those who don't, I would also be happy to have the authority to act against those people in exceptional cases (just as the police have the authority to act against criminals for example) of course while trying to maintain a balance between the will To preserve basic rights (such as freedom of speech) and between the need to protect the company when these basic values ​​are abused to the point of harming other individuals in that company. Of course, this automatically means that I accept these rules, which means that I may encounter the last Camila + one who will be especially dogged towards me if I insist on not playing by the rules of the game that I mentioned in the previous comments. It's not just that I humbly accept it, I'm really interested in it, in fact peer review before publishing articles is an excellent way to get such feedback, sometimes it's cruel, sometimes it's not even justified (it happens from time to time), but usually it just improves The science I do, it reveals blind spots and flaws in the way of thinking. If my article is published with a gross error (not because of knowledge that was lacking at the time but because of negligence in the scientific work) that article will be a stain for me, the size of which is proportional to the importance of the newspaper in which it was published.

     You wrote: "Without further clarification from you, I am left to assume that through your apparent intellectual enlightenment, a thought police will emerge that is better placed in the Middle Ages or dark regimes. So ironic, when this comes up in the name of a spokeswoman in the name of progress."

     It comes from your fevered mind. It is implied from your words that intellectual enlightenment means giving a right to any opinion. A. This contradicts your previous agreement in principle regarding my definition of what things are legitimate and what are not. B. If it is agreed that there are opinions (as well as actions and in general - behavior) that are illegitimate, either because they are purely immoral or whether there is the potential to cause harm (for example, to steal a person's opinion through lies, to damage a person's good name by materially distorting his words to the point of reversing them Literally, etc.), then it is necessary to at least condemn them. They should be strongly condemned when it is not a one-time act done in good faith. If we don't do this we will soon find ourselves surrounded by immoral people who use the rules of the game to their advantage while they are not obligated to the significant respect of obeying them. Sound familiar to you? A few more years of such "enlightenment" and we are lost. We are lost in the meaning of life within the rules of the game thanks to which and within which science works. Notice what you did, you invented a scarecrow and attacked it. Are you really ready to accept any form of expression? What would you do, for example, against someone who claims that you have no right to exist and will try to harm you, your home, your children and claim that he is doing it for your benefit? What will you do after that person persists in expressing his opinions even after your repeated attempts to politely explain to him that he is wrong? What will you do when that person accumulates over time a group of fans who now express themselves in the same way, all based on lies and distortion of reality? Will you wait until they do real deeds before you take action to condemn that person? Would it not be correct to condemn that person near the beginning of his words, when his illegitimate positions were clearly presented? I purposely present an extreme scenario in many of the comments on this site, to understand if there is a situation where you too would agree that it is necessary to defend against illegitimate opinions. Note, if there are illegitimate opinions that you believe should be acted against, then you are in favor of a thought police whose place is better in the Middle Ages or dark regimes, so think carefully before you answer and ask yourself on that occasion why you wrote me this sentence.

     I don't understand what your confusion is about the concept of "rules of the game" and what is the difference between them and a game. When talking about the democratic rules of the game, do you mean the table game "monopoly democracy"? Is this another scarecrow you made? Laws/rules of the game is a central concept in the branching of this discussion, therefore it will not be surprising that it is used several times. It was as if you objected to the fact that the concept of mutation or natural selection was often used in the discussion of evolution. To me, this concept is full of meaning, unlike you, I believe that most readers understand very well what I meant, I also think that the intelligent reader who does not know the concept itself from widespread usage elsewhere, can understand its meaning from the context of the other things I wrote. If you did not understand, neither its content nor its relevance to the discussion, then it is a misunderstanding that lies with you and not with me, and perhaps it would have been more correct on your part to try to understand the same concept through direct and simple clarification questions instead of creating a stupid scarecrow. Ask yourself why you didn't.

     In contrast to "normal" games in which you can enact any set of rules and play within them, in the "game" of trying to understand and say something meaningful about the phenomena we experience in our world, and especially when this understanding is confirmed by deriving appropriate technology, I do not know the rules of the game Others besides the scientific method even come close to allowing such a level of understanding. By virtue of the fact that this site has been improved for scientific topics, the rules of the game are defined by its very being. The rules are even stated from time to time by several writers and commenters who deal with science on a daily basis and know something about these rules. You are again trying to bring the discussion back to the apparent legitimacy of opinions and arguments that are not legitimate even in your eyes (are you retracting your previous agreement of the definition I defined?). Obviously, those who play by other game rules will not want to easily abandon their game rules, so what? A person can claim for the rest of his life that aliens abducted him for a month and abused him and removed his tissues, etc., but if there is no evidence of this and even if there is evidence that contradicts his story, then it doesn't really matter to me how convinced that person is that his story actually happened. It just doesn't add any real knowledge to me about this world (except maybe about the nature of human hallucinations and even that is questionable). If such a person tries to bring these opinions here, they are clearly not in line with the prerequisites of the discussion on the issues that this site claims to represent (even if there are no explicit and detailed definitions for this on the main page of the site). There is no way to bridge the approaches because the meaning of "expanding" the other approaches is the acceptance of arguments that are not rational, that are not supported by facts, that rely on lies or logical errors, etc. Maybe for you it's fine, but I don't think this is the intention of the site administrators (ask them, I really don't know for sure) and I also don't think it's the desire of the readers of this site. In fact, I think it is likely that most of the readers here, certainly those who are interested in science, are actually interested in holding a discussion as close as possible to the scientific framework. For this reason, for example, many commenters use valid logical arguments, rely on facts, mention familiar theories. Of course, in the absence of in-depth professional knowledge (including me, of course) and in the absence of the ability to actually conduct experiments and test hypotheses scientifically, the discussion cannot take place within the strict framework of the scientific method, but there is no doubt that the orientation is in this direction. Science is not a democracy. Finding an "equal valley" means compromising on fundamental fundamentals of the rules of the game (such as being based on valid logical arguments or on real facts), honestly, I don't see how such a compromise helps anyone even if it might bring hearts together in your opinion (I don't think so). If the scientific method is difficult for you (it clearly does not provide answers to all questions) you may always go to any other website that would be happy to discuss, under different rules of the game, alien invasion of the earth, amulets and spells for finding spouses and why Judaism is the only correct religion. No one is stopping you, but why on earth do you want these kinds of discussions to take place here? Maybe ask the other readers if this is what they want? Not that it should affect what the site administrators will actually do (because that is their right), but you might be surprised to find out that the vast majority of readers here are actually not interested in the kind of discussion culture you suggest. Why do you assume they think like you?

     6. You wrote: "Know that this is a double-edged sword, and in your attempts to expose others, you are also exposed. Your responses indicate your character, your temperament, the breadth of your heart and the breadth of your horizons."

     As mentioned, I am subject to the same rules of the game. I have no problem being "stabbed" in the same way if I behave in a way that is not legitimate (were valid logical arguments, tried and true facts or famous oil. By the way, I don't really understand why you present these rules of the game as if they were some delusional whim of one Camilla).

     You wrote: "It should not be surprising that you don't want to associate all of this with your real name, which you choose to humble and separate from your words, so that it will not be tainted by revelations of this kind... As for the principle of respect and the apparent lack of connection between your anonymity and your blatant style, or that in your words you are condescending, or that you do not understand the aforementioned principle, or Both together."

     The only respect in the context of the quality of things in the framework of data game rules is the very ability to say sensible things while maintaining those rules. The person's name, profession, age, gender, religion has nothing to do with the quality of his words in the context of discussions on scientific issues. Even a simple worker or a manicurist will be appreciated in my eyes as long as they manage to contribute an interesting statement that does not deviate from the rules of the game. M.R. I appreciate not because of his name but because of the content of his comments and articles, and as proof of this, I didn't bother to check if he really exists in reality under that name. The use of the real name may indeed constitute a serious burden for other reasons unrelated to the quality of the content. I don't know why it is so important for you to confuse the two things. Since more than once I had the opportunity to talk at length with Amots Zahavi about the principle of respect, you can rest assured that I understand him well and if you have any questions on the subject I will be happy to answer you to the best of my ability.

     7. You wrote: "What is going on here is not science but the market." Who shouts louder at whom.
     To teach others science is what you are asking for, but do you remember yourself?"

     If you managed to completely miss everything related to the content in the exchange of comments here I have nothing to say to you. Not only do you choose to focus on style and make it more important than the content of things, but it seems that in your eyes style is the appearance of everything. In my opinion, I already explained at excessive length why I think differently and that's enough for me.

126. People literally come here to misrepresent and lie.
     There were times when it was quite an epidemic but blatant reactions curbed it in the end and right now it's just a trickle.
     A lie is not only saying something that you know is not true, but also presenting something that you don't know as something that you know with confidence.
     It is not difficult to find out when a person is lying but there are those who are not ready to do so.
     They prefer to fight the one who exposes the lies instead of the liars.
     Of course, in their righteous behavior they encourage the lie, but apparently Christianity is more important to them.
     If they really believed what they were saying, they wouldn't try to whitewash the face of those who expose the lies (after all, they didn't come to lie either and there is no need to preach morals to them and condescend to them) but they don't really believe it and that's why they do act like that.

127. Happy holiday by the way.. 🙂

128. Erez

     I am sure that like me there are some others who think like you that the way is in any case:- (even when Man Dhu blatantly comes to distort and lie) - that "there is no need to convince him. At most, it is possible to give the appearance of a matter-of-fact place to the refuting things and then dismiss it with cool disregard."
     In a previous response, I at least mentionedRoey Tsezana as one example that the blatant emotions can be spared..

     The point is that in your words: "I don't think that any of the speakers in the discussion created under this article, came to "Yaden" with the aim of spreading propaganda, misrepresenting or lying with malicious intent and deception" there is a certain degree of naivety. Of course, this does not concern how one should respond to the matter, but there are certainly people who feel a patronizing need to 'instill' their orthodox way of thinking, using cheap rhetorical manipulations and nothing else.
     Maybe you haven't noticed, but we live in a country of people like Zamir Cohen who have no real understanding of the issues they are talking about, and many other 'good students' like him who have no real interest in dialogue... and some of them regularly bother to respond here and elsewhere to every column that It seems to them.
     An example of demagoguery:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/reverse-evolution-in-the-threespine-stickleback-fish-3105085/#comment-54992
     If you really look at the chain of reactions between Roy and the troll on duty, you will find that apart from an attempt to scatter gravel, there was no real attempt at dialogue, it seems that Roy's reactions were aimed at this elegantly. (Happily for you, not too bluntly, although assertively...).

129. Eric,

     I don't know if you've been following the exchange between me and Camila from the beginning (in fact, it started about 5 months ago on the "Davidson Online" website). In order to get the most out of the things, you should read them in the context in which they were said. This is true, for example, regarding the reference to the "rules of the game" that came up extensively during the conversation.

     The discussion between me and Kamila is a principled discussion that divides the "science camp" (meaning us, who see eye to eye regarding what is science and what is evolution) on something that, at least for me, is much more than "style". If it was limited to Camila, "Yaden" or even just the debates for and against evolution, I probably wouldn't give my opinion on it.
     But it does not end there.
     My interlocutor explains in long and reasoned responses when it is possible and appropriate to hurt others. It might be worth taking a step back and getting a perspective on what we're talking about here, since it's a topic that has implications far beyond a meta-scientific conversation about accepting the theory of evolution. You can take these reasons for intolerance and use them to justify a long series of injustices against the different other in various other contexts.

     Harming others in the name of intellectual superiority has nothing to do with science. As someone who devoted a significant part of his adult life to scientific work, I see this as a desecration of a beautiful human institution dedicated to the progress and well-being of the human race, in behavior that in my eyes is no less than bullying.

     You are of course right about the righteous tone.
     However, in discussions about ethics, that is, what is the right way to behave, when everyone brings their own justice to the table, it is difficult to avoid a "righteous tone".

     There will certainly be those who will see this as amazing innocence on my part, but I do not think that any of the speakers in the discussion created under this article, came to "Yaden" with the aim of spreading propaganda, misrepresenting or lying with malicious intent and deception. Beyond the fact that it sounds conspiratorial to the point of improbability, it is also simply ineffective, one can think how many souls can be "corrupted" here. I do believe that there are those who believe in wrong information or in an interpretation of that knowledge, and that sometimes they are very persistent about their mistake since it is in line with their set of beliefs.
     But it doesn't really matter what I believe. They may have come to lie and deceive. Maybe not. Let's examine rationally (and not emotionally) what the reasonable response is in each situation:
     If Man Dehu came to the "Hidan" website when his whole intention is to misrepresent and lie, then this is a very interesting situation. That person knows that he is lying, that is, he knows that he is wrong and misleading and that the words of those who support science are the right ones. Therefore there is no need to convince him. At most it is possible to give the appearance of a matter-of-fact place to the refuting things and then dismiss it with cool disregard. Moreover, not only is there no point in discussing things with him, it is even harmful since any further conversation with a liar only gives him a platform to continue lying. I already discussed the paradox of dubbing someone who speaks illegitimately (whatever the definition of illegitimacy is) in my conversation with Camila (point no. 6).
     If Man Dehu came to the "Hidaan" site who genuinely thinks that the sun revolves around the earth, that flies are born from rotten meat or that humans are not the reincarnation of an ancient ape, then this is a completely different story. Ignorance or mental weakness is indeed not a desirable trait, but it is not a sin, and in my eyes it is no different from physical weakness. You can explain to that person the accepted scientific answer and try to enlighten his eyes, and you can also leave him in his unfortunate ignorance. But there is no logical or moral reason to whiten his face in public.
     Therefore, I will argue that the verbal violence we witness here and in other forums, not only is not morally justified, it also has no rational basis, and relies on intolerance of others and emotions masquerading as science and progress.

     Happy holiday,
     cedar

130. Birch cedar
     You're just being smart.. Proper 'rules of the game' according to Camila (as far as I understood it) are rules of the game of basic fairness during a discussion and nothing more..
     When, for example, a commenter brings a certain article to his side, and distorts its meaning in order to create a false representation, Kamila will say: As a person who comes from the field of 'extension', there will be a completely objective response, since to an outsider this is an indication of a violation of the 'rules of the game' in the sense of purely 'throwing sand' And you didn't bring relevant quotes..

     I personally think that even in such a situation there is an elegant and civilized way, she will still say that in such circumstances this is the way..
     Your tone is quite self-righteous, certainly when I or you or anyone else makes a comment that presents false and distorted 'knowledge' whose entire purpose is cheap propaganda and nothing, it is indeed against the 'rules of the game' or however you define it..

131. withering,
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-309001

     5. "I do not see the opinions regarding the correct conduct regarding illegitimate comments as a source of controversy.. I do not see the need to detail my opinions beyond what arises from the comments and beyond what I have already explained in the discussion here. I have no interest in a principled discussion of what I would do if I belonged to the site's team and if I had censoring abilities/powers"
     —
     Isn't it a wonder? The bone of contention has also become a bone of contention.
     On the contrary, Camilla, the exchange between us revolved around the degree of legitimacy of certain opinions and how one should behave with those who are not legitimate enough. This is not a discussion about me and you but about the gap between two approaches, and as such, it is certainly relevant to our case how a website, company, country will operate according to the (intolerance) codes you propose. Kant in the famous Categorical Order proposed a simple method for examining the morality of actions. What would a world look like where everyone behaved this way and would you like to live in such a world? In order to examine the morality of your approach according to Kant's method, it is appropriate to find out what a world would look like in which everyone allows themselves to be "last withers", including webmasters with censorship capabilities. Without further clarification from you, I am left to assume that through your apparent intellectual enlightenment, a thought police will arise that is better placed in the Middle Ages or dark regimes. So ironic, when this comes up in the name of a spokeswoman in the name of progress.

     A strong fondness abounds, it seems, for the concept of the "rules of the game". You mentioned the same game no less than 5 times in your last comment, 10 times in the one before it and the other hand is tilted. Beyond the verbal repetition that raises an eyebrow on the part of the reader, it is a laundry of words and an empty concept. There is no game with you and there was not. I don't think that anyone from my class sees a discussion with you as a game. I also don't think you're driving like someone during a game, but more like someone in the middle of a battle. A game is a recreational activity with defined rules agreed upon by the players. The rabbi is also fun. But here you don't agree with your interlocutors what the rules of the game are acceptable to both of you and then start playing. Instead, it seems that you are trying to impose on them the rules of the game accepted by you, which you also define with a commendable breadth of horizons, as the only legitimate system of difficulties in existence when they are the only "basis on which a meaningful discussion can even exist". It should not be surprising where your interlocutors, who do not accept in advance the limits of the lost gender that you drew for them, will "sin" again and again in their trampling. From the outside, it looks like a ridiculous game of a football player playing against a basketball player. Adom, overcome with rage, whistles on his whistle and repeatedly waves a red card in front of him for the fact that his other side touches the ball with his hand and even dares to dribble it. No one is obliged to enter your court and dance to your flute, and if you do believe that beyond your court the world ends, then your world is as narrow as an ant's world and I feel sorry for you. In order to really "play" with someone, and not subjugate their hand in the appearance of a "game", it is appropriate not to assume in advance and as a default what the rules are, but to define them together with the interlocutor until finding an equal valley from which it is possible to pass and discuss what is different.

     6. "Everyone is given an equal opportunity at the beginning which includes attribution of playing by the rules by default... Exposing the failures in the responses and illustrating their repetitiveness (and hence it is not just an innocent mistake) usually require several rounds of responses. This is necessary in order to convince the other readers about the nature and way of thinking of the commenter, it is not just about prolonging the discussion for the sake of discussion"
     —
     If I understood correctly, the method is simple. Shuga should be allowed to express himself, politely explain his achievements and give him a chance to turn from his sins and accept the correct version according to the correct rules of play and play, in Kamila's eyes of course. If he insists and stands his ground, he must be allowed to express himself more and more, now with the intention of publicly exposing the disgrace of his mental inferiority while denouncing him in public condemnations. A rhetorical masterpiece, without a doubt.
     Know that this is a double-edged sword, and in your attempts to expose others, you are also exposed. Your responses indicate your character, your temperament, the breadth of your heart and the breadth of your horizons. For example your words:
     "When that commenter proves with signs and examples, whether in his words to me or in previous words to others who drew his attention to the problems arising from his words, that he insists on not playing by the rules of the game, it is permissible in my opinion to treat him harshly, just as one should behave in other contexts in which people behave like this"
     They give a certain indication of how you live your life and what the appropriate norms of behavior are in your eyes.
     It should come as no surprise that you don't want to associate all of this with your real name, which you choose to humble and separate from your words, so that it will not be tarnished by such revelations.

     As for the principle of respect and the apparent lack of connection between your ignorance and your outspoken style, either in your words you are naive, or you do not understand the said principle, or both.
     You very willingly choose to whip fire and brimstone with your tongue on the heads of your interlocutors out of intellectual and righteous superiority, but not openly. This willingness also shows your character.

     7. "By and large, yes, I don't really understand where you're going with this statement..."
     —
     The point is simple. Real scientific discourse revolves only around the facts and their interpretations. Science deals with the question of how the universe reveals itself to us and not what our hearts tell us. Emotion is a worthy human product, but it has no real place in a discussion of scientific value. Many comments here, including yours, are tainted with a wide spectrum of negative emotions: anger, hatred, paranoia and a heaping dose of ego. All this under the guise of pure rationality and the purity of science. What is going on here is not science but the market. Who shouts louder at whom.
     Teaching others science is what you want, but do you remember yourself?

132. Rani:
     My words are backed up no less than Zelicha's words.
     I raised points that he literally ignored.
     Ignorance is not something based on data. Ignoring is ignoring.
     I told you that my words are also accepted by professional economists.
     I will not continue to argue with you on the subject.

133. Michael,

     I thought I would gain macroeconomic insights backed by statistical evidence and comparative data for attribution.
     If I've learned anything from science, it's that intuition, devoid of any facts, sometimes fails us.
     Here comes the accountant general and asks us to abandon the intuition he calls a "brainwashing product" of Houn-Shelton-newspaper and judge according to the data.
     The key figure, hidden from us, is the fact that the Israeli economy does not create enough jobs thanks to oligarchic concentration in which the economy is biased in favor of capital and against labor.
     Although you are not an economist, it is possible that your gut feelings, which there is not the slightest doubt about, indicate acute intuition that is immeasurably superior to the knowledgeable analysis of a senior economist such as the accountant general who you claim is wrong and misleads a large public of people who are not familiar with the faucets of the macro economy.
     I would be happy to receive a factual basis for your claims because as you know, even an intuition-driven creationist explanation is very convincing until you get to the evidence stage...

     Thanks,
     Rani

134. David:
     Since I have already said more than enough things that refute your claim, I have no choice but to come to the conclusion that probably nothing will help you.
     The ultra-orthodox are not to blame for their evasion and crime waves in the country are not the criminals' fault but the police.
     You show nothing.

     Do you propose not to include them in the coalition?
     Who exactly are you offering this to?
     There are parties that thought in the past and by force of inertia still think today that foreign affairs and security are the main thing.
     None of the parties (apart from Or) put on their banner the separation of religion from the state.

     True - from the considerations I presented, many prefer to influence the choice of their execution rather than the future of the country.

     What's even funnier is the following:
     Even if you believe in the baseless conspiracy theory according to which the members of the Knesset have adhesive tape on their ass and are not ready to let go of their seats (a conspiracy theory that is disproved time and time again by their sitting in the opposition of secular parties), then what emerges from this is that these parties should not be elected.
     And here - even though this is a necessary conclusion even according to your nonsense - you come and try to encourage those who will continue to vote for these parties by trying to mock Or.

     What do I say and what will I speak? You must be a brilliant person!

135. Machel

     This and more how "with her free consent". It may not please her (the ruling party), but she had the full choice not to agree to the terms. (as Joel illustrated)

     From the point of view we discussed here - the ultra-Orthodox are indeed innocent of any crime.
     It is a sectoral party that represents its (loyal) voters.

     The options before you are:
     A. Do not include them in the coalition.
     B. Enact a law that ultra-Orthodox do not have the right to vote.

     Yoel and I don't turn the other cheek - we show who should actually be slapped.

     Apparently the Or party has more problems just from the fear of losing votes.

     Dahil Rabak

     815 votes in the last elections.

     http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections18/heb/results/main_results.aspx

136. Joel:
     a quote:

     "It should interest you if you want to understand and know. This is the science site, isn't it?"

     No matter how you try again not to understand it: as I wrote:
     Their smooth 'world of concepts' should not interest me if in any case these 'concepts' are dragging my country and yours into the abyss.. Sounds excessive?? Not sure, a matter of economics.. What is there to 'understand' more?

137. And another thing I agree with Yoel is that the secular parties have failed.
     I don't agree with his conspiracy theory about the reasons but the failure remains.
     This is a conclusion I reached a long time ago and therefore I was a partner in the decision to establish the Or party.
     It seems to me that with all the controversies expressed in this discussion - this is a party (which does not deal with accusations but with solutions) that Yoel will also vote for.

     A lot of people are afraid to vote for a small, new party that is unlikely to pass the threshold.
     They fear that their voice will be "wasted" like this.
     On the other hand - it is clear that the existing parties will continue to act according to their historical priorities (because they too - like Yoel - find it difficult to admit a mistake) and therefore - whoever chooses to vote for them because of the above consideration (so that his voice will not be "wasted") does achieve his goal and his voice It is not "wasted" but has a substantial effect on the choice of hanging.

138. Yoel:
     This?
     Are these all the examples you can think of?
     And what about the example of a man who doesn't use any force and just tells a woman that he will kill her if she doesn't find him?

     Come and see what is written In the Penal Code:

     HaBoel Woman -
     (1)
     not with her free consent, causing physical suffering, Applying other means of pressure or a threat to one of these, and one is if these were made towards the woman or towards someone else;
     (2)
     With the consent of the woman, fraudulently obtained as to the nature of the doer or the nature of the act;
     (3)
     When the woman is a minor who has not yet reached the age of fourteen, even with her consent; or
     (4)
     Utilizing a state of unconsciousness in which the woman is subject, or another condition which prevents her from giving free consent;
     (5)
     Utilizing being mentally ill or ill-educated, if due to her illness or due to her educational deficiency, her consent to the cause was not free consent;
     After all, he is rape and death - sixteen years in prison.

     In short - just as you don't understand what responsibility is, you don't understand what morality is and you don't understand what a mitzvah is - you also prove that you don't know what rape is.

     Friends:
     You don't understand.
     The final conclusion of Joel's words is quite correct.
     Although none of his arguments are true, our main problem (not the only one, of course) is really with secular people.
     So how is it that he is convincing without giving any correct reasoning?
     Simply by being a personal example of the problem!
     Like many of the discussions here - long after the arguments of the ultra-Orthodox have been silenced - the debate continues with the secularists of the second cheek who try to clear the ultra-Orthodox of any blame.
     This is not about Knesset members in general (who many times, as I demonstrated and as Yoel ignored) chose not to enter the government, but those Knesset members who resemble Yoel.

139. to camila
     please

     Mr. Almoni went down to Mrs. Flamoni's apartment and told her to sleep
     Standing beds. said
     No Oba, she answered him. I am a lady for my body, and you are not welcome to me.

     ¤ © ¨ × ×
     Mr. Almoni punched Mrs. Plamoni, she fell to the ground, continued to hit her and did what he wanted.
     Mr. Almoni did not hit Mrs. Flamoni but showed her the butcher's knife he brought with him and indicated that if she did not submit to him he would hurt her. Mrs. Flamoni barked, fearing for her life and Mr. Unknown did what he wanted.
     It's rape.

     A second option
     Mr. Almuni sat down on the sofa, smiled and said to her: Do you remember the tenants' meeting next week, where you want permission to expand the balcony? You know that right now there is a tie, and only I can tip the scales in your favor. Lie down and stand?
     Nevertheless, a balcony extension.
     And from that time to this day, the death of Mrs. Flamoni was devoted to Mr. Unknown. After all, she wanted more things at home, including the chairmanship of the committee is no joke. She could also choose the color of the renovation.

     Only good

140. To Eric
     Should interest you if you want to understand and know. This is the science site, isn't it?
     What needs to be done is another matter. But in order to do that, you need to know - and this is the whole discussion here - against whom to demonstrate. And these are not the ultra-orthodox, because they don't listen to you, nor do they relate to the principles you talk about.

     Water grinding or not: the issue is who is responsible for it, and again: who is responsible. Not the one who wanted and received but the one who agreed and gave. And here, what to do, there are those who prefer to blame the ultra-Orthodox as being responsible for this, and not those who did it.

     That is: the mainstream should demand that its parties behave differently. But he won't, and neither will his parties. Because in addition to all that political opportunism of the preference for the convenient government, a matter that the voters are definitely in favor of, there are some more deeper things, because of which the ultra-Orthodox received a supreme status.
     For example: they grant the official permission to "Who is a Jew" - and this is a very important matter in the ethos of this country.
     But that's another issue already.

141. To the last Camilla

     A rapist is someone who uses his power to impose his wishes.
     In the power relationship between rape and rape, it is very clear who has power and who is forced to surrender or surrenders at all using that power or the threat of it.

     And, with all due respect, it really doesn't work here. On the contrary.

     In this country, as of now and since its founding, the people in power are the mainstream parties. They devoted themselves to the ultra-orthodox for reasons of political opportunism. No more, no less. They surrendered and their voters let them do so.

     Saying second and expanding: political opportunism, which sold basic principles of political management in favor of the interests of ultra-Orthodox leadership, which does not even consider itself part of the fundamental ethos of this place.

     The ultra-Orthodox blackmail could exist because they surrendered to it and did not send its representatives to the appropriate place for those who demand such things from the state. This, if everyone wanted, could have been prevented. But this is not what happened, because they always preferred a contemporary coalition even at the price of paying at the expense of the country's future.

     It's not rape, it's a principled passionate dedication for our short-lived sake.

     So your image, with all due respect, doesn't work. He collapses.

142. Excuse me Yoel: this has already been told to you by other commenters: you grind water.. why? Because instead of complaining endlessly, you should just go out, demonstrate, and protest... that's all... you can dig into whether an ultra-Orthodox is 'educated' or not. Bottom line: it's crooked and needs to be changed.
     'I believe' is not an excuse
     Their 'world of concepts' should not interest me if it drags my country into the abyss..

143. Joel,
     1. Every woman is responsible for her body.
     2. Bestowing favors is a fundamental element in the context of the woman's body.

     Therefore, if a woman gives of her grace to another person, she is responsible for it, etc., etc.

     But when a woman does this following blackmail with threats, for example, then it is rape. In your opinion, even in such a case the woman is guilty and responsible, while the one who rescued and raped her is exempt, because he only received what she agreed to give. Your ability to disassociate yourself from the circumstances of the "agreement" to the provision of pleasure favors to the ultra-Orthodox by the leading party, as M.R. He detailed in his comments, really scary (especially when you pretend to draw your conclusions logically and wrongly). However, I agree that the way to change the situation cannot be through expecting the ultra-Orthodox to take responsibility for their immorality, just as I would not expect a rapist to take responsibility for the injury he caused to the woman he raped. There is no doubt that there are cases of rape in which the woman acted unwisely, there is still an unbridgeable gap between the responsibility for unwise behavior and the responsibility for the act of rape itself. Your approach on attributing responsibility here is appalling in my opinion.

144. To Eric
     In my personal opinion, the release of the ultra-Orthodox from military service, the granting of permission for the existence of their education system in general and given its existence, the exemption from core studies in particular, together with subsidizing their existence and several other things are among the most serious threats to the future of the State of Israel. Certainly when you combine this matter with the growth of their political power, certainly with the increase in their electorate.

     An "Orthodox person" does not think about these things, because he was brought up not to do so, because he was brought up to other alternatives, because he was allowed to, because his leadership wants it, because it gives them control over him at all levels of existence.

     And above all: because above all the matter of the state and its components, in the ways that you, I, and others believe are necessary, distant and foreign to them at best, and in the Zionist context create deep and fundamental halachic problems for them.

     is it normal definitely not. Does it meet the distinct requirements of the Halacha itself? also not.

     But this is what happened here, in Israel only - and not anywhere in the world, not in the relationship between the state and a certain type of citizen, not in the way of life of the ultra-orthodox themselves - in this area. It suited their leadership; It really helped the leadership of the country, in the immediate political sphere. future? Deep long-term vision? This is not part of the accepted arrangement here.
     However, in order to understand what's wrong there and how it works, because after all they also encounter such reactions, you need to at least get to know their world of concepts, their way of thinking.

     It works differently than what we know and love.

145. To Joel:
     From 2010.. unfortunately, still relevant:
     http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000576224
     Important and interesting data:
     A. 70% of ultra-Orthodox men do not work.
     B. In the United States, there is no such problem with the ultra-Orthodox.

146. To Joel:
     a quote:
     "You too: "What you call Gemara". They certainly don't think it's a joke, they're convinced that this is what protects the people of Israel, and it's a fact in their opinion that this is what Halacha has been doing for the past 2000 years. Learning Torah is the main thing for them, and after the Holocaust it is the most important thing."

     Could you explain how all this justifies the collapse of the State of Israel in the future due to a disproportionate increase between the percentage of supporters and the supported..? And why doesn't an ultra-orthodox person have the responsibility to think about these simple consequences? 'Love your neighbor as yourself'.. no?
     And besides: in the Bible there is no mention of a person's duty not to work and earn a living..

147. to one of the people
     Who is talking about evolution in this discussion lately? Somehow this matter of the privileges that the ultra-Orthodox have came up. All that I mentioned to those who, as usual in these matters, have gone to the trouble of accusing the ultra-Orthodox of those privileges and the destructive separation of Israeli society, whatever they have received from the seculars starting with the state and even more so for thirty years.
     If this is so, they should be less of an object of hatred/disgust, etc., and the ones who should be held accountable are those who granted them these rights. Those who gave them are the chosen ones of the people. So the responsibility is on them.
     Why do I grind water? Because there are people who are not ready to accept the sad fact that "their" camp is responsible, and the one who was the object of hatred is not the one who took but received from the one who gave.
     I hope that is clear now.
     Note: I didn't find a single tail of my claim that I understand better or anything. I treated things matter-of-factly, and when I thought they were wrong, I wrote like this. When a personal claim was directed at me, I addressed that as well.
     This interpretation is yours, certainly not based on what I wrote.
     Only good

148. Yoel, I didn't understand what you want to say - beyond the claim that you understand better than everyone else in half a dozen areas, including the principle of separation of powers, basic concepts in Halacha, everything that all religions claim to represent (or not), the political considerations of the leaders of the Jewish settlement for generations, the reasoning of ultra-Orthodox Evading their civic duties, knowing the facts in general, and these arguments of the litigants here are relevant to why.

     If "Israel chose" and "everything else is irrelevant to the main point and essence", it is not clear why you are treading water on the question of historical responsibility and its meaning in your eyes. What is important is that the reality is unacceptable and must be changed.

     Your 'choice' argument ("Israel chose, [...] the choice [...] was made by the one who chose [...] and those who chose are the ones who can choose between A and B. And you know who chose"), by the way, You will not hold water even if you tilt the root in B.H.R. Half a dozen more times. But if you are so urgent to declare that the ultra-Orthodox politicians are innocent and only the secularists are responsible for everything, I really don't want to disturb your enjoyment.

     Could you by any chance also explain what, in your opinion, the wisest of all contributes to the discussion on evolution?

     A.E.

149. To David
     To discuss this matter, you need two things: to know what the word "responsibility" means and to whom it applies in this case, and to know the political history of the State of Israel. Everything else, including expressions of hatred and contempt for another public, is irrelevant.
     So what to do, facts are not my strong point, and scores in logic of the above type bring to mind problems in getting to know this field.
     for example
     1. Each party that leads the government is responsible for the principle direction in which the country goes
     2. Exemption from military service, core studies and giving the ultra-Orthodox public the option not to work are fundamental elements in the principle direction in which the state is going

     Therefore: each party that leads the country is responsible for the exemption given, etc., etc.

     On the other hand, you should at least know the principles that guide this public. Just a matter of principle that should be nice for this site in particular and for discussion between people in general. You too: "What you call Gemara". They certainly don't think it's a joke, they're convinced that this is what protects the people of Israel, and it's a fact in their opinion that this is what Halacha has been doing for the past 2000 years. Learning Torah is the main thing for them, and after the Holocaust it is the most important thing.

     What Ben-Gurion wrote is an escape from responsibility. He determined that the country should be statehood, and forced it on the left (including its education system). He did not do this in front of the religious and ultra-Orthodox for political reasons.

     All I claim is simple: the ultra-Orthodox have many rights beyond the ordinary citizen, the ultra-Orthodox have fewer obligations than the ordinary citizen - and all of these were given to them by the mainstream of the State of Israel.

     Any change will begin with this recognition, as long as the responsibility is shifted to the ultra-Orthodox, it will only serve them, because the opposition is not directed at those who have the power to change, and on the other hand, what is said in the secular public is not really relevant to them. They have their own public.
     just no?

150. Another word for Yoel that I forgot above. Maybe Ben-Gurion will be less guilty in your eyes if you read his words:

     Israel is a democratic country, and its existence cannot be described without a democratic regime built on the freedom and free self-determination of its residents. There are pious people who believe in good faith that a day will come when God will purify the hearts of the people and every Jew will be a believer and anxious like them. And there are those who are confident that time will do what the mind did not, and in the days to come everyone will be like them.
     […] The existing arrangement is the fruit of a compromise, which of course does not include all opinions, as is the way of compromise; This compromise was accepted in order to prevent a religious war, both a war for religion and a war in religion, which could seriously damage the merger of the Gholivites, which stands in the way of the state. The persistence of the compromise is conditional on the degree of tolerance and mutual respect that those with opposing views on matters of religion and spirit are able to show out of a shared love of Israel.
     A state status for the rabbinical office in a country that has pledged freedom of conscience and religion, and which has both religious parties that take their souls to the rule of religion, as well as lovers of tradition and ultra-Orthodox who deny the rule of religion, and also a broad public of freedom of opinion, is a minefield in which walking is not guaranteed of hazards and dangers.
     […] The ability to compromise is an essential condition for the existence of any public, organization and country. Even an established and stable country needs the ability to compromise in matters that do not require an urgent and final decision. The State of Israel needs this talent many times over [...] Uncompromising polemics about the status of religion in the country or attempts at coercion in religious matters could serve as a national explosive, and in the best case, will delay the process of internal fusion.

     Netzah Israel, Vision and Way 280, pp. 277-XNUMX

151. Pack jokingly.

     The nicest paradoxical question I know is - if God is omnipotent, can he not be anything?

     For Yoel and for Mechel:

     The truth is that it is not really clear, aside from the verbal sparring between you about who bears the greater burden of responsibility for the current situation, the ultra-Orthodox or the secular parties, if there is any difference in your opinion on the matter at all.
     The difference between you lies in the way of presenting the opinion, which with Mechel is always coherent and logically reasoned, while Yoel sins many times by flourishing statements that he has the right to think, but they remain suspended in space without any factual coverage or logical foundation.
     This statement by Joel caught my eye ## The religious do not claim to represent the Torah. These are your concepts, not theirs. These are certainly not concepts of the ultra-orthodox.##
     If that's what you think Yoel, then what do the ultra-Orthodox represent? I don't know how well you know the ultra-Orthodox world, but for them, learning Torah is fiddling with the Babylonian Talmud, what you call Gemara.

     As for the responsibility and inherent need of the ultra-Orthodox in demanding and taking us away from the secular parties, there is no good in bringing in speakers from among them, such as the outrageous words of Rabbi Chaim Shaul Karlitz, "The entire Knesset is against the Torah. The very thing that humans stand up to and declare that they are the legislators, this is against Torah from heaven. And it doesn't matter if there is a majority on the right or the left, and what laws they pass there. Even if they vote in the Knesset in favor of observing mitzvot, this is against the Torah... and any laws that people believe in their hearts, with a majority vote one way or the other, it is against the Torah... so are the representatives in the Knesset, they are our lobbyists to prevent damage to the holy places of Israel and the Torah observant public as a whole. There is no recognition in this of the existence of this institution, whose name, the Legislature, indicates that it is entirely against God's teachings... The very fact that Jewish judges judge according to the foreign laws of the Turks or the English, and not according to our holy teachings, is what obliges us to oppose them in all validity. Even if they make decisions on behalf of the ultra-Orthodox public, the opposition to them will still continue, because all their decisions are not from a pure source - God's teachings - they come, but from constitutions that the nations of the world believe in." (Yad Na'am 31.5.2000)

     So it is true that the short-sightedness of those at the head of the ruling parties and elevating the foreign and security problems to the point of almost ignoring the internal problems was our fault, but it is impossible to put the full responsibility on them [the seculars] and the guilt of the ultra-Orthodox is very great.
     You too, Yoel, if you were a prime minister putting together a coalition, maybe you would say to yourself that the security situation is so worrying and disturbing to you, that you don't care about throwing another billion to the ultra-Orthodox, the main thing is that they let you solve the Iranian problem in peace.
     This is indeed a cry for generations, but a description of a situation that is certainly realistic for the considerations of a head of state.

     Beyond that, I ask myself, Joel, why did you actually find it necessary to attack Mkhal's position, when in fact you almost agree.
     Is your goal in the discussion to learn and wait or to share and participate in the cross-fertilization of thinking and ideas? Or is all you care about is winning an argument?
     Are you one of those people who talk to people, but not with people? Are you interested in what others have to say? Or are you one of those who have already seen everything, heard everything, know everything and no one can teach them anything?

152. To Michael
     Israel chose, says Professor Ron Aharoni.
     http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4132119,00.html

     The choice, you surely know, was made by the one who chose. And those who chose are the ones who can choose between A and B.
     And you know who chose.

     Everything else is irrelevant to the main point and essence.

153. Erez
     What does Descartes do? It begins, so that everything is "clean", from the casting of doubt by man (given the collapse of all knowledge until then, this is reasonable). From here he - the person - progresses through a number of stages and arrives through his own affairs, to the fact that there is something/someone else. That is: God is a derivative of man. This is not such a good arrangement.
     Spinoza spoke of a deistic god, one who does not interfere in the affairs of the world (and therefore does not get along with the "religious" god) and on the other hand is compatible to the extent that he is fully compatible with nature. From the metaphysical point of view, there is no problem in creating a complete correlation between such a "god" and the entire universe. It just doesn't work so well with any other conception of God, the one who is involved, punishes, is the object of prayers, responds to human actions according to known principles, etc. Spinoza did not deny the existence of God, but that his God is not the usual spoken entity.

     To Michael
     What you say.
     In light of your factual-essential errors, such as combining "mitzvah" and "hillel", or "representation of the Torah", I would like to recommend an introductory course on the subject.
     Parable What is it similar to? For those who claim to know law and justice, and talk about "accuser", "accused" - and civil law.
     Or for those who refer to the achievement of Professor Danny Shechtman, and talk about crystals and liquid.
     Strip yourself, etc.

154. Joel:
     agree!
     If only you had listened to your own advice, everything would have looked different

155. Joel,

     As for Descartes' essential errors, there are so many that it is hard to know where to choose.
     Still, his writing is beautiful and at least until the middle of the "second logic"* with the famous "I think means I exist" it seems to me that it is also possible to remove the hat from his extreme casting of doubt. A brave move. Too bad he spoiled it later..
     (* He wrote the book Logics as a collection of essays accompanied by thought experiments)

     Regarding the eighth problem, I am not sure that there is a problem with proving God through man. Descartes only knows himself (and even in this he casts a lot of doubt, while eliminating his senses and his body and his rational) and therefore it is only natural that when he does find a stable point of support, aka his thought, he bases all of reality on it, including God.

     God in philosophical discourse has many faces.
     He does not have to be the entity described in the Bible or the object of prayers, this is one of many options for who God is, but not necessarily the only option. I think that only a religious person is obligated to such a God, and maybe even he is not (Isaiah Leibovitz claimed, as far as I understand, that God and the universe have no contact with each other and only exist side by side).
     God can be outside of space or united with space itself. The second approach characterizes Spinoza's heretical definition of the concept of divinity.

156. Larza and Nir
     Descartes' essential error that he reaches God from man, from casting doubt on everything. When God is in the sixth or seventh stage of proof, and it begins with man, there is a problem. God is not the foundation and cause of causes.

     Regarding the unlimited God: if God is not limited in space, what is called infinite, he must be one with the infinite universe, otherwise he is not infinite.

     If he is inside the universe, certainly not, what's more, there is a problem with creation. This of course does not agree with the existence of objects, and if it does, God is part of the keyboard which is a part of it. Nor does it go with that being that the people turn to and must be outside of them somewhere.

     Philosophical proof of God (also) is a problem that does not help to solve the basic refutations in the claims regarding him (and it also contradicts the biblical revelation, but that is another story).

157. To Michael
     so no.
     Still, knowing basic concepts is a prerequisite. Regarding reading comprehension: Well, really; After all, we have already seen. And in general, arrogance and aggressiveness do not replace it.

158. Nir,
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-308940

     You made me laugh with the pattern of the mullet and the socks :)

     As for the infinity of God in the face of the limitations of all creatures of creation and the inability to compare them, in that you sketched the thought process in which Descartes (in his opinion) proved the existence of God.
     Descartes says, in a free translation: "I am limited, and yet I have an idea in my head, an idea of ​​infinity." A limited brain cannot generate such a thought by itself and it follows that the infinite God planted it in my mind. From this it follows that there is a god."
     It didn't buy me, and neither did many of his contemporaries, but on the other hand, there were many who were convinced.

     When you talk about God being "unlimited", you should make it clear to yourself and us exactly what you mean.
     Can God die? If not, then he is limited in his ability to determine the fate of his existence.
     And in the same spirit, can God lie, multiply, err?
     Can he create a stone so heavy that even he cannot lift it (known paradox)? Here, whether it is or not, one or another limitation of God arises.

     In the absence of a better explanation, I can live with the claim that the laws of nature are fundamentally spiritual (although, if you simplify this concept from reason and purpose, you are mostly left with wonders, and almost every scientist will admit with a smile that the world is endlessly wonderful).
     In my opinion, it will turn out that the laws of nature were determined randomly from a wide range of possibilities between alternative universes, or alternatively, that they are bound by reality from a fundamental mathematical principle that underlies everything and whose nature we have not yet established.
     Or then it could be that the spirituality that underlies everything will be something like the number pi or e.

     happy New Year,
     cedar

159. white cedar
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-308919

     5) I don't see the opinions regarding the correct conduct regarding illegitimate responses as a source of controversy but something that bothers you in the context of my style (and bothers me less). Part of the plurality of opinions as expressed in the different styles shows that there are several approaches. My approach is best explained through my responses themselves, therefore I see no need to detail my views beyond what follows from the responses and beyond what I have already explained in the discussion here. I have no interest in a principled discussion of what I would do if I belonged to the website team and if I had censoring abilities/powers.

     6) You wrote: "It is clear that we both see value in having a dialogue with those whom we perceive as holding wrong views."
     You are missing something here that I have already explained before, I have no problem discussing with those who hold different opinions and even objectively wrong ones (either because of relying on facts that are not true or because of logical failures in the arguments). In fact everyone is given an equal chance at the start which includes attribution of playing by the rules by default. However, when that commenter proves with signs and examples, whether in his words to me or in previous words to others who drew his attention to the problems arising from his words, that he insists on not playing by the rules of the game, it is permissible, in my opinion, to act harshly on him, just as one should act in other contexts in which people Drive in this way. Exposing the failures in the responses and illustrating their repeatability (and hence it is not just an innocent mistake) usually require several rounds of responses. This is necessary in order to convince the other readers about the character and way of thinking of the commenter, it is not just about prolonging the discussion for the sake of discussion. It is a fact that at a certain stage, after it has been clearly illustrated what the recurring problems are for that respondent, the reference changes and often stops completely. If by doing so it is possible for those commenters to repeat the same failures several times, this does nothing but strengthen my words which point to those failures. It's not for nothing that I finally ended my words by appealing to the reader to choose which way of thinking he prefers, and this after the other side has dug a hole deep enough for itself in my opinion. After all, I don't really think I will be able to convince those commenters who insist on sticking to illegitimate game rules.

     Style greatly affects the effect that will be had on people who drive illegitimately, and although it would be ideal if the police, with some distinctions, would address the criminals politely and with reluctance and compassion and try to explain to them why their behavior is not normal, still sometimes (by definition not always) a more style is needed "Obviously". When you, for example, conduct a long discussion with another commenter who repeatedly deviates from the rules of the game, which are the basis on which a meaningful discussion can take place at all (in fact, these rules of the game are the justification for holding the discussion on science in the first place) you sin twice: once because you do not insist on stopping and revealing and clarifying the illegitimacy of the commenter's words (whether it is because of repeatedly ignoring questions, providing wrong facts, failed arguments, distorting the words of others, etc.) so that other commenters understand what the situation is (not everyone recognizes this). And a second time because the very tolerance towards lack of legitimacy creates an appearance of legitimacy because it seems as if at least some of the problematic things are accepted as true. The reader from the side that has not yet formed an opinion, gets the impression that this is a discussion of equal strength (even if it is clear to him that at most there is only one right), in which two sides have the same legitimacy. From the moment this impression is created, it is clear that the party that uses logical fallacies and lies that the third observer does not recognize yet, has a great advantage in the ability to convince, for the simple reason that it is much more difficult to assert claims that are based on proven facts and arguments that have a solid logical structure. Erez, this is laziness and indolence, no less than that, and when this becomes a behavioral habit it is a real danger to your way of life (in this case to an essentially secular way of life that enables pluralistic democracy). I'm sorry you don't see it.

     7) By and large, yes, I don't really understand where you are going with this statement...

     8) There are many possible division axes but this does not mean that they all have similar weight. As I wrote before, I will always prefer things whose content is relevant and contributes something even if their style is lacking or problematic, compared to things that are said in beautiful and polite language but are devoid of actual content or worse, littered with mistakes and thought failures. I can't understand why anyone would prefer otherwise (and to remind you the best are of course things with content that are presented in a nice and easy-to-digest package, but if that were true, I wouldn't react the way I do...). Does it really matter to you if the crook who cheated you presents a beautiful or ugly appearance, if his words were funny or eloquent? Isn't this a treat in relation to the act of fraud itself?

     The principle of respect presents the theoretical principle that enables the transmission of a reliable message between two people who have interests regarding the same message. Respect is only effective if both the sender and the receiver are interested in a reliable message. Of course, a person (and perhaps any creature) can choose self-respect even when he does not know that the other party has an interest in receiving the message, but sometimes this can be a problematic and even dangerous act (such as dealing with terrorism by religious extremists in certain cases).
     The main respect regarding the content in the comments is the fact that the facts that the commenter states can be verified, that the logical structure of the things can be examined, etc. When a commenter makes a claim, it doesn't matter if his name is public or private. The claim, at least for me, is examined on its merits, therefore the nickname has no meaning in this context and in my opinion it is a serious mistake to link the things. There are other reasons, mainly sociological and unrelated to the quality of the content, which in my opinion justify enjoying the possible secrecy. I agree that those who respond with their full name receive a certain weightage, but I do not believe that this weightage is seriously related to the quality of the content of his words. What, if you make a false claim then you will be fired? I do not think so. But if you speak in religious condemnations that are lies, they might attack your house and stone it, maybe. There have already been threats on the site to officials on this site, but I prefer that they expand on it if they wish. In this sense, it is indeed a matter of respect, perhaps even a significant respect.

160. Joel:
     I can only answer this response:
     First of all read
     then understand (what is called)
     Then homework
     And only then - if you can't help it - sermons.

     You don't act like that, so I don't find any point in continuing the argument with you.

161. Honorable Yuval Chaikin
     You write about things you don't know (the legislature, executive authority, etc.). I did not ask for grades from you, I referred to what you wrote. What you wrote about separation of powers and the way things are conducted in these areas is not true. point.
     Thanks.
     What should be done? This is a completely different matter, certainly not related to the above.

     to Michael Rothschild
     The religious do not pretend to represent the Torah. These are your concepts, not theirs. These are certainly not concepts of the ultra-orthodox. An example of a fundamental lack of understanding: what Hillel said is not a mitzvah and he is not "their sage".

     You, like Mr. Chaikin, refer to a field that you don't even know the basic concepts of. You certainly and certainly do not know the ultra-Orthodox reasoning for not enlisting them, "their doctrine is their art" etc. The example of the bribery in relation to their self-perception is absurd.
     They are, really, convinced that they deserve it and that they are helping the people of Israel and learning Torah is the most important thing. That the state should not have accepted it is another matter entirely. And we have already agreed who received and who led.

     In short: homework first, then sermons.

     To Eric
     The secularists, most of them anyway, always chose parties that followed this arrangement, either directly and leading (Likud, Array) or indirectly, those who participated in these coalitions.
     Never, except for change, has there been any other political expression of the mainstream.
     We have never met even one political opinion leader who acted against the total non-recruitment or change in the state subsidy for yeshiva students.
     There is an abysmal difference between kippah-wearing religious people and the ultra-Orthodox in relation to the basic principles of the state in general and this state in particular.

     Don't you like it? Not to me either.

162. ארי
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-308890

     As far as I know,Roey Tsezana brings news and opinions to this site mainly in the form of articles and articles. He rarely responds to the comments of others and certainly avoids starting a discussion/argument with other commenters and he even expressed his intention explicitly many times. You should contact him about the reasons for this. I am convinced that he has the knowledge and abilities to reveal the deficiencies in the responses of some of the site's commenters no less well than the way I am trying to do. It is understood that when he expresses his positions in the article, there is naturally no reference to the specific commenters and reactions to the article for the simple reason that it precedes them... I do not know what style Roy would have chosen to use in the face of commenters who are not ready to play by the accepted rules of the game and to what extent he would have felt the need to denounce their improper conduct, But even if he had chosen to do it differently from me, it does not mean that he would have achieved the results that I think my style achieves. I don't understand on what basis you propose this comparison and especially what is willpower related to the matter, do you think that I don't choose this style but that it "falls apart" on me as if it were the bad boy in me? If so, how do you explain many responses in which I do not adopt such a style?

163. Clarifications regarding my recent responses to Yoel:
     I have written a lot on this site about my view on morality.
     A large part of the things appears in the comments after this article:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/the-science-of-good-and-evil-0704115

     In general - I claim that what we experience as moral is a more or less universal thing that was created in us during evolution.
     There aren't really several separate moral systems.
     There are only a few systems of laws that were created for various reasons (mainly the desire to control people) that appropriate morality for themselves and set moral laws for people that they know in their hearts are not moral but they still accept them as a result of brainwashing.

     It is absolutely clear that any sane person - even if he is ultra-Orthodox - knows that dodging the burden and enjoying the burden placed on others beneath you is immoral.
     We are driven by various impulses and many times certain impulses push us to commit immoral acts.
     In these cases there is a conflict between our urge to perform a certain action and our urge to act morally.
     In these cases, a person's morality is tested by asking which of the impulses will prevail.

     I suppose we all want to do what we want and that the others will work for us and provide us with protection, food and housing, but only the ultra-Orthodox allow themselves to claim that it is moral in their own case.
     I am sure they know this is not the case but since religion has washed the influence of morality from their minds they allow themselves to lie and claim otherwise.

     Eric also tried to explain that this is what I meant in general.

     When I saw that the issue was still not understood - I turned to another channel and showed that the behavior of the ultra-Orthodox is immoral - not only according to the universal criteria (which are common to all human beings and therefore I call them universal) that I claim exist - but that these actions are also immoral according to religion.
     It's not that I accept the moral definitions of the religion - in my opinion, some of the moral definitions of the religion are simply horrifying and directly contradict human morality - but in this specific case, the religion clearly requires a requirement that is also moral in my opinion, and the evasion of the ultra-Orthodox is clearly also in accordance with this requirement.
     Of course I'm not the only one who sees this. Rabbi Halbertal and Rabbi Amslam - see the issue exactly as I do and it is not that they have their own private religion.

     Of course, Yoel's words as if the mere fact that the seculars are willing to compromise with them in order to promote other goals that seem more important to them (the seculars in question) absolve the ultra-orthodox from responsibility for their immoral demands are delusional.

     Imagine a man who stands trial for the crime of murder that he did not commit.
     Imagine that he has an alibi because he was at the time of the murder with Eli Yishai in a completely different place from the place where the murder was committed.
     Imagine that his lawyer asks Eli Yishai to testify truthfully so that he can exonerate his client.
     Imagine that Eli Yishai tells the lawyer that he is willing to testify truthfully, but only if they pay him fifty thousand dollars.
     The lawyer consults with his client and they decide that his client's life is at stake, they agree.

     Now Joel will come and say that the one who is guilty of the fact that Eli Yishai took a bribe is the person who is accused of not committing an injustice because Eli Yishai only took what he gave him.

     Funny, isn't it?

164. Rani:
     These are several separate claims
     1. The oligarchs have no control over the number of jobs in the economy. When there are people who want to work, they create jobs. How many times have I personally taken part in this type of process. If the oligarchs control any workplaces, it is only in the workplaces they provide. The less they provide, the more people will look for employment solutions and some will find solutions (that do not depend on the oligarchs) that will provide employment to others as well. As mentioned - I have experienced this many times and this is a macroeconomic insight that Zelicha ignores.
     2. The right that society gives to the ultra-Orthodox not to work is unfair. Although everyone has the right not to work, only the ultra-Orthodox pay for it.
     3. The previous point obviously also has macroeconomic effects. If a normal company only has X jobs then on average they will be occupied by the X most qualified people for their positions (with some approximation, of course). This is not what happens in an abnormal society like ours where there is a huge group of talented people who are not working and their place is filled by less talented people. This is another macroeconomic point that Zelicha misses (and in addition - it also contradicts the interests of the oligarchy).
     4. Again - in connection with point 2 - assuming that the number of people able to work is N, then the remaining people N minus X in number - cost the state much more because some of them are ultra-Orthodox who receive money for idleness. This is not a macroeconomic point but a simple calculation.

     Yoel:
     The religious do claim to represent the Torah.
     Enough with these empty statements.
     Those of them who comment here do so even with an unconquerable passion.
     They claim that the principle of the Torah and observance of the mitzvot are important to them and they also agree - verbally and externally - with the sage whose name is Hillel the Elder.
     In other words - although keeping the mitzvah is important to them on paper, in practice they break the mitzvah that the elder Hillel defined as the essence of the Torah.
     I couldn't believe I would have to explain even such a simple thing.
     It only reinforces my feeling that you simply decide on your conclusions and then defend them at all costs even if the cost is not telling the truth or gratuitous personal attacks.

165. To David:
     No matter how you look at it, the bottom line is that the ultra-Orthodox refuse to teach their children math and English, they could use their power to build special divisions for the ultra-Orthodox in the IDF. They won't go..
     We need to create pressure that will force them to educate their children to integrate into work and this is what rabbis like Amsalam say and it has nothing to do with religion at all. The result depends only on how much the ordinary citizen cares..

166. to Joel
     Is the 'secular' something so abstract to you that you can blame him??
     There is no such thing, there are politicians who did not do what was assigned to them, and there is the small citizen who is angry.. and it makes sense to direct the anger towards those opportunists who live at our expense.. No religious concept justifies the exploitation of the public purse and it is certainly possible to make claims, for example, to a person who decides to exploit the transfer allowances in order to study at Kollel and not to support himself, because these allowances were not intended for that in the first place and it is a social crime to live like this..
     simple.. right?

167. Yoel
     You point out facts and definitions while I point out flaws and suggestions for correction. You probably didn't understand that and that's why you earned a derogatory nickname from me. Nobody pays me for the time I spend bothering to talk to deaf ears. I agree that the facts you bring are mostly correct and in some cases even accurate. But since we are not talking about the same thing, from now on I will no longer respond to your words.

168. To the author of the article:

     First of all, I really liked the article, since I also find myself trying to explain quite a bit to some religious people, that evolution is a "scientific theory" and not a theory. And a scientific theory because it can be said to be a fact.

     As a convert it is not easy to touch on these points with religious people because in a moment they think you are an unbeliever in everything and a delusional person, and that is why I learned not to try at all.

     One thing disturbs me in your writing that I would be happy to enlighten my opinion, if you want you will accept, if not that is also fine.

     Your quote:
     However, saying that there is no evolution is like saying "there is no gravity, there is an almighty god who is the one who guides every object that falls in exactly the right path and does not deviate a millimeter to the right or left". Fortunately, I haven't heard anyone say such nonsense in a long time.

     Comment:
     One of the problems of believing in God in non-believing people is the situation where they do not believe in the God that is in their imagination, and this is exactly what happened in this sentence you wrote.
     Simple logical thinking will make it clear to you that if such a thing called God does exist, then a person cannot understand such a power. This is more extreme than a small mullet trying to understand why a person puts socks before his shoes when he has no feet at all. Since the fish is finite (limited in its thought) and man is limited and God is not limited (infinite) and comparing the end with the infinite - not comparable.
     And why am I writing you these philosophical lines that are seemingly unrelated to the quote you wrote, since the Holy One, blessed be He, is not limited, and if He is not limited, then He must constitute everything, because if He does not constitute everything, He is limited in an area that He does not constitute, therefore if It constitutes everything, including the laws of mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry, genetics, evolution, biogenesis, etc., etc., etc., etc. It can be said that they are not laws in themselves, but the way of the infinite power (God) to act in the world according to the lawfulness that he has determined.

     This very much connects with a well-known philosophical question of "where is the law of nature?"
     If we take a wooden table, and wait (just a hypothesis) 100 thousand years, the table will turn to dust, the question is, how does the table know when it should break down, as if waiting for X years, then one morning he says to himself "it's time for me to go back to the basics". What makes matter persist?
     If you say "the law is already embodied in the substance", I will ask "OK, but where is it, I don't see it".
     Conclusion: With faith in God or not - the laws of nature - are in themselves God's words. We talk about them, we know they exist but we don't see them.
     About this it is said "One cannot say things without hearing their voice".

169. To David
     The ideal of ultra-Orthodox society is learning Torah. Service in the army interferes, work interferes. Once upon a time, also in Europe, it was accepted that this kind of Torah study was a matter for individuals. The ultra-Orthodox, since the Holocaust, have aspired for this matter to be their common property.

     To their delight, the state granted it to them, and after Begin's rise to power with excessive enthusiasm.

     Regarding the military service: among other things, this is a type of civil obligation, and they are not there. There is also too much potential for debauchery, and the whole military/secular identity is foreign to them. So if the state agrees, then what do they care? Rather.

170. To Eric
     Thanks for the explanation and I really didn't miss it. On the contrary: that's why I responded.
     Since the outbreak of Zionism, the ultra-Orthodox do not consider themselves committed to its main message and, as we know, have come out against it; The ultra-orthodox do not see themselves committed to the fundamental values ​​of Israel as a state, not in the general context, not in the Zionist context.
     The ones who allowed them to even raise demands in the overall space of the state, let alone respond to them, are the secularists, who used the ultra-Orthodox - exactly(!) - to organize a government for themselves.
     The point is that the secularists are not ready to take responsibility for this and the bon ton of many of them is to attack the ultra-Orthodox, who, as mentioned, are not at all in the general business of running a country in the usual sense. They don't care either; The ultra-Orthodox are committed to their own society, not to the general society.
     But the seculars, who fundamentally failed to protect their country and society because of coalition matters, including betrayal of a local holy place such as serving in the army, attack the ultra-Orthodox.
     Which brings me to the main point of this discussion:
     Escaping responsibility while and through attacking the other.
     Whatever.

171. A lesson in democracy
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dzjt_a0I6GE&feature=player_embedded

172. withering,
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-308841

     4. Thanks for the clarification.

     5. "Since I do not set the policy here, since I cannot remove even a comma from anyone's words here, my opinion about what should have been done with commenters who present positions that are not legitimate is unnecessary."
     —
     On the contrary. This is the bone of contention between us.
     Precisely because you are my interlocutor and the subject of the conversation between us, as you labeled it, is the subject of legitimacy and dealing with the illegitimate, I am interested in your perception of how troublemakers should be treated in a broad context in general and in an internet context in particular.

     6. "Sometimes continuing the discussion with commenters with illegitimate responses sharpens the absurdity of their way of thinking"
     "After reading your long threads* with other commenters of the type I'm talking about, I believe that the style I chose is even more necessary precisely to avoid the same false presentation as if every opinion is legitimate and deserves equal opportunities"
     —
     It is evident that we both see value in having a dialogue with those whom we perceive as holding wrong views.
     In the past, I was a content editor on the "Davidson Online" website, which makes science accessible to the general public, similar to the "Hidan" website, where we also met for the first time. Even today I comment there from time to time, mainly in connection with the theory of evolution. When I choose to enter into an open discussion with a denier of facts, it means more to me than a dialogue. The public nature of the discussion allows me and my interlocutor to present the various arguments to the readership, so that other surfers facing similar questions or answers can find reference to things. This is, if you will, a public service.
     My puzzlement is as to your motives, that you do not identify such surfers not only as wrong but also as harmful and unwanted. However, in your frequent responses to those surfers, you encourage them to continue to spread their so-called wrong and harmful doctrine. Therefore, I repeat and sharpen my question, does your desire to expose the absurdity underlying their arguments outweigh your desire not to encourage them to continue to respond in a way that you find illegitimate?

     * For those of the readers who follow this dialogue, in "long threads" Kamila refers to a number of lengthy discussions that I held on the "Davidson Online" website with surfers who are not comfortable with the accepted scientific paradigm of the theory of evolution and who prefer alternatives such as the intelligent design approach:
     http://www.weizmann.ac.il/zemed/net_activities.php?article_id=2838&act=forumPrint&cat=2292&incat=1428&str=&page=2

     "Are you aware of the sarcasm you use from time to time?"
     —
     I am aware, but not a person like you, who makes such explicit condemnations, will be moved by a little implied criticism.
     However, if there was any doubt about it, I am not sharing fake superlatives with you but speaking frankly.
     Like you, I also notice the difference between content and style (I just give them a different weight), and at the content level I have no doubt that you are among the most educated, eloquent and intelligent commenters on the site.
     Other questions that occurred to me:

     7. Do you agree with the statement that the accepted scientific approach** is a strict separation between the research of the existing (facts) and the influence of the desired (human preferences)? Or in other words, that unscientific preferences, feelings and beliefs are irrelevant to the scientific pursuit, which deals with observations and their interpretation?
     (**We will exclude from this rule the studies in quantum mechanics on the poorly understood connection between the observer and the experiment)

     8. Looking at the participants of this discussion, it is evident that they can be divided into groups based on different criteria.
     One obvious axis of division is their rough division into supporters and deniers of the theory of evolution, and in that we are both on the same side of the fence.
     Another axis of division, which I wanted to bring to attention here, is the division between those who respect others with their words and those who offend them with their style.
     A third division criterion draws a line between respondents who respond by name (including Michael Rothschild, Itzik Beloy, Erez Gerti, Yuval Chaikin and Anochi) and respondents who respond anonymously behind pseudonyms.
     Those who comment on their behalf take more responsibility for their words and stand behind them on their own behalf, certainly in the age of Google where nothing is deleted from the web pages from the moment it is registered. This kind of exposure can be seen as a fine example of Prof. Amots Zahavi's "principle of respect"*** (how sincerity of intentions is expressed in nature). As a result of this, to the rabbi, these commenters write with more strict judgment in publishing their responses both at the level of content accuracy and at the level of wording and the relationship between them and their friends in the medium. Faced with this exposure, the anonymous respondent can say whatever comes to his mind and without bearing personal consequences concerning his personal reputation in the public.
     I wonder why you chose to respond anonymously and do you desire to reveal your name and stand personally behind your colorful style?

     *** Additional information on the principle of respect:
     http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A2%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9F_%D7%94%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%91%D7%93%D7%94

173. ארי
     The capitalists in Israel are maybe 20 families. And they buy their power by buying politicians, controlling the media and the shakedown method.

     The ultra-orthodox parties were elected, the capitalist "party" was not elected.

     The ultra-orthodox parties represent 8 percent of the population (at least). and receive according to their percentage in the population.

     The only reason they don't go out to work until they are 30 is that they don't want to be in the IDF.

     The reason I know they don't want to be in the IDF is because the IDF is a "social melting pot" that will spoil their sons.

174. To Camila:
     Why isRoey Tsezana, for example, able to clarify his scientific position assertively, but without being arrogant?
     It's all a matter of willpower.

175. To Joel:
     It seems to me that you missed the point that *Yachel tried to convey to you..
     'Suppose' there is a 'public' in Israel of capitalists.. 'Suppose' they succeed in pushing through force the agenda that preserves their power and through this the centralization and the social gap.. and all through the politicians for that matter. You will place the blame on the political system that allows you the existing situation and not on the capitalists themselves who in general 'do their own thing' and trust their righteous interests according to how they see them.. This is a misconception of course.
     Justice is not a relative matter of one sector or another, Mkhal tried to tell you that when an ultra-orthodox politician promotes mainly - if not exclusively - his public affairs, objectively it is cancerous selfishness that ignores the rest of society's needs.
     We live in a society where we depend on each other. The transfer budgets for vulnerable populations were not intended for a certain public to use them for needs that it decided were more important, and to the same extent that when students demonstrate against 'Tnuva' it would be ridiculous to direct them to demonstrate instead against Tnuva - against the regulator who did not live up to his watch, (since in the end it is behaves like a pig and the move against her makes sense..) This is also the case when an entire public takes advantage of democracy in the end in order to harm it, everything must be done in order to express the matter without any noise and whistle and to fight in any (legal) way so that in the end the 'buzz' He will do his thing and make an impact.
     The time has come for the ultra-Orthodox to live the way they want but still submit themselves at least in regards to the dependence between budgets and basic conditions suitable for a modern economy, to serve in the army, etc. otherwise we have no chance here..

176. The honorable Mr. Ben Ezra
     The warning was not written 2000 years ago and there is no evidence for this. The warning was written in Provence 800 years ago or something and there is evidence for this. It is clear that the attribution to Rashi is worth a lot in the holy book exchange, but attribution is not a fact. Attribution is a used way of giving value to something that is not something.

177. Proofs of mahbatim are not proofs, because they first put the arrow and only then mark a circle around it.

178. Only the Zohar note was written 2000 years ago and there is evidence for this

179. Erez
     I just expanded what you said before into today's Hebrew and expressions that are accepted today also in the law. Regarding the Rambam, it is worth a more serious examination.

180. jubilee
     When a word like snooze is attached to statements that are fundamentally wrong, it doesn't turn out well.

     Montesquieu proposed a principle that addressed the nature of government at the time and its legitimacy. What about this and corruption?
     What is the connection to the corruption that exists in Israel (or not) and the separation of powers?

     You simply do not understand basic concepts.

     The legislator is the Knesset. He is not someone educated or not, he is the representative of the sovereign, the people, his representative and oversees - among other things - the executive authority and grants - among other things - the powers to the judicial authority.

     The operator in this case is the operator. The executive body can include elements whose occupation is very long-term. The legislative body, on the other hand, sets temporary instructions, regulations from one day to the next, and discusses the events that happened yesterday.

     The USA has such experience, and the operations do not form the ranks of the chosen ones at all. However, there is supervision, and a few other things - and despite the enormous cars granted to the president in execution, he is supervised and controlled in many areas by the Senate/House of Representatives.

     Oh yes, there is corruption there too. Corruption is not a matter of structure, it is the result of other things.

181. Joel,

     Right. However, I'm not sure that the earth's sphericity or its position in the solar system are good examples of this.
     These are not matters of convention but of fact, and in the long debates on these issues much evidence was brought forward.
     It seems to me, and please be corrected by those who understand the Rambam's definitions better than me, that scientific matters reside in the hall of the intelligent while social matters and human preferences reside in the hall of the famous (with or without the need for evidence).

182. Joel! You are a snooze, but still two things:

     A) The legislator and the executive are two different roles that require different character of people. The legislator works for a long time and makes laws that should last for a long time. He should have a broad education and act in a settled opinion. The operator has to make quick decisions in a short time, "shoot from the hip". People with command experience in organizations such as the army or the police are suitable for this position. The parties in today's Israel offer an array of candidates who are good for neither this nor that.

     b) Separation of powers (I did not formulate it. See, for example, Montesquieu) is intended to prevent corruption situations like the ones we are experiencing in our country. Those who oppose it, please check their willingness to live in a banana republic or, alternatively, be a corrupt ruler themselves.

183. white cedar,

     4) I am not related to the science site in any official way as having any position, my status is that of an ordinary commenter. If by chance there is a similarity between my opinions and the opinions presented by the administrators of the site and those who have a role in it, then this similarity is "accidental" and stems from a similarity in knowledge of the scientific field and a similarity in appreciation of the scientific game tools, unlike other games. I wrote accidental in quotation marks, because actually it is not accidental, but it is requested that those who believe in the scientific rules of the game will not be favorably impressed by other forms of thought that require renouncing at least one of the game's components. I read and comment more or less regularly and all the opinions I express here are personal, private and in the nature of my interpretation of things. In no way do my comments represent any of the site's operators, even if there are those who agree with them.

     Regarding the superlative "rich in scientific knowledge", I can say that in my responses I often use fairly simple rational tools and do not tend to bombard with facts (which exist in abundance and are known to me). In fact, I hardly respond at all in my field of expertise, the field in which my scientific knowledge is the most extensive and in-depth. I am trying to draw the attention of commenters and other readers to basic problems in arguments that are especially related to the subject of evolution, precisely because this field, precisely this field and not by chance, is subject to an absurd religious attack through rules of the game that at most can be said to be an overwhelming and proven failure in everything to do with understanding The phenomena we experience in the world, whether they are phenomena related to inanimate matter or living matter (and man as a whole).

     —

     Regarding the article framed at the end of your response: I used the term "from the published" in a meaning similar to the one used in the law of evidence in Israeli law. I do not know Maimonides' usage/intention in this context, and from the distinction you presented it seems that this usage does not correspond to my intention.

     —

     Regarding the site's policy regarding the conduct of comments, as mentioned, I am not the addressee regarding questions on this topic. In general, I have already written before that the style is less important to me than the substantive content. I will always prefer to read/hear high-quality arguments even if they are accompanied by bluntness or roughness than to listen to polite and clean speech but equally meaningless and based on sloppy ways of thinking, especially on nonsense and even outright lies. I don't expect this to be the preference of other readers (or of the site's policy), although I think it would be good for them. In all of the above it is not to be argued that I do not prefer an optimal situation in which the commenters all argue within the proper rules of the game and also maintain the purity of the language. If the situation was like this or close to it, I wouldn't have reached the same statements that are jarring to you, but the situation is not like this and in my opinion the statements are appropriate even if you don't like it. In fact, after reading your long threads with other commenters of the type I'm talking about, I believe that the style I chose is even more necessary precisely to avoid the same false presentation as if every opinion is legitimate and worthy of equal opportunity. There is a huge difference between the gagging of those who do not cooperate with a certain agenda (such as in dictatorial regimes) and the illegitimacy of those who are unwilling to play by the accepted rules of the game (such as in a defensive democracy, to use the term that M.R. often uses, and rightly so In my opinion).

     5) Maybe you didn't mean it to you, but your question engaged, and still engages, many good people in many contexts in which there are those who behave illegitimately. One of the contexts we are all familiar with is those who behave illegitimately in relation to the laws of the country. In such a case there are rules that define a rule of thumb on how to act (this is the punishment set by law for a certain crime), however the actual punishment is determined after weighing a wider context that includes the circumstances of the case, the history of that person and factors of this type. For example, a person caught stealing for the first time, his sentence is expected to be different from the one who was caught for the tenth time (unfortunately, in Israel it is not always like that...). Similarly, the law of a person who stole bread to feed his starving family may receive a different law from another person who stole for fun or to harm someone else. In your response, you made a connection between the website's policy and matters of style, but as mentioned, apart from style, there is also the context of the relevant content, and at the end of the day, the site administrator may decide to block a troll whose entire occupation is disruption and without any contribution to the discussion, but not to block other commenters whose style is blatant but at the same time careful For bringing factual and relevant content to the topic under discussion. I remember, for example, one commenter named Hugin (or something similar) whose comments attract viewers, are all politeness and light language games (you would love her) but she is a troll among trolls and her contribution to the discussions I have read so far in which she participated tends to be zero, and to be precise, her contribution is negative (very negative to include repeated attempts of harassment using a variety of other nicknames). Since I do not set the policy here, since I cannot remove even a comma from anyone's words here, my opinion about what should have been done with commenters who present positions that are not legitimate is redundant. I do act to the best of my understanding against the same reactions and the same responders. If it is decided by the site administrators that my style is not appropriate and I am warned about it, I will have to choose what is more important to me, until then I suppose I will continue to express myself in the way I think is right, that is, great patience for those who play by the rules of the game (even if they are ignorant and if they have innocent mistakes ) and a partial intolerance towards those who show that they are not. I wrote my part, because notice how careful I am to answer matter-of-factly even to the latter type of commenters, which cannot often be said about them. In relation to other sites (especially those of a religious nature) I feel that the science site rarely blocks commenters even those who lie with a determined forehead time and time again.

     6) Sometimes the continuation of the discussion with commenters with illegitimate responses sharpens the absurdity of their way of thinking. I hope that the intelligent readers who are not familiar enough with the topics discussed will be able to identify the gap between the rational commenters and those who rely on accepted facts and those who ignore, distort, lie and use crooked logic. Sometimes the blunt style helps to sharpen this point (especially when it is accompanied by a factual reference).

     Are you aware of the sarcasm you use from time to time?

184. To Mr. Levana
     There are also some "celebrities who don't need proof".
     That is, a closed matter such as for example the earth's sphericity and not being flat or that our globe revolves around the sun and not the other way around).

185. To Michael
     The religious do not pretend to represent the Torah.
     Religious people, meaning the ultra-Orthodox for that matter, have one thing above and beyond: "Torah study" which is actually studying the Gemara in yeshiva.
     They really don't care about the secular public in the sense that they do what they hate. They believe that this is the right way, the secular live in ignorance, in spiritual filth, their coffin is empty and more and more priestly.

     Everything you say is simply irrelevant to understanding the matter.

     And above all: that everything they have is not because they took, it is because they received.

     Your dislike of them, their behavior and more is simply not related to the reasons for the matter.

186. Hello Camila,
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-308333

     In response to my request for your definition of the concept of "legitimacy" you replied that:
     "A legitimate claim/opinion is one that at least does not contradict the accepted rules of the game in the field".
     The definition is also reasonable in my opinion.
     Later, you expanded the canvas in your three answers about those rules or rules of the game, so that we are left with a place to find out well what the "rules of the game" are and to whom exactly they are acceptable.

     Since I am only a guest here for a moment and do not know the guests of the place, I will ask a few additional questions:

     *4. Are you a content editor or have a position on the "Hidan" website, or are you a regular surfer with a lot of scientific knowledge?
     This is necessary for me to understand whether you are speaking on behalf of the site or because of your private opinions.

     5. I would also like to ask, what will be done to someone who drives in a way that is not legitimate?
     On the face of it, it is evident that there is a place for denying the rights of those who return and violate the accepted norms.
     In an internet context, as here, this can be expressed in deleting messages or blocking the surfer.
     6. Giving too much attention to those surfers may encourage them to continue with unwanted behavior, isn't it?

     (* I am listing a number of points and questions that arise in order to facilitate our reference to them later, if we so wish)

     Until I receive your answer to the above-mentioned question 4, I asked to adhere to the accepted rules of the game, as you said, in "Hidan" through the "Terms of Use" page of the website:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/disclaimer/
     To my great surprise, there is no proper mention at all of the subject of the content norms worthy of expression in the site's talkback system (and I am making a distinction here, which I see as necessary, between the articles compiled by the site's system, and the talkbacks which are compiled by the various site visitors) . On the other hand, I found a number of explicit clauses concerning the norms of behavior required of surfers, including:
     - "You must not upload content or links to talkbacks, which contain a threatening, blatant, racist, or insulting character, such that offends others.."

     This document also provided an answer to the above question 5, regarding the policy of this site in response to illegitimate behavior:
     - "Messages will be deleted or edited in which blatant or rude language is used, which may offend or harm other surfers on the site"
     - "A surfer who behaves contrary to any of his obligations and as detailed above - will be blocked, the content he uploaded - will be removed, and the Hidan site will be entitled to block him and prevent him from browsing the site and consuming services through it. A surfer who has been removed by the science website and/or denied access will not be allowed to come back and surf even under a different username."

     Is it possible that the "Hidan" website outlines a policy in which your content is defined as illegitimate?
     If there was no error, then this is very worrying, since it puts your scholarly content and that of a number of other educated and regular commenters starring in this discussion at risk of deletion, and even puts your very existence here in doubt. If I can take your place, how can I enrich myself with your great knowledge? I hope that your entry here will not be blocked, it would be a sad loss for all of us.

     It's short, and I'll finish with that,
     cedar

     post Scriptum.
     "Based on known facts (as published, for example, in scientific newspapers or facts that are "among the famous""
     —
     In a framed article, I assume that in your statement "among the famous" you are referring to Rambam's division between the "intelligent" and the "famous". It seems that you meant to say "intelligent", which are what was distinguished as truth and not a lie, and not "famous", which are what was distinguished as beautiful or obscene:
     http://midreshet.org.il/ResourcesView.aspx?id=9062

187. Michael,

     Thank you for the clarification.
     I was still hoping for a macroeconomic insight that would help me critically view the detailed words of the former accountant general.
     Tens of thousands of people have already watched Zelicha's lecture, so if your words are true then you should formulate them in a professional and detailed manner (the reviews I read in the past were purely personal and did not deal with the message).
     Is your main argument that it doesn't really matter to the oligarchy if the economy prioritizes capital over labor and therefore the exclusion of the ultra-Orthodox as employees and consumers is irrelevant for them?

     Thanks,
     Rani

188. Joel:
     I don't accept your words but I'm just tired of all this nonsense.
     The ultra-Orthodox who claim to represent the Torah, despite all their Torah studies, have not yet understood the simple thing that old Hillel summed up as the entire Torah on one foot: "You shall not do what is hateful to you to your friend."
     Even if they hadn't guessed this in advance (which in itself requires divine stupidity) it should have become clear to them a long time ago that what they are doing to the secular public is exactly what is hated about them.
     They hate work and service in the army and they cause the secular population to be forced to do more in both areas.
     Anyone who is involved in this is a righteous person even according to the Torah, but he is protected by his own kind and postmodernist secularists.
     Whatever.

189. To Michael
     For example: Ben-Gurion's preference for a collusive relationship with the religious and the Jewish Zionists over a relationship with Mapam, because Mapam was then a threat to Mapai rule; For example, Begin's commitment to Lamphad after the 81 elections; For example, Netanyahu's preference to pay Shas a high price and not go to another arrangement with Kadima.

     You are confusing your personal assessment - moral or immoral - and between those who gave and could not give. When you separate everything will become clear.
     If a son of his parents at the age of 23 demands a luxury car as a condition for his studies, this is an immoral demand. The point is that if his parents give it to him, they are the ones who bear the responsibility for it. They are the ones who did the deed.

     And last: the abuse of trust is by the secular parties, who both sold and damaged the country. The ultra-orthodox, who are committed to their audience and in many cases not to the guests of this country, brought their voters what they promised to bring. In this matter, they also win morally.

     for Jubilee
     There is no such thing. What you propose will not work for a practical hour, contrary to the principle of majority rule.
     A party that wins the elections will not activate the state? So what did we do? The one you will run is the one that didn't win? And the opposite? The winning party forms a government - and who will allow it to operate in the legislative system, the competing party?
     The people elect the legislator, it represents them and it is responsible for the principles of action. Separation of powers is an executive matter. Although the judiciary is independent, it all relies on the word of the legislator. Although the government operates independently, it needs the Knesset's approval in principle.
     In separation of powers there is separation in action, but not in the source of authority.

190. David:
     The time you waste is temporary.
     I said my words sarcastically because the demands of the ultra-Orthodox parties are clearly immoral and you are the one who claimed that these are the demands of the voters and not the demands of the members of the Knesset.
     One of the basic elements of a moral demand is that the state will not collapse if everyone demands it.
     The requirement to be exempt from work and the requirement to be exempt from the burden of security are not the same.
     The ultra-orthodox say they are moral and I am not, but not everything they say is true.
     I have a lot more to say about it, but it's late and your ears are deaf, so it's a shame

191. You probably have a problem with reading comprehension if that is your conclusion or you are a cynic and I am wasting my time in dialogue with you.

     In the ultra-Orthodox sector, learning Torah is the center of life, etc.
     The ultra-Orthodox sectoral parties of course represent what is important to their voters.
     You want to call what they believe immoral. They also call you immoral
     It's a broken turntable of name calling with nothing coming out of it.

     Strange, if the big parties had principles - they would join the government according to your way.

     It's ridiculous how you make the secular parties into principled and moral ones (have you heard of the shakedown method?)
     And poor people who are being blackmailed by threats from the Russian mafia.

     Take responsibility for everything. Take responsibility! If you really want a change.
     If you just feel like hating and grumbling, you're on the right track.

     .

192. Rani, one more thing:
     Your words about the Trachtenberg Committee are - how to say - something different from the truth.
     I have already brought here the relevant section from Trachtenberg's conclusions regarding the employment of ultra-Orthodox and I will bring it here again:
     http://hidavrut.gov.il/content/4273

     Besides, if someone who is not ultra-Orthodox wants to be "holy" according to Zelicha's nickname and decides not to work even though he is capable of it - he will get nothing! Only the ultra-orthodox can afford to behave in such a shameful manner.

193. Rani:
     I will not provide because I have already doubted (exactly in the response that you quote partially on purpose) and your question is only intended to create a false representation as if I did not

194. Gerty Cedar:
     The idea you are proposing is the original idea that existed at the time of the establishment of the state and then there was talk of neither a thousand nor ten thousand but only 400.
     But the ultra-Orthodox are ultra-Orthodox and the language of the Libra is the language of the Libra and the system of government is the one that has existed here since the establishment of the state and does not have the separation of authorities that Yuval suggests and that's how the four hundred grew and grew and grew and grew more than a hundred and fifty times (today 63,000 are included in the "Torah Artisano" arrangement and the rest italicized) .

     Although even one is a waste and in general, there should be a separation between religion and the state, but unfortunately this is not the case in the dream.

     Siko:
     The Torah book talks about the creation of the different species in the six days of Genesis.
     This is the basic belief advocated even today by the majority of the ultra-Orthodox, and quite a few debates have been held here on this site against this background.
     Sages really said more or less every possible nonsense
     The result is that in the religious writings one can find on many subjects the opposite and the opposite, and as needed the demagogues quote the opposite or the opposite as "Deat Torah".
     I have already written many times about sage beliefs in biogenesis and something reminiscent of evolution (but really crazy).
     You can read, for example, my response:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/science-not-request-program-3108102/#comment-275876

     I don't know what the Greek theories were about it. Do you know or are you just talking about them?

     No one asks where God is.
     It's not interesting.
     What's interesting is that they haven't found a role for him yet because everything happens without his help.
     Of course, there are also those who ask what he did during the Holocaust and why he does not take responsibility for the horror and resign.

     David:
     What you are saying, in other words, is that not only the ultra-orthodox parties lack basic morality, but all their voters do.
     I have to say that just meeting you pretty much convinces me that your claim is correct.

     Of course, the talk about hunger for power is wrong and many times, as I have already said, the big party that was entrusted with the formation of the government offered the other big party to join it and it - completely contrary to your claim - refused (gave up power for the sake of principles) but I already understood that the facts are not the basis of your claims and the truth is not In your eyes, any weight.

195. Michael,

     "The very convincing explanation of Yaron Zelicha did not convince me or Dr. Michael Sharal"
     I would love to hear your theory in a reasoned way and how it contradicts the explanation of the former accountant general which is becoming very acceptable today according to the Centralization and Trachtenberg Committee.

     This is also what fascinated me about evolution versus creationism. Elegant and convincing explanations even if they are counterintuitive to blind brainwashing as the owners of the insurance companies know very well...

     I know you're on the right side, so you'll provide a convincing explanation for Zelicha's fundamental error. Smiley

196. If the ultra-Orthodox parties did not demand what they promised their voters - they would be betraying their voters.
     What the secular parties are experts in.

     Failure of the ultra-Orthodox parties to comply with their mandate - for them it is immoral.

     The only reason the major parties (each in turn) preferred to form a coalition with the ultra-Orthodox and not with the second major party is the oldest reason in the world - hunger for power.
     With the major parties in the coalition, the party forming a government is not the owner of the house.

197. Peace

     In the article she mentioned a premise that spontaneous creation contradicts religion.
     In my opinion, it is not true in the religious literature that it is common to think that lice were created from the "ifush", they are made from dirt and not from eggs.
     So for many years Jews lived with the belief that life can be created from inanimate substances and this did not contradict their religious belief.

     In short, the theory of evolution is closer to the religious belief in creation than the ionian theories that advocated an infinite primordial world. And to the question where is God? It is up to everyone to choose whether to signal it in their inner soul or in the great historical course from the creation of life to the present day.

198. I once had a proposal, a kind of compromise that on the face of it should suit everyone.
     The State of Israel will establish two huge yeshiva, in Jerusalem and Safed. These two yeshiva will contain air-conditioned learning halls, libraries with the best Jewish literature, and well-equipped residences for the yeshiva's students and faculty. In these yeshivas, the great elites, the best sons of the Jewish people, will learn. They will study day and night, from six in the morning until twelve at night (as they claim they do today) and thus preserve the Jewish ember. Those students will live at the state's expense, with free housing and a living allowance. Ban them from any craft, sand studies, etc. They will be the "Patrol Matkal" of the Torah (as the Avrach divisions are called today). A limited and finite number of students can be admitted to these meetings, whether it is a thousand, or ten thousand, it doesn't really matter, but a finite number that will not change over time. There will be a strict admissions committee that will make sure that only the genius elites are accepted. Any other person who desires to learn Torah, should do so at his own expense and at the expense of his time! Just as we do in other countries. Anyone who is not admitted to those prestigious yeshiva will be required to do military service or national service, and frameworks will be adjusted for the ultra-Orthodox in both types of service. In order to make it easier for the ultra-Orthodox to integrate into the labor market, tax benefits will be granted to businesses that will employ ultra-orthedim, and to colleges that will teach ultra-orthedim required subjects.

     what do you think?

199. Reinforcement of Michael Rothschild's words
     I have discussed politics with quite a few ultra-Orthodox, and in their view, their representatives in the Knesset are nothing more than servants of the ultra-Orthodox sector. Officials whose entire role is to benefit the ultra-orthodox sector according to the rabbis' instructions. An MK who does not perform his duties is removed from the list. Is it any wonder, then, that there is a phenomenon of delusional demands by ultra-Orthodox members of the Knesset, such as bringing forward the winter time to match the Yom Kippur fast and bringing forward the summer time so that the children will be able to last through Seder night? (I was shocked when I heard this). I get the impression that there is some kind of competition between the ultra-Orthodox members of the Knesset, who will serve their sector better while blatantly ignoring the interests of the rest of the public, and that many times "the cow wants to nurse more than the calf wants to nurse". That is, they exaggerate their demands and demand things that the ordinary Haredi on the street doesn't really need or want, and certainly won't make a fuss about it (for example, winter time)

200. Joel!

     In the past I met with two party leaders who served as senior ministers in the government. Both are no longer alive. I submitted drafts to them. They answered me with exactly the same words, as if they were talking to each other: "This is not done anywhere. No one will agree."
     I guess they didn't like the idea of ​​parting with the force. Although the people's elected, as you say, but drunk from control.

     In the United States there is a better separation, but even there it is not perfect.
     In a correct separation there is no relationship between the authorities. A party that participates in the legislative authority will not participate in the executive authority. These are two different types of work that require people of different natures. The legislative authority should work with moderation and consensus while the executive authority should shoot from the hip.

201. Joel:
     1. I agree - and the power was in the hands of the ultra-orthodox - they were the tip of the scales and they were the ones who could go with whoever raised the price because they had no principles that opposed the principles of the secular parties.
     2. My explanations are consistent with history. Give me one reason to think otherwise. I gave many reasons for my words. The agenda of each of the blocs was known and my words are based on it. Can you reason or are you just making a statement?
     3. What exactly are "political" preferences? If they are meant to maintain the policy then I agree. otherwise not. Many times opposition parties were called to join the government and they refused - not because of cases but because of principles. When they did not refuse - like the recent labor, they had to compromise on their principles and sometimes fell apart as a result. Since the retirement was a well-known scenario - even in these cases, the founders of the government made sure to include the ultra-Orthodox.
     4. I explained my reasons for the weighting I do. You initially absolved the ultra-Orthodox from responsibility (without justification), then you said you didn't (without matching history) and now you bargain using disparaging expressions and again without justification.

     The difference between twisting the facts (in your claim that you did not absolve the ultra-Orthodox from responsibility) and explaining the situation is a sharp difference.
     The first is a correct claim of mine and the second is your demagoguery (what situation are you talking about and what explanation?! You said they are not responsible and then you said you didn't say that. This is a distortion of facts and not an explanation of a situation).

     The ultra-Orthodox didn't get anything they didn't ask for and I explained that. Immorality is actually the requirement. Agreeing to the demand is a compromise and I assure you that the secular parties would have preferred the ultra-Orthodox to join the coalition without demands. This is the last time I repeat things. If you continue to give arrogant and empty answers, I will decide how to respond, but I don't think I will try to explain such trivial things again.

202. To Michael
     1. Responsibility is in the hands of those who have the ability. 2. Your explanations regarding the reasons that motivated the parties, what to do, do not really match the history of the State of Israel. 3. These were not errors of judgment, these were political preferences, and some of them really have nothing to do with a security agenda or anything. 4. You want more weight to be given to religious "responsibility" and less to secular, so please. Weigh whatever you like. It has nothing to do with the facts.
     What the religious wanted is in line with their worldview, and they owe you and no one anything but their voters and especially the opinion leaders there.

     And again, and don't get confused: all they have is the fruit of the secular act. They received, they did not take. They wanted to receive according to their view, the seculars gave them contrary to their view. Capish?

     You too easily confuse "distortion of facts" and an explanation of the situation (and there are a few more problems, but we'll leave it at that).

     for Jubilee
     How can the Knesset not be subject to coalitional considerations, when this is the essence of the parliament?
     After all, almost every parliament elects a government according to the principle practiced here. It has nothing to do with the separation of powers, which is a different matter.
     There is no place where the executive authority is elected except the USA - and even then the approval of the elected body is needed.
     Both there and in other places with a presidential regime, the parliament approves the composition of the operations.
     The parliament is the direct and only representative of the sovereign, aka the people.

203. !
     : )

204. The system of government is the one that gives small pressure groups a share of the budget and privileges that are significantly larger than their proportion in the population. They used to be called "the parties of the tongue of the scales". Since then, the scales have shrunk and the tongue has grown fat.
     In my opinion, the blame should be placed on the lack of separation of powers. When we elect our representatives to the Knesset, we elect the legislative authority. But the legislative authority establishes the executive authority from within itself. If there was a proper separation of powers, we would directly choose the executive authority ourselves and save the big circus of establishing the Goeliatia.
     Did you say constitution? When the Knesset will not be subject to coalition considerations, a constitution will be enacted in the blink of an eye.

     And why do you say that Levi Eshkol did nothing? He actually did quite a bit for corruption
     http://www.haaretz.co.il/opinions/1.1388897

205. Levi Eshkol:
     There is indeed a lot of love between us.
     This was also the case in Duroch (if you are the conjured prime minister).
     But the main problem is the fact that Israel does not have a constitution that defines it as a defensive democracy.
     This problem was easier to solve in your generation but you and your friends neglected it and today the situation is almost lost because the anti-democratic parties (which in a defensive democracy were supposed to be outlawed) are gaining more and more power with their womb and our money.
     Ben Gurion actually understood this and sent it to you A letter on the matter.
     
     Why didn't you do anything?

206. Rani:
     Yaron Zelicha's very convincing explanation did not convince me or Dr. Michael Sharal - Head of the Economics and Research Division of the Harel Insurance and Finance Group.
     All the companies I worked for in the past were founded by people who had an idea or a vision in one field or another and none of them were connected to the oligarchs.
     In every large group of people there will be some entrepreneurs who can create jobs for the others - whether it serves the oligarchs or whether it hinders them.

     I very much hope that the ultra-orthodox will be integrated into the labor market in the future.
     I also very much hope that this will not involve giving up military service.

207. Kinderlach!
     I read here that you have corruption in power. How? After all, your country is supremely democratic. You the voters determine the government.
     And if the government is corrupt, it is not because you, the voters, are corrupt*

     * or love

208. Michael,

     According to Zelicha's very convincing explanation, the current situation in which there is a shortage (in relation to developed countries) of about half a million jobs is faithfully served by an oligarchy that has expropriated the economic system from the state.
     The oligarchy has narrow capitalist considerations according to which it prefers capital over labor.
     In a situation of lack of competition and a shrinking market, it is possible to fire workers, lower salaries and make products more expensive, which increases the profits of the oligarchy.
     Also, such a situation of capital-policy creates a kind of "natural selection" in which it is not "payable" for the ultra-Orthodox to work, and this is compared to the situation abroad where they work.
     The state today is beginning to invest resources in encouraging the ultra-Orthodox to enter the labor market, for example by requiring the study of core subjects.

     The Ministry of Education's report clarifies the problem - the Education Ministry's plan to integrate ultra-Orthodox in the labor market:
     http://www.tamas.gov.il/NR/exeres/1038AA92-A76D-4C39-ACD2-631572E573F4.htm

209. And I will add more, Yoel, that it has never happened that a secular party begged an ultra-orthodox party to take money or privileges.
     The only thing the secular parties wanted from the ultra-Orthodox was for it to join the coalition.
     The money and privileges were the price demanded by the ultra-orthodox and secular parties, and had no choice (in their view) to pay.

210. Joel:
     Please don't get involved in twists of facts.
     Your response that started the argument between us says (and I quote):
     "All that the religious received, they received from the secular.
     All that the seculars gave, no matter how serious it is for the current state of the country and its future, they gave for the establishment of a coalition.
     They are the only ones responsible for this.
     "
     So you say on your own keyboard that the secularists are the only ones responsible.
     Doesn't this absolve the ultra-Orthodox from responsibility?
     Let me answer for you: it is!

     Therefore, don't tell me that you didn't absolve the ultra-Orthodox from responsibility, because you did absolve them of responsibility.

     That's why I argued with you.

     I also explained why the behavior of the secular parties should be seen with a certain leniency and I will try again because I see that it has not been absorbed.

     The secular parties in both blocs estimated that the main threat to the country is related to its foreign relations and security.
     In each of the two blocs it was also believed that following the path proposed by the other bloc would bring upon us an unparalleled disaster.
     The problem of radicalization and the immoral claims of the ultra-Orthodox were seen in both blocs as a secondary problem because all in all it is better to live and lose some money to immoral extortionists than to keep the money and die.

     In light of the above, the two blocs did not agree to unite with each other (and compromise on their way of dealing with the foreign and security problems) while the union with the ultra-orthodox parties - even though they understood that it was immoral - seemed to them to be a better price to pay in order not to become extinct.

     Government was not guaranteed to any of the blocs without the ultra-Orthodox.
     Here we are talking about considerations of balance language after the elections as well as considerations of promises to rabbis in order to influence the religious and ultra-orthodox public even before the elections.

     In the framework of their wrong assumptions, this is a responsible and considered decision.

     In my opinion - the mistakes they made are stupid but not immoral.

     The ultra-orthodox parties, on the other hand, acted immorally in every aspect.
     They demanded the preference of their electorate over the rest of the country's residents in all material fields, and they also made sure to create a situation in which their electorate would be imprisoned in an education of ignorance that would make it very difficult for him to integrate into the productive society if, God forbid, the conscience that they were so careful to suppress would arise in him.

     In short - I am angry at both these and those and you - when you say that I should only be angry at the secular parties, you again absolve the ultra-orthodox parties from blame even though at the beginning of the response you said that you do not clear them of responsibility.

     Although I am angry with both the secular and the ultra-Orthodox, I treat moral flaws more seriously than errors in judgment.

211. To Michael
     A. Read.

     B. Does not absolve the ultra-orthodox of responsibility, but that is irrelevant - they are committed to their world view and that of their voters, and this is not necessarily in line with the interests of the state. In their view, general education is bad, only religious education is good. What liability do you want them to find out here? Why don't they believe him?

     Responsibility is a relevant concept here for those in whose hands the power is given. So that's it, they didn't show responsibility but lawlessness.
     And this also includes those who chose them and did not include this matter in the equation.

     Look: one of the sacred things in the Zionist/Israeli story is service in the army; The willingness of the super-patriotic parties to exempt the ultra-Orthodox - on the large scale that has been practiced here since the XNUMXs - in order to gain a political identity says it all.
     And if it is, and if uniform education is not - then what is the difference between you and a few shekels to get a stable coalition?

     In short: the object of your anger should not be the religious, but rather the secular parties. It's probably hard for you, but you'll get over it

212. David:
     I forgot to tell you that while the expressions I use are correct and justified, your comparison between me and the Nazis - not only is it much more serious than what you are trying to treat me with, but it is completely baseless.

213. Rani:
     What exactly is "convenient to exclude the ultra-Orthodox from the labor market"?
     Does anyone even want to exclude them? Have you heard of a case where someone was not hired because he was ultra-Orthodox?

     The truth is that, in my opinion, there are many ultra-Orthodox who would actually like to work, but because they do not want to serve in the IDF (where people kill themselves for real and not in a tent of Torah) they do not go to work (because they know that if they go to work they will lose the status of "Torah is his art" and will be required to serve in the IDF.

     In other words - there is a way to make many more ultra-Orthodox work if they are unconditionally given up on military service.
     It is, of course, immoral, and therefore wrong to do so.

     It is also clear that if they were workers, they would only be able to perform simple jobs because the school did not train them for work that requires knowledge and thought.

214. David, the ultra-Orthodox's budgets look for a thousand different types, the budget for his teachings and art is only the smallest of them.
     By the way, the mathematical hocus pocus that you employ is also employed by the Daily Capitalist blog at NRG. If we call them, it was considered that the tycoons need assistance from the relief office, mostly because they have nothing and just want to take from them. In twisted mathematics you can prove anything

215. Michael, I agree with your insights, but also Yaron Zelicha well established the claim that a system has developed here according to which it is very convenient to exclude the ultra-Orthodox from the labor market.
     A good proof is Dr. Reuven Gal's distinction: "Abroad the ultra-Orthodox work for a living because there they are not granted allowances, and they lead an equally ultra-Orthodox lifestyle."

216. David:
     You don't read my words and yet you allow yourself to comment on them.
     It is clear that this is according to the law - otherwise they would have been banned.
     The problem is that their parties make sure to enact clearly immoral laws!
     What you say about distorted budgets is only the tip of the iceberg.
     What about children's allowance, with social security, with exemption from fees, with balance grants, with funding of city rabbis, with the fact that every citizen pays taxes and they don't. With the funding of training institutions where you don't learn anything useful....
     There is a lot more and the canvas is too short to list.

     My words are not a matter of style.
     I use words that I think best describe the situation.

     By the way - no one is proposing to prevent them from living as they want and believing whatever nonsense they want.
     The only requirement is that they do it at their expense and not at my expense.

217. Machel

     If there is theft of property and risking the other's life - sue them in court.

     We do not live in a communist country that a person is born to benefit the country

     "The average Israeli citizen pays more to the state than he receives from it." - and that is why the public protest arose this year.

     The budget for his teachings and beliefs is 100 million NIS out of the 35 billion NIS of the education budget.

     The Torah is not important to you. For this sector it is their whole world.

     post Scriptum
     Your writing style: "parasite" "taming" "thieves" "robbers" etc. is very reminiscent of the style of people in the very unsympathetic past.
     Stop it from Kal.

218. By the way, David:
     Your reliance on the articles of the lying doss (maybe that's you?) is pathetic.
     All objective tests point to the exact opposite of his lies.
     Here, for example, are quotes from Trachtenberg's conclusions:
     http://hidavrut.gov.il/content/4273
     http://hidavrut.gov.il/content/4265

     And here's something else about the overall picture:
     http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/577764/1972e5cc4b/1468573339/eb0622e1ae/

219. David:
     I really don't have the strength to get into the broken turntable you are trying to build here.
     The immorality of stealing another's property and risking another's life are, in my eyes, universal values ​​that even the ultra-Orthodox training should not have erased from a person's mind (who comes from birth with these values ​​due to the nature of the evolution he has undergone).
     No logic or morality can justify their claim that they are useful to the state in something.
     The average Israeli citizen pays more to the state than he receives from it.
     An ultra-orthodox citizen whose teachings are his art only accepts.
     If you read what I wrote in the previous comments you will see that everything you bring up here has already been answered.

220. Joel:
     I think you didn't read my words.
     I do not clear the secular parties (which I did not choose) from responsibility.
     I am simply resentful that you clear the ultra-orthodox parties that acted in an obviously immoral manner (as opposed to the secular parties that acted irresponsibly and out of a wrong assessment of the threats) from responsibility.
     That's why ignoring the facts (including the content of the comments I wrote - even if you don't agree with it - the fact is that I wrote it) is precisely yours.

221. Machel

     Yes, they have different values ​​than yours (and mine) - they are allowed.
     Yes, their sectoral parties represent what is important to them - which is natural and normal.
     (And I wish this was what happened with secular parties)

     And on the topic of politics - don't go complaining but to your chosen ones. The power is *in their hands* and always has been.

     If you think that the ultra-orthodox receive more than their percentage of the population, that is not true
     http://thedos.co.il/Article.aspx?Article=139

     You state that repentance is not a problem.

     The difficulties of life and the oppression of the middle class in Israel are directly related to the monopolies and corruption of capital and government

     Do you want the ultra-Orthodox to live according to your lifestyle? does not suit them
     Just as you are not interested in being ultra-orthodox.

     If so, what is the legitimate problem you point to the ultra-orthodox sector?
     If you could elaborate

222. To the honorable Mr. Beloy
     A literary scholar will check if Shakespeare wrote the plays he signed. After he says no, relying on a great deal of primary and secondary material, the world of literary research will respond matter-of-factly to the arguments and findings.

     The book of the Torah will not be written that examines whether David wrote the Psalms (because it has already been established that he did), or indeed, the text of the Song of Songs refers to the love of the Knesset of Israel for Shekinah. Surely there will be no claim that this is, after all, something washed with hormones, RL.

     Will there be a rabbi who rejects the evil assertion that Nimrod - about whom it is said "He was a great hunter, before Jehovah" - was wicked, because it is written in Genesis XNUMX, that he even dares to contradict what is written in the Torah? No.

     Thousands of receipts of this type can be created. Torah literature lacks the basis for research and the advancement of knowledge: criticism. Because what was sacred and was canon is not subject to free discussion by those who accept these texts as canon.

     Freedom in the field of thinking is the foundation that exists in the academy, or the foundation that is absent in yeshiva (and this goes beyond the methods of study, the sources of knowledge, the breadth of the canvas, etc.).

     The human race - and yes, this includes Judaism as well - has not progressed one iota through yeshiva studies. why? Because beyond the Halacha matters that are relevant only to those who accept it, there is nothing beyond that.

     )

223. to camila
     The matter of religion and the state, the religious and broader grievance that the secular parties gave to the religious began in 1949. The religious parties upgraded their status and power in the 1977s, when the Likud and the Alignment had equal power and needed them, and when, already before, when Begin came to power (XNUMX) he was happy to give them what the Maainiki gave them grudgingly, also because it was traditional.
     The whole issue of corruption, the current situation, etc. is a result of the foundations that were laid down here for many decades. Like the permission for separate education, like the allowances, like exemption from military service. The point is that in the beginning it was a matter of small volumes, today it is no longer. Again: mainly since the eighties.
     If this was the most important thing for the seculars - to prevent the religious from having power in all areas - they should have worked together, that is: put this matter at the top of their list and compromise on other matters. For them, this is out of the question (areas, the nature of the economy, etc.).
     In addition: the section of a Jewish state, including the Law of Return, etc., gives religious people control over a very significant core element of this state's identity. Being the standard bearers in the field, they will certainly not be thrown to the fringes of the opposition.

     To Michael
     Being the fact-checkers and the ultra-Orthodox speaking of correct information, it is interesting that here you ignore a simple, factual, and incredibly technical matter: everything that the religious have is anchored in primary and secondary legislation and finds expression in the budget books. All of this is under the complete control of the forces leading the country in any given year, according to the secularists.
     When Sharon decided that he preferred change over them and went all the way, Netanyahu could have made several moves in this area.
     Your personal unsympathetic opinion (note the subtle expression) about the religious in this context, and your unwillingness to accept the substantial responsibility of the others, does not change the simple fact: it is the secular ones who gave. point.

224. Itzik,
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-308448

     I did not claim that the purpose of the site is to bring only a certain type of people, read again what I wrote. The opposite is true, this site contributes to everyone, literally everyone (as if he had blood type 0), through being a mouthpiece for proven facts and rational thinking, but not everyone can contribute (through it) and there are many commenters who illustrate this. Go back and model. Whoever is not ready to accept the simple (but not easy) rules of the game according to which the site plays, does not contribute anything to anyone. What is particularly outrageous is commenters who seem to be willing to accept the rules of the game in certain contexts but not in others (even though the science that deals with all these fields is based on the exact same rules of the game).

     You wrote: "Different opinions violate human thinking and cause the development of science. If every scientist who disagreed with his friend boycotted the other, we would still be in the Middle Ages."

     But obviously not every opinion is a violation, to claim that there is an intelligent planner because that is what seems most logical according to someone's gut feeling, it is not a violation, on the contrary, it stings because it is a statement that equates to the statement "I don't know how to explain it". Other opinions, which involve supernatural powers, also do not violate, because supernatural can be anything and can do anything, and hence it is also equivalent to saying: "I don't know how to explain it". In contrast to those whose contribution ends with the same statement, science says: "I don't know how to explain it at the moment, but I assume there is a natural solution to it, so I will offer explanations and test them." The experience of the past shows a multitude of phenomena that were not understood and for which claims are made regarding the involvement of supernatural forces, which are in fact completely natural. The only way that has led to this kind of understanding (which is usually backed up by matching technology) is through science, and as it is easy to see, you don't have to be a scientist to enjoy the violations of this understanding, but you have to be a real ungrateful person to spit into this source of living water even if you spit mostly into wells certain This is especially stupid when all the wells are drawn from the same source. There are more than enough ideas and opinions that are within the boundaries of the rules of the game that this site represents and everyone is welcome to express their opinion as long as the rules of the game are kept.

     You wrote: "The debate about yeshiva and universities is also unnecessary in my opinion, because the others will explain to you that all humanities departments are unnecessary and are equivalent to kollels and yeshiva"

     This is an unfortunate comparison. Although I come from the field of the exact sciences, I have had the chance to read quite a few works that belong to the field of humanities, and in general there is no comparison between this field and the studies and "research" in kollels and yeshiva for the simple reason that even literary criticism takes place within the scientific game that includes not only rational thinking but also ( and perhaps mainly) reference to the facts. From this point of view, it can be said that the content is of no interest to anyone, but the very existence of the rules of the game is priceless. I had the chance to see several works that came out of a Haredim seminary and I was horrified at how full of logical fallacies and fabrication of facts they are. In the best cases, on a point-by-point basis, there was a proper use of logic but based on practical stories that cannot be verified. Your comparison is sad, because it indicates the size of the gap in your understanding of the value of the scientific rules of the game even if they are not used to discover a cure for cancer. The only similarity between the two fields you mentioned is the lack of technological productivity that characterizes these fields, but still the comparison is unfortunate precisely because of the issue of the legitimacy of the opinions expressed there. For this reason, the department of linguistics, for example, is included in the university, but studies of Reiki or astrology are not.

225. Itzik:
     It turns out that the facts are not important to you either.
     How can it be argued that someone who expects others to be killed in his place is a moral person who cares about his fellow man.
     How can it be claimed that someone who chooses to live at the expense of others is a moral and caring person.
     There is a limit to what it is possible to not understand and indeed people like Rabbi Halbertal and Rabbi Amslam are ultra-Orthodox who dared to say so accept with a committee.
     Anyone who crosses this very clear line is indeed a voluntary parasite.

     so true
     There are many ultra-Orthodox charities.
     But it is also true that the money for these enterprises (just like the taxes that go to the charity enterprise called the government of Israel) comes mainly from the secular (and by the way - if the government charities received more taxes - which would happen if all those able to work worked - there would be no need for ultra-orthodox charities ).
     Another true thing is that corruptions were often discovered in the ultra-Orthodox charities.

226. Husham:
     Since your response shows that the facts do not interest you at all and you present fictions in their place - I will stop arguing with you.

227. Joel:
     See the end of my response to David.
     By the way - the secular parties are more to blame for blindness than anything else.
     They didn't have to form a coalition with the ultra-Orthodox as a means to stay in office.
     They could form coalitions among themselves.
     They did not do this because they saw the differences between their views on foreign affairs and security as something more important than the risk of mixing religion and state.

228. David:
     Your postmodernism has put you out of your mind.
     Most of the religious are not converts but simply people who were born religious.
     The increase in the religious percentage is due to a high birth rate.
     Repentance is not our serious problem.

     Now - we have a high correlation between the economic situation in the Kents and religiosity.
     What it means?
     This does not mean that a bad economic situation causes repentance (because as mentioned - there is very little repentance).
     It does mean that religiosity increases the chance of poverty.
     This is the correct statistical consideration.

     It is interesting that not only the statistics lead to the above conclusion.
     After all, it is clear that those who have not studied any profession relevant to our world will not be able to make a proper living in it, and the ultra-Orthodox communities make sure that this is the case among their children.
     Beyond that, they encourage the graduates to become parasites and present the youths as "the best of youth" and the workers as those who are unable to learn.

     I watched Yaron Zelicha's lecture a long time ago.
     With all due respect - he completely misses this point.
     Jobs are created by working people.
     If there are more ultra-Orthodox in the labor market - some of them will also create jobs.
     This was my conclusion when I watched the movie but to confirm it I also contacted a number of senior economists and they all confirmed my words.

     In relation to the sectoral parties - Knesset members should also have basic decency.
     It is true that religion cancels part of a person's decency, but not all of it.
     Never before has a member of the Israeli Knesset stood up and asked that immigrants from the former Soviet Union receive money for nothing (and it is not difficult to come up with "nothing". He could have demanded it in exchange for "the preservation of Russian culture", for example).

     As I said: there is a limit to blaming the guards and acquitting the thieves.

229. Joel,
     It is true that the secularists are responsible for the situation created in this country (not only on the religious issue). In my personal opinion, the problem with the news is the corruption that has gradually infiltrated for years deep into the administration (both in the state institutions and in the local government). It's not that there hasn't been corruption in the past, but not at this level, not in its shameless form, and not corruption for corruption's sake. From this point of view, it is not the ordinary citizens, like you and me, whether they are secular or religious, who are usually corrupt, but the establishment, including the religious establishment, which exhibits an especially high level of corruption (see Shas for example). That's why the problem here is chained, the citizens are not doing their job faithfully which amounts to democracy at least with the right (which is mandatory in my opinion) to choose worthy candidates. A simple examination of the number of people who have been convicted, are in proceedings, etc. reveals a shocking situation that the largest parties (Likud, Kadima, Shas, Yisrael Beitenu) are also the most corrupt. Corruption of elected officials predictably leads to corruption in public office (due to the appointment of associates who lack any professional qualifications for example), and once this has happened it is very difficult to turn the wheel back.

     You are right about one thing, the religious will not bring about change. Not the ultra-Orthodox citizens, for example, and certainly not the ultra-orthodox establishment. Even today's elected officials will not change anything because to clean the stables you need integrity and professionalism and today's politicians are not elected for these qualities. The only ones who can make a real change are the citizens themselves, using the democratic tool that is so simple on the one hand, but powerful on the other hand, which is the ballot. In recent times we have witnessed a pathetic "social awakening", not because it is unjustified, but because most of the citizens, especially the weaker sections, have cooked this porridge for themselves, due to suicidal voting patterns. The changes that all these tremendous social energies are making are peripheral pruning, an appearance, and very far from root treatment precisely for the simple reason that the establishment is so rotten, cynical and has an elephant's skin for the condition and well-being of the citizens. Things will not change significantly without a change in the voting pattern, when citizens decide to put the integrity and professionalism of their elected officials at the top of the list of priorities. Unfortunately, I do not see such a change in the near future and I have opinions about the reasons for this (perhaps I will present them elsewhere on occasion). However, the responsibility of the citizens who choose time after time the most corrupt parties that exist does not remove the responsibility from those corrupt people (both the elected officials and the officials that the public does not directly elect). Still the same one who receives envelopes and the same one who hands out jobs without anything to do with proven professional abilities and so on, they are directly responsible for this sad situation, and the same is said about the corruption and religious violence in this country. Yoel I really hope you are not one of those who think that if a girl wore a tight dress then it is her fault that she was brutally raped. At most it can be said that she did not act wisely, but from here to accusing her of responsibility for the act of rape itself? It's shocking that many people still think that way, and it's just as shocking to me when people think that way about other vile acts in this world as well. You will not be able to clear the religious and especially the religious establishment of their responsibility, even if the seculars allowed it for many years, and still allow it.

230. Indeed a confusion
     I wonder if there is also evolution in opinions and hatred

     One might think that if the ultra-orthodox had learned and believed in the theory of evolution, they would not have lived according to Rothschild. I happened to live for many years in the suburbs and was very involved in non-religious education and was privileged to... see the huge investments in the advancement of the residents of these areas so that they do not fall for the public.

     You won, and thank whoever you want and believe in, for being born in the right place, someone before you made decisions that break barriers and thanks to him you don't live a life of ignorance and ignorance and therefore today you are very useful to society and the environment. The poor other one whose parents have been here for 60 years are new immigrants and he barely has money for bread and that includes the ultra-Orthodox, the only thing he has is faith and you want your superiority to tear from him the only optimism in which he lives and tries to work on him that just change his faith and already his life will be like your life.

     This demagoguery and hatred is so unnecessary and unpromoting

     In the evolution in which I live, the size of the virtues is usually the size of the shortcomings and vice versa, it is clear that the ultra-Orthodox have a lot of shortcomings as a common society, but the virtues accordingly, only a believing person can be a guarantor and care for others, in his ignorance, his considerations in helping others are very unsophisticated, and his contentment with little can To serve as an example for the company that grew here.

     Most of the respondents do not know the other companies that produce here the great and amazing mosaic called the State of Israel or the people of Israel in general.

     The ultra-orthodox person is sure that he is learning and saving the people just like we are here, we are all sure that we are saving the people and if we take things personally and not as a cooperative society, I am not sure that anyone here has developed any medicine, we are all small screws in a very complex and incomprehensible machine and for every faith And thought has a place in the great machine

231. Education from Wikipedia "is general knowledge that a person acquires during his life"
     Theology is taught at the university as in the beit midrash.

     There are Haredim who work and serve in the army and also pay taxes
     Not everyone who graduates from university finds a job. I have a few friends
     with a bachelor's degree who are overseas and pay taxes there.

     The state supports the unemployed who are not religious.

     Religion provides the state with a certain service
     It accepts into its ranks each of the converts
     Those who have experienced a crisis and are unable to get back on their feet
     the poor and abandoned crippled criminals.

     It all depends on the people, there is no unequivocal
     There are good here and good there, bad here and bad there.
     Weak here and weak there endanger here and endanger there.
     There are weaker and more poor people, that's how it is.

232. To Michael
     The secularists didn't give a second thought, because they have always ruled here. The secular parties were ready to pay the price of establishing the coalition and maintaining it through the religious parties - also at the price of serious damage to the economy, education, equality and even the local holy of holies: service in the army.
     This is not a matter of thieves taking from the house what they did not receive from its owner after breaking into it. The opposite: not only were we invited, we even begged them to do so. The religious have always announced what their conditions are and what they will give in exchange for complying with them.
     True, it transfers the responsibility to the secular, but this is what has been going on here since the establishment of the state.

233. Machel

     Your hatred has made you change your mind on this matter.

     The facts are very simple:

     The public usually turns to religion when their economic situation is poor.

     The serious economic problem in Israel (the poorest country in the West) is *not* related to the ultra-orthodox.

     Former Accountant General Prof. Yaron Zelicha, who was at the heart of the matter and was awarded the title of Knight of the Quality of Government on behalf of the Movement for the Quality of Government in Israel, describes exactly what the problem is

     Sit and watch his lecture at the Technion from the end of 2009
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20mXNRglfk8

     Regarding the ultra-orthodox parties in the Knesset,
     It is obvious that a sectoral party will push its agenda, that is the name of the game in democracy.
     One should be jealous of their voters who do not accept party members who betray them left and right, just as the secular elected officials do.

     You can only complain to your chosen ones - why they betray you time and time again.

234. Something that reminds me of the demand that comes up here from time to time to speak gently with mahbatim:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaiZ3qbM-dA

235. Husham:
     Your words are quite confused and it's hard to understand what you want.
     In any case, no education is acquired in the religious institutions. They buy ignorance and superstitions there.
     Indeed - those who study in a religious institution do not have to pay anything because the state (we) pays for them and also finances their livelihood.
     He stays in these places for many years (much beyond the duration of his university studies) and everything is at our expense.
     Since money doesn't grow on trees and a huge part of the money that is available is wasted on the ultra-Orthodox - the state does not have enough money to give the sane people a free higher education.
     Then come people who don't understand anything and blame - no less - the universities!
     It's that simple!

     Joel:
     Indeed, the secularists who give the other cheek are to a considerable extent to blame for the situation, but the ultra-orthodox are still more to blame for it.
     Saying that all the blame rests on the seculars is like claiming that those who are guilty of house burglaries are first and foremost the innocent citizens who did not protect their homes like Fort Knox and the police who do not catch the thieves.
     Even here - with all the contributing blame through the omission of others - the real ones responsible for the crime are the thieves after all.

236. All that the religious received, they received from the secular.

     All that the seculars gave, no matter how serious it is for the current state of the country and its future, they gave for the establishment of a coalition.

     They are the only ones responsible for this.

237. I really appreciate your honesty, Michael Rothschild
     Your wish to donate your income from statistics games
     And various bets against the earth's dismay.

     At the time, I already wrote here what it's like to study at the university
     It costs so much money to study in a yeshiva
     It's free

     So if you don't understand my opinion, you should
     problem :

     Each course at the Open University costs approx
     The 2300 shekels. The courses include lecturers, some of whom are good
     And some don't.

     If you did not pass the test you will have to pay about half the amount
     to learn again.

     Let's say that I'm not that self-taught, so I need a bus
     Go back and forth to the study centers.

     Let's say that I prefer a study center that is far from a place
     My residence to get a specific lecturer who is also good.

     Assuming that the synagogue / Midrash is far from my place of residence
     About (300 meters) Gemara studies are held
     Every day by a nice and sympathetic lecturer who does not require full attendance
     Or passing stress tests and studying with him are interesting
     Even if you do not completely comply with the principles of science
     And usually refreshments and drinks are also served.

     Who wins the sales promotion?

     Another point:
     The religion holds that those who study Torah do not need to work
     And you provided for all the others who don't study.

     Let's compare it to the academics you made a living from
     State account.

     The question is over:
     Why don't the clergy hide their textbooks these distribute
     The textbooks in every synagogue are free, there is no money
     And they have teachers every 300 meters and to the Tel Aviv University library
     You have to pay to look at the books if they even let you.
     Where is the free education of the scientific professions?

     One logical answer is that there are enough students for the professions
     The goddess and the university cannot take care of the rest they will receive
     Adequate education

     So it seems to me quite necessary that the state of Tel Aviv should be all scientists
     And in the periphery there will be rabbis and people who practice religion.

     So Michael, before you come and accuse the clergy of panic
     The world might want to check what the universities and the state have done
     For those who initially wanted to acquire the scientific education
     And for various reasons, some of them also financial, they finally chose the theological education.

238. Fun to live in illusions!
     The discourse is so non-violent that it managed to create in the country a class of slaves and guards (the donkey of Messiah) against a class of idlers.
     He is so non-violent that he is used to make crazy laws on every issue in the country.
     He is so non-violent that the sector that should bow down to him uses hymns such as "Advise and sew", holds demonstrations "he is entitled" to the release of criminals, hides child abusers from the law authorities, takes over the education system and shamelessly talks about a "full cart" versus an "empty cart" ".

     Continue to turn the other cheek (and demand that the last remaining sane ones do the same) and hope for the best.

     At the local level, such hopes have already destroyed Beit Shemesh, Racsim, Yavnal, large parts of Jerusalem and much more - and the hand is still tipped.

239. Thank you Yuval.

     I think we have more to do than wait and hope for the best.
     Mahatma Gandhi said "Be the change you want to see in your world".
     We can shape the reality in the present and in the future, either by active activity, or by setting a personal example.
     Even now, at this moment.

     And one more quote, clear and very much loved by me, and I wish it would find its way to the following website:

     "There will be no victory of light over darkness,
     As long as we don't stand for the simple truth,
     that instead of fighting the darkness, we should increase the light"
     - Aaron David Gordon

240. cedar! Your words are beautiful. There is no doubt that the State of Israel is a paradise in the heart of the Middle Eastern desert. Will the enlightened culture spread out of Israel or will the Levantine culture conquer Israel? Only future generations knew that. In the meantime there is not much left but to hope.

241. I have already seen Sam Harris' lecture before. It is long but beautiful. Highly recommended for those who comment here who have an hour and a half to spare.

242. jubilee,

     In the heart of the Levant, we created a Western country, with science and technology qualities that most of our neighbors (and I'm not just talking about the immediate circle, but also our neighbors in Europe) can only envy them. We produce literature, patents, medical equipment, satellites, water purification methods, advanced agriculture, groundbreaking research and more.
     Besides technological progress, there is democracy here, awareness of human rights, rule of law where even a president can find himself behind bars, social awareness of the quality of the environment, a very lively social discourse and yet, unlike our neighbors, non-violent.

     There is no doubt that we are a fascinating and very unusual spot in the local landscape.
     If we succeeded in all of the above, and we would like to, the hand is still tilted.

243. jubilee:

     Islam flourishes in London much more and gains more legitimacy there.

     Besides, I didn't say that New Jersey residents shouldn't hear Sam Harris' talk.

     I come back and suggest you watch Sam Harris' lecture.
     In fact I beg you to do so (and this is directed at all readers of this comment - not just you)

244. In Britain it is very easy to punish, and even severely, traffic offenders, simply because there are not many of them.

     And as for Islam, I have good news for all its fans. It blooms beautifully in Jersey too.

     cedar.
     I'm not sure it's that simple. The State of Israel was located in the heart of the Levant. What can be built in cold Europe is not easy to create in our warm country.

245. jubilee:
     The comparison is out of place.
     I guess in London they also punish traffic offenders.

     One of the differences you mentioned between London and New Jersey is that Islam also flourishes in London.

     The whole culture of turning the other cheek is the postmodernist seed sown in Christianity.

     As a supplement, I suggest you also watch the lecture at the following link:
     http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1232718550543562442&hl=en

246. jubilee,
     Culture is something that depends on location and period, and is often quite stable, and yet, it is not destiny.
     If enough people want to live differently, pockets of subculture may be created, in which there are other norms.
     Sometimes these pockets grow to the norm in many days.

247. I own a car and drive it on UK roads. We are very strict with the law, do not honk for no reason and show courtesy wherever possible (for example, "asking for permission" before crossing a lane, receive flashing lights to signal that the request has been approved, and respond with thanks by briefly turning on both signal lights). In short, a pleasure.
     A few months ago I was driving the roads of New Jersey. When I showed kindness, they thought I was psychotic. In the recesses of my memory there is still a traumatic image of the driving situation on Israeli roads.
     I project this on the culture of the discourse.

248. jubilee:
     And one more thing needs to be understood: the origin of vanity beliefs is not in logic but in emotion created as a result of brainwashing.
     Logic is not enough to eradicate them (after all, if logic were enough, none of the debates on religious grounds would have taken place here in the first place)

249. jubilee:
     When someone is talking nonsense, in my opinion, I will continue to tell them that they are talking nonsense.
     When someone does this systematically and while repeatedly ignoring the things that are said to him - I will allow myself to resort to more harsh ways of expression.
     When the repeated lies and nonsense are used to justify other vile acts I will be even more determined.

     All the ways of pleasing with the superstitions led us to the Hebrews of Phi Pahat and that is where we are today.

250. white cedar:
     When you stop being condescending and when you get down from your postmodernist tendency, it will make sense to answer you.

251. You will wonder about the relationship between a person and his friend (I would appreciate your opinions):

     There are commenters here who regularly embarrass themselves, probably without being aware of it, at the level of style and content of their words.
     I wonder what would do them more kindness, to leave them in ignorance at ease or to politely reflect on how ridiculously they present themselves.

252. Itzik Beloy:
     Although all the annoying things must be taken care of, I did not mention all of them, but only those that, if not taken care of, will lead to the destruction of the country.

     Your comparison of the funding of the ultra-Orthodox to the funding of cultural institutions is incredibly ridiculous - you cannot compare the magnitudes at all - you are just trying to throw sand in our eyes.

     I don't know what taxes you are talking about. If an ultra-Orthodox receives money from the state, then the fact that he returns a small part of it in taxes does not make wasting money on his swag economically beneficial. He just remains damage.

     Vanity beliefs are what underlies the illusion of the ultra-orthodox that what they get from the state they really deserve.
     These beliefs also prevent them from learning and understanding the world as it is and becoming productive citizens.

     I knew beforehand how to score your name, but your words annoyed me, so I played with the letters without considering the score.

253. "Because I finance (myself and my whole family including the faraway, ultra-Orthodox and working hard for their livelihood, most of them pay above average taxes) the IDF's waves and the theaters and the humanities and the museums and and and..., don't forget that those who enjoy these institutions are less from the ultra-Orthodox numerically and their contribution is not as certain as you think"

     demagogy..

     Bottom line, if the ultra-Orthodox grow at the current rate and they continue not to work (there are always those who work, it doesn't change the general picture) - the situation of all of us will be on the rocks, and this is what the governor of the Bank of Israel says.

254. With apologies for once again taking care of the little things:
     "It is very difficult for me to understand, what bothers the "scientists" so much that it is so difficult for them to live with different beliefs of the other"
     This questioning can be expressed by replacing subject with object and it will also be relevant in its new form. It is indeed less prominent in Judaism in Israel than in Islam in Iran, but it exists.

     In itself, this is a very interesting question. Why, really, is it difficult for a person to listen to the faith of the other?
     And here I would like to elaborate a little on the phrase "tilt your ear". The ears are used not only for hearing but for the perception of balance. A.Z.N. It is the root of the words "balance" and "balance". Tilting the ear, obviously, throws the person out of balance.

255. Style Note:
     "You are talking nonsense" is a rough statement, which has probably become an integral part of Israeli conversational culture. But to take the name of your interlocutor (and it is not a nickname that he chose for himself, but rather his real name) and make him a hucha and italula - this already borders on rudeness.

256. jubilee
     I just don't bother with it, because every question has an answer, including a "scientific" one by ultra-Orthodox scientists, I don't deal with anyone's beliefs unless the belief is to treat the one who doesn't believe.

     Michael
     There are many issues that haunt normal people, not everything must be dealt with, it is better to look ahead and move forward, dealing with beliefs is not part of it.

     If I write the requested reasons, we will really move on to a completely different topic, for a small example, because I finance (me and my whole family, including the faraway, ultra-Orthodox and work hard for their livelihood, most of them in Israel pay above average taxes) the IDF's waves and the theaters and the humanities and the museums and you and you and..., don't forget that those who benefit from these institutions are fewer than the ultra-Orthodox numerically and their contribution is not as certain as you think, neither in the army nor in the economy nor in anything like the ultra-Orthodox, this issue is also more religious and not scientific, it has never been done Here is an honest and reliable examination of who donates how much and why and who receives how much and why (see the rattle donors).
     It is very difficult for me to understand, what bothers the "scientists" so much that it is so difficult for them to live with the different beliefs of the other, you really harm the intelligence when you eliminate all the grandmother's and nature's medicines, most of the medicines in the world even today are faith medicines (you live in the West which is the minority in the world).

     My last name is punctuated in a dream, I am very proud of my family that built this country and carried the burden required for your right to the land for thousands of years and I hope that you fit your glorious family name (this level is not suitable for a "scientific" discussion).

257. Itzik:
     No one is looking for controversial issues but these issues haunt the normal people.
     Can you point me to one reason why I would finance the families with many children of people who choose to be idle in the Torah tent?
     Is there a single reason why I would send my children to fight for parasites that don't stick a finger?

     And in the matter of beliefs - you believe in nonsense.
     Also the claim that the world was created five seconds ago when in the minds of all the people planted false memories as if they lived for a long time cannot be refuted - so is this a reason to believe it?
     These beliefs have not yet used the human race for anything. No medicine was developed using them and no technology that improves our lives.
     They are based on ignorance and cause the preservation of ignorance.
     In short: as you are, Itzik Beloy - so are your beliefs.

258. Itzik asked me to you

     Since you said, and I believe you spoke honestly, "I have a belief of generations that has not yet been scientifically disproved, until then allow me to have my beliefs that are really not related to science", I am curious to know what a claim that contradicts your belief does to you? For example, if you believe that the stories of the creation of the world and man in the first chapters of Genesis describe a real reality, but a person like me approaches you and proves that according to his (scientific) method, this is not the case.

259. Happy new year to everyone

     The issue of "who created" and "how did he create" are philosophical issues, the proof that this is how it works today still does not make the matter a science, and certainly not a proof, with me there is no "it cannot be that he did not plan" I have a belief of generations that has not yet been scientifically denied and So let me be with my beliefs that have absolutely nothing to do with science.
     Gali is right, the debate is indeed about the creation of life, and still science uses theories and you have to "allow" for other theories of faith, for example, every faith stands no less than any "theory", but I don't understand why you think it "annoys" the believers of the faith, from reading Here it becomes clear that the "nerves" are precisely in the theory holders who find it difficult to accept a different opinion and thinking, because it is a religion or for any other reason.

     Since in my opinion the issue is religious and not scientific, I think the debate is quite stupid, what is certain is that today the processes are evolutions and even today in these processes, our knowledge is very nil and limited and most likely in the coming generations the conclusions of today will change many times.

     I have never forced a ghost or anyone to believe in my beliefs and I am sure that my views and beliefs are very legitimate, and those who have a hard time with different opinions prove themselves to be illegitimate.

     withering
     I hope I'm not wrong, but the purpose of "Hidan" is to bring knowledge and innovations in science to the whole public (I really like the site even though I don't agree with everything), I find it hard to believe that the purpose is to bring only a certain type of people, different opinions violate human thinking and factors in the development of science, if every scientist who disagreed with his friend would excommunicate the other, we would still be in the Middle Ages today.
     The debate about yeshiva and universities is also unnecessary in my opinion, because the others will explain to you that all humanities departments are unnecessary and are equivalent to kollels and yeshiva, the main problem in my opinion is in the constant search for the issues in dispute instead of in common, and this is exactly what I am trying to explain, today there are hundreds if not hundreds in all fields of science Thousands of people believe that they are doing well with their faith, if they don't grind water in how it all started and when, they investigate with today's tools according to today's knowledge and with great success.
     That's why I really liked Erez's main article despite the things I disagree with about him.

260. By the way, to be clear, not only many of the deniers of evolution express illegitimate positions (as defined in my previous response), also many who hold New Age worldviews and serial conspiracies, oh, and also many of the crazy. They all have in common the fact that they play games with different rules, it's fascinating to see people who act like this but there comes a point where it becomes boring or even dangerous, especially when they try to claim actual knowledge of this world. Personally, I don't know of any other game other than the science that rigorously reaches insights into how this world works (and technology respectively). It is not for nothing that it is difficult to find reliable technology developed by ultra-Orthodox (anti-missile psalms?), New Agers (reading crystals?) etc. Even in criminals, you can sometimes find such technologies to the point of actual scientific thinking, for the simple reason that they have to deal with reality and to break into a safe, for example, you need something more certain than reading fortunes with a ball in a dolch or skipping letters in the Bible. At least in this respect I appreciate them more.

261. white cedar,

     The questions are short but that does not guarantee short answers. I will try to be brief even if it is at the cost of oversimplification and a reference that in my opinion is more relevant to the discussion that will be made here (ie prepare for a long answer...:-)).

     That. What is legitimacy in your eyes?
     A. A legitimate claim/opinion is one that at least does not contradict the accepted rules of the game in the field. On a religious site, the rules of the game will of course be different from those used on this site for example. The science website, by its very purpose of bringing information and news on scientific topics to the public's attention (although it does not claim to be scientific itself in the "hard" sense of the term) accepts scientific rules of the game in a broad, readable sense - based on known facts (as published, for example, in scientific newspapers or facts that they are "among the famous" as well as rational thinking (and especially on the basis of valid logical arguments). When someone makes a claim that is clearly based on ignorance, ignorance of known facts or on logical failures, he can be seen as mistaken and then it would be good if one of the commenters points to it A flaw in the argument. A person is allowed to make a mistake (either out of ignorance or out of misunderstanding), but after the error has been explained and the same commenter continues with this type of argument, in my opinion, his responses from this moment on are no longer legitimate. When the responses are accompanied by other characteristics such as repeatedly ignoring clarification questions that have a connection direct to the problems that arise from those problematic claims, or a gross distortion of the words of other commenters to the point of telling outright lies, not only are the comments themselves no longer legitimate, but the commenter himself is no longer legitimate in the sense that he showed an agreement with a committee that he does not intend at all (and may not can) play a fair game. I never treated the commenters as if they were illegitimate (in my eyes, of course) when they put forward arguments based on facts, presented rational thinking, and created the impression that they were really trying to deal objectively with the criticism directed at them by other commenters (under the same rules of the game).

     That. What is the danger in denying evolution over this site?
     A. In a world where resources are limited and competition is tough, and where our future and that of our child depends on the abilities and skills we possess, including the level of education, the communication skills with external parties, the scientific and technological level, skills that have a profound effect on the economy, health and security of the State of Israel, it is of great importance where the payer's money flows The taxes and in which contents and activities the state encourages. From the comparison of the contribution (the one that is visible and measurable in some way) of, for example, the Abrachi kollim to their rabbis and the students and research students to their professors, both in terms of the research itself and in terms of other productive and creative circles (such as military service, social activity that is not sectoral) I believe that the contribution of the latter increases immeasurably on those of the former. Of course, if you include a contribution that cannot be measured, then there will be those who will argue otherwise, but then Oren Zarif is probably the most significant figure in this country and it is best to just pour most of the budgets into him. Unfortunately, the State of Israel is getting more and more anxious. Unfortunately, the skills (including in the moral dimension by the way) that many members of this population display, as mentioned, not only do not result in a significant contribution, but in some areas they even constitute a real obstacle and lead to a situation where many of this population are a burden and a burden on society. There is a well-oiled establishment that engages in baby captivity and driving innocent citizens towards religion. In front of this establishment there are few attempts, too few it should be noted, to present an alternative. This site, although not in its main definition, represents such an alternative for those babies who have fallen, or for those who are at the beginning or in the middle of the process of deterioration and who nevertheless still have some basic kernel of curiosity, a pursuit of factual knowledge and rational thought. For those people, discussions of this kind, and more precisely the positions that are based on the rules of the scientific game, may be a real lifeline. There is no fundamental difference between the denial of evolution on this site, and the denial of other science foundations. There is also no essential difference (in the context of the rules of the game I mentioned) between this denial and the denial of the Holocaust. In all these cases the deniers are required to behave outside the rules of the legitimate game as defined earlier. Simply put, these denials are tiny battles in the daily war over people's worldview. Any such discussion on this site is almost negligible in itself, and this is true in almost all the levels where the encounters between different games take place, but it would be naive and crying for generations to think that there is no cumulative effect and contribution to the character of the people who make up the population of Israel. The main reason I read and comment here is not out of a mission to save souls, but when I come across commenters who present illegitimate thinking I feel obligated to at least expose the fact that they are not willing to play fairly. If I was able to positively influence other readers, that's good.

     That. Are you different from the evolution-deluded commenters here, and if so, then in what way?
     A. In that I am discussing the subject under the rules of the game while it is obvious that they are not (especially those that deny evolution and/or the theory of common descent). I'm sure there will be a fascinating discussion if one day an evolution fool appears here who is willing to play by the rules of the game I mentioned earlier. I have yet to meet one like this. Do you know someone like that?

262. Gali and Yuval:
     All theories about the formation of life are based on evolution.
     Although not about evolution that works through DNA like the one we observe today, but evolution nonetheless - exactly according to the same principles formulated by Darwin and which have since been applied in many fields - even outside of biology.
     There is something that can replicate itself with a probability of certain changes.
     There is competition for resources.
     Those who are more successful in utilizing resources for reproduction reproduce more.
     Although none of the "non-creationists" rules out in advance a natural mechanism different from evolution, such a mechanism has not yet been proposed by anyone.

     It is true that it is desirable to separate the evolution that led to the formation of life and that which occurred after the formation of life because we have a lot of tangible evidence for the latter. So tangible that even the church had to admit that what is written in the Torah is nonsense (and therefore the question arises what are they trying to defend when they continue to argue? About the interpretations they fabricate in order to continue believing in the Torah even though it has been refuted?).
     But this separation for the sake of argument does not mean that life itself was not created in the first place through an evolutionary process. On the contrary - as far as we understand they were indeed created in an evolutionary process.

     Examples of theories about the formation of life:
     http://sciam.co.il/archives/1833
     http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

     Yehuda:
     Thanks for the update.

263. Did you notice that I didn't see fit to get into a debate here? I knew there would be a discussion here between two uncompromising parties whose chances of changing their minds tend to zero, so why invest energy
     Continue your attempts to influence the uninfluenced. Me, I have other things to do.
     Good Day
     Sabdarmish Yehuda

264. Thank you Gali ♥

     Although you "stole the words out of my mouth" but you saved me a lot of writing.

     I will only add that since it is still not clear at which stage of the complexity of life the process of natural selection began, it is not impossible to find it, or a primitive version of it, already at the molecular stage. For example, a certain environment allows (or forces) the creation of precisely these molecules and not others.

     It is possible, by the way, to go further back with this question and ask how it happened that the entire visible universe is populated mainly by particles of the proton type (the hydrogen nucleus) and not by particles of another type, i.e. what are the conditions in the universe that favored the proton and not, for example, the positron.
     But, as Erez said, at this stage of the knowledge base's life, the debate is mainly on a philosophical level.

     Good signature

265. The debate about evolution evokes some ancient instinct in people to respond. It seems to me that it is some kind of mutation or some kind of genetic defect - as soon as you talk about evolution and evolution deniers, everyone immediately jumps up and reacts. 🙂
     Well then I also jump in and respond. A monkey after a human... and therefore I am also a monkey. 🙂
     The debate is not only about what happened after life was created. And today the church for example accepts that after life was created there was evolution. But it says that life was created in creation by an intelligent being and that is God.
     But the debate is about how life was created. Science says by spontaneous creation while religious people claim by creation.
     Science also talks about the creation of life. It is true that this is outside the scope of the theory of evolution. But it is not outside the scope of science. These are other theories that scientists offer as an explanation for the creation of life, chemical and biological theories, and not the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution really cannot explain the creation of life itself. But there are still other theories that scientists offer as an explanation for the creation of life: mainly everything related to spontaneous creation. From the moment life was created, that's when the theory of evolution comes into play.
     The big debate is about these theories that are related to spontaneous creation. This is what mainly annoys the religious people and they will never accept such theories because they are in complete contradiction to creation.

266. jubilee
     The issue of "who created" is a more philosophical and less scientific discussion because there is no scientific evidence for a planned creation of natural laws, or mechanisms in nature. So far I have only come across the arguments "it is impossible that there was no planning" and not positive evidence such as a workshop, plans, tools, etc. that used the same planner, I have not come across evidence of when that planning event supposedly took place, how many stages it had, identity or evidence Anything about that planner and of course who planned the planner. As soon as positive evidence for such a creation appears, I have no doubt that it will stand up to scientific discussion. Until this happens, the status of that "theory" is the same as the status of the flying spaghetti monster (from a scientific point of view, of course).

267. Gerty Cedar

     Your words in this response:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-308165
     are acceptable to me, but it seems to me that the question "Who created these laws of nature?" may also be relevant to this discussion or to a preliminary discussion.

268. Dear Camila,
     The wait is long enough for my answer, and it has already been a year.

     "You still haven't answered my question as to whether the world view of the residents of the insane asylum is also a "legitimate thought" in your eyes"
     "Following the spirit of your words, I also propose to immediately release everyone who is in an insane asylum because their opinion must also be equally legitimate"
     —
     You opened your last response to me with a reference to the crazy, and this is the second time, until a reference to my words was missed (I dare to hope, however, that it did not disappear from your notice), apparently the subject preoccupies you and therefore let's expand the discussion on it.
     I will go ahead and say that contrary to the common ignorance, psychiatric hospitals are not used as forbidden homes for the "insane" but as hospitals that treat those whose mental suffering does not allow them to live in a normal environment. That's why no one is banned or released based on his views, no matter how different they may be.

     In order to address the fascinating issue of legitimacy that you have raised, we must first make sure that we are speaking the same language.
     Would you please agree to answer three short questions:

     1. What is legitimacy in your eyes?
     2. What is the danger in denying evolution over this site?
     3. Are you different from the evolution-deluded commenters here, and if so, then how?

269. Nice video but there might be some girls who will get mad at him

270. To all opinion seekers, a happy and sweet new year!
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZLq_JB8H44

271. Orit
     There are laws of nature, among them evolution. The question of whether God exists or not is not relevant to the discussion at all.

272. And another important thing!
     The Torah book is not registered as a history book! Noah's box calculation etc. is ridiculous
     But the person needs to find out why towards himself, he needs to learn the inner workings of the Torah.

273. Larez Gertie

     Things are simpler, there is evolution, but creation is not spontaneous
     The entire process of creation, including evolution, exists from the thought of creation by a higher power = nature = God
     Except that these are not spontaneous actions, all matter and the entire universe known to us and unknown to us,
     acting from the same higher power.
     including the evolution of man from ape, etc.

274. Regarding the experiment of the 'blood pipeline to Eilat'..
     What I don't see in this experiment:
     A. Were the students really convinced that this was a real need, or did they think that it was a hypothetical project that allows them to test their ability to solve a problem..
     B. Given that the answer is the first part of the sentence, should they suspect that someone intends to unethically use their solutions..?
     In short: to me it sounds like manipulation.. (which assumes the desired, and 'builds' the experiment so that it aims at the result..)
     By comparison: Milgram's famous experiment sounds much more serious..

275. Yuval - sorry for the misunderstanding. Only the beginning of my words were directed at you as I responded to your words "that you usually speak to the matter, but this does not completely compensate for your other contributing qualities." The sequel is for everyone.
     Camila - everything is relative. Let's say that the very smart ones are 135, you are 145 and as you say - in your environment there are also more. And I'm not just saying this, I have something to rely on, including a point of reference.

276. Michael,

     If so then there is an agreement between us and I still wonder if so what the argument was about 🙂

277. jubilee:
     All the gods that exist are both liars and not liars.

278. R.H.:
     There was nothing else.
     I only said that mere complexity is not enough and a very special structure is needed.

279. Michael,

     There is no debate between us about what you said here and I agree with you 100% that it is clear that not all complexity will bring awareness. On the other hand, I was under the impression that you claimed that beyond the special combination of simple elements there is also something else.

280. withering
     It could be that 'fear' was a misplaced word... but even if you understand why he is lying and how absurd it is, in this forum you just have to explain. Otherwise it would have been possible to simply block him and 'save' all this, (undemocratic in my eyes).. In any case, an expression of anger (even justified), does not really explain why it is misleading. And it seems to me that this is the benefit of you and your likeness, that you understand the matria and can really explain and really convince..

     It can be explained why when someone raises a scientific question (even a logical one) about evolution, he really has to deal with all the studies that came before... (he can't just claim that it's a conspiracy) and this is something Shingua does by comparing homologous proteins for example to 'models of Cars' .. not something terribly difficult to deal with, given so much accumulated knowledge. correct me if I'm wrong..

281. cedar,
     Your calculations regarding the volume of Noah's box cannot be in restricted meters, at most cubic meters...

282. Is God a liar?

283. An anonymous user wrote: "God, in my belief, created a perfect world in which the evolution that "plays" with those DNA letters is also included and allowed man's imagination to think that he is changing or changing within a huge universe of which man is not even a point."

     Beyond the embarrassing fact that what you write contradicts the source of your knowledge about God, the lion, in the sense that in the story of creation we are talking about finished, non-evolving beings, your claim contradicts itself in a sad way.

     There is a complete contradiction between a "perfect world" and evolutionary activity. What there is is far from perfect and full of flaws like holes in the net.

     If your God both created man and "gave man's imagination" so and so there are two problems here: a. If so, God is a soulless manipulator; B. If so - how do you know that?

     The matter of education is not relevant to the discussion. Everything you need to know about God and his works is written in the scriptures. It was good back then when they didn't know much; Apparently when you know a lot it just doesn't work.

     Regarding the honorable professor: I faithfully promise you one thing: he does not apply the principles of his faith to his scientific research. Belief has an exemption, and the exemption is given according to one's personal needs.

284. I'd be happy
     nadavbsh@gmail.com

285. Today I heard Prof. Zak Goldberg from the Technion, a physicist who works at CERN and was a small partner in the neutrino experiment, how he talks about creation and his belief in the creation of the world, true modesty of a scientist, and if a scientist like him who deals with creation can talk like that, there is no doubt that the real deal here is with faith and not In science, with all due respect, I am sorry to be disappointed, you speak faith in the false garb of science and act as religious in your faith.

     God, in my belief, created a perfect world in which evolution is also included, which "plays" with those DNA letters and allowed man's imagination to think that he is changing or changing within a huge universe of which man is not even a point.

     The education of each of us is very limited and usually covers a very narrow field and only modesty like Prof. Goldberg's can promote and develop.

     Happy New Year and good writing and signing to everyone

286. withering

     Here is your first comment:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/between-god-and-science-2807117/#comment-300335

     I am ashamed to admit that such discussions exhaust me even if true things are said in them. The proposal I made is indeed loaded to the point of exhaustion with problems that I have been struggling with for many years. You dismissed it because it defies logic. I tried to explain that we have to expand the logic so that it also includes the situation I'm talking about, but here I already broke down. You are simply stronger than me in arguments.

     In the meantime, following Moshe's comments, I became acquainted with the mathematician George Spencer Brown and his book Laws of Form. It turns out that he was the predecessor by about 14 years and also formulated the mathematical basis clearly using symbols that make it very easy to understand things. At the age of 88, he is still prolific, and a year ago a new edition of his book was published. recommended.

287. Aryeh Seter,
     Thank you for the understanding you show, however, I would like to refrain from the superlative you gave me. Since I know several gifted people closely, I have a standard and believe me I am not close to the end of their abilities (each and every one in their field). Anyway, thanks for the compliment.

288. jubilee,
     You wrote: "At the time I raised a question about the origin of matter, and in response you raised a claim that does not fall short in its stupidity from the creationist/religious claims: "matter has always been". From that moment on, you were "tagged" by me in the section "Exemplary virgin ears sub-section"."

     Can you please provide a link to my response from the same discussion that you refer to here? I remember things a little differently, and of course I did not object to your claims then because they were "boring" as you said. Boredom in itself is not a fundamental flaw in making arguments. Boring is usually synonymous with something known and accepted by everyone and your words were far from that, and in that respect they were interesting. Are you sure you didn't understand what I said there, what are the problems that exist in my opinion in your comments?

     As for my comments, this is my style, take it or live it, I'm not trying to please anyone here except my conscience. I'm sure there will be those who think that there is content in these comments that makes them worth looking at, regardless of the style. As for others, it was not just that this style was directed towards certain commenters and not towards others.

289. Nadav:
     There is a solution but I will not post it here nor will I hint here about the solution.
     This question is often used by me to expose the lie of the creationists (in fact - the ultra-orthodox pretending to be creationists).
     I am willing to correspond with you by email and wonder a little about your jar and then, depending on what I learn, I will decide whether to give you a hint.

290. Regarding the statistical challenge you proposed to Hinge, does it have a solution? If so I would be happy to hint

291. R.H.:
     Since it is possible to understand from your words something incorrect about my words, I want to clarify my opinion here again.
     My opinion is also that consciousness consists of known elements and all I disagree with (and I explained this well during that discussion) is the claim that this is the essence of complexity (and I gave an example of extremely complex systems that lack consciousness). I claim that the (known) components are organized in a very special way that enables consciousness.

292. xianghua,

     So decide. On the one hand, you claim that the creationist article was published in a legitimate newspaper, and on the other hand, you claim a connection of concealment and prevention of the publication of such articles. how does it work out

293. cedar birch,

     Regarding your article in Eyal the Reader.
     I kind of agree with what you say there. Not long ago, Michael and I had a very long discussion on a close topic. I argued that consciousness is a product of the complexity of known elements. That is to say that structurally there is nothing new in it except for a great many connections between nerve cells that are similar to nerve cells in creatures without consciousness.
     So this is pretty much a continuation of your argument about life in general.

294. Aryeh Seter
     I agree with you on almost everything.
     But why would you address your words specifically to me? Tell them straight to Camila. I'm sure she'll be happy to read.

295. Eric,
     I believe that you are wrong when you attribute the reasons for reactions with an aggressive style (like mine sometimes) to "fear". I think the reasons are caring (toward the goals of this site and toward the commenters who deserve to meet with facts and rational thinking). As I wrote to Erez, the denunciation stems from an internal moral command, which does not depend on external texts, however "sacred" they may be, the same conscientious command that urges us (not all of us, unfortunately) to condemn the thief and the swindler, the rapist and the murderer, and to make a thousand thousand distinctions between the liar as well. It is the same principled order that raises in us the need to condemn also the one who insists on repeatedly deducing what cannot be logically deduced or who redefines accepted concepts and attributes private meanings to them while they have completely different accepted meanings and thus misleads, to the point of actually cheating, the rest the readers.
     I am especially outraged by those who spit into the well from which they drink, those who fight in the way of scientific thinking while they are surrounded and enjoy everything that that thinking actually created and creates.

296. Yuval - talking to the point is also a contributing quality. I do not find anything wrong with Camilla's words in their content, their level, the way they are presented, etc. You will surely agree that Michael is much more blunt than Camila. No matter how much you praise the words of the aforementioned two, you cannot exaggerate. Even very smart people can be fooled by all the nonsense that is assumed to be logical, of the ignorant and senseless people who comment here. That's why we need the genius commenters to remove the mask and expose the nakedness of those ignorant and senseless people.

297. Last!

     You don't shut up. You are just exhausting. Try, please, to speak in slightly shorter sentences; Please use Hebrew words where the context allows; Try, if possible, to use a less lethal style.

     At the time I raised a question about the origin of matter, and in response you raised a claim that does not fall short of the creationist/religious claims in its stupidity: "matter has always been". From that moment on, you are "tagged" in my section of the "Exemplary Sub-section of Exemplary Ears".
     You also have unsympathetic outputs that fall just short of Casper's.
     To your credit, you usually speak to the point, but this does not completely compensate for your other contributing qualities.

     And as for my model: it is long and complex and mostly boring. There is no point in bringing it here as a response or as a comment chain. With all my ill will, I cannot attribute this failure to your duty.

298. white cedar,
     You still haven't answered my question whether the world view of the residents of the insane asylum is also a "legitimate thought" in your eyes, are the words of a pathological liar or a Holocaust denier a legitimate thought? Would you express yourself in the same way in the face of the speeches of Hitler, Ahmadinejad or make a thousand differences in the face of the incitement to murder of certain right-wing extremists? I am not trying to compare the reactions of some of the commenters here to the extreme cases I just referred to, cases that are only meant to illustrate the hypocrisy of giving apparent legitimacy to any opinion. As I already wrote earlier, there are commenters who serially insist on logical errors, on distortion of known facts to the point of telling gross lies, etc. I'm sorry that you display an apparently principled tolerance towards such reactions that deserve (especially in light of their repetition) active condemnation. I think it was Edmund Burke who said: "The surest way to ensure the victory of evil in the world is for enough good people to do nothing."

     The objection I express stems from this logic and from the need to represent the field that presents the most acceptances regarding the ability to say something meaningful about the world we live in, even if this field is not perfect (no one is trying to claim this and certainly not me). The reasons that Yuval excludes his views from here range from "hard Camilaite-Rothschild rant" to "it's not because of the loud voices but because of the lack of time."
     He wondered the real reason he wondered (or at least its relative weight which he wondered) all stem from Yuval himself. I can't (and I'm not even trying to) shut anyone's mouth, through censorship for example, for the simple reason that I don't have that ability. I know that other people who have such technical ability do not use it regarding commenters like Yuval, therefore the "reasons" are actually excuses. In practice, the permission to express oneself is given, as is well demonstrated by Xingua, who repeats in his responses all the basic ills that I pointed out throughout the discussion. It's weird that you try to put the responsibility on me as if I'm a control valve that determines what people can or can't post here. It bothers me that you ignore an important thing (which is very important to me) and that is the subject of the content and the relevance of the comments. I make sure to be matter-of-fact in my references to the words of others and bother to go back and point out the shortcomings time and time again to make sure that I don't jump to conclusions simply, rashly or due to a lack of understanding. I will continue to denounce commenters who present the same evils that I mentioned in detail in previous comments, and I still expect to hear from you which "gentiles" are not included in your basket, because I simply refuse to believe that there are none in your view. In my opinion, the debate between us, which deserves to be an in-depth discussion for everyone, is where the border is crossed and not whether such a border exists (or should exist) and what should be done in your opinion when there are commentators who take advantage of the stage and cross this border, sometimes with a rough foot.

299. I don't know about you, father, but I was brought into the world by a stork
     : )

300. to Xingua
     Well? Something from your side that relates to the rational creator and the problems of reason in planning and creation and its failures in the execution of all the matters I raised?

     A little, not a lot, really a little, if only as an olive of intellectual honesty?

301. In the same matter, there are other theories that seek scientific recognition and which are excluded from the schools.
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO3ttj6JFBU

302. ^ But I didn't understand you correctly

303. Itzik Beloy:
     Why don't you give these ideas a real chance, there is always a chance that each of us will make a mistake..
     Why don't you join a biology class as a free student, and just get a sense of proportion, and realize that evolution is not related to a 'religious war', but simply another field of science that explains something... The fact that there are religious people who do not agree to accept evolution, does not make it "Ten" of the atheists' or something like that..

     No one needs to 'convince' you either, you choose how you want to perceive and analyze things, it's basically your business only..

304. Ghost
     albeit late

     You sound and look either like a mad scientist or a religious fanatic, your form of defense of what appears to you to be science is insanely fanatical, luckily for you or ours you were born in a different neighborhood, if you were born in Mea Shearim or Iran you would probably burn immodest women.

     If I were the editor of the site, I would have long ago defined you as DNA waste, except that your only courage is hiding behind an unscientific name and spewing Jura.

     There are people here who sound like great geniuses and great scientists, but are not convincing, and especially when they are preoccupied with the past it is neither interesting nor influential, in my opinion the debate about who and how the world was created is really uninteresting and has a negative impact on the public who think differently.

     The article we are responding to is a light at the end of the tunnel. It's a shame that following the article, great scientists who don't understand the human soul are dealing with issues that are not related to science.
     The debates on the subject remind me of the distant days 30 years ago when the subject was none, today the subject of creation is an occupation for the bored who try to dabble in philosophy and present it as science.

305. ^P.S
     Also related to what Xingua bothered to send first (before he retired as a secular to rest on Shabbat..)

306. ^ Please pay attention to the names of the articles.. because it is related.

307. Xinghua:
     With you it's really a history lesson:
     http://www.skeptics.org.il/blog/%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%93-%D7%AA%D7%97%D7%A0%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%9E%D7%A1%D7%A2-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%9E%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%93%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99-%D7%91%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A9-%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8-%D7%9E%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%91%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%AA

308. R. H.,

     Just a little clarification regarding what you wrote,

     "So why didn't the respected researcher publish the aforementioned article in a regular newspaper (the ones that appear in Pub Med)?" - This is strange because he actually did publish an article that supports intelligent planning and appears in PubMed:

     http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723

     And when asked if this article supports intelligent planning, his answer was positive. For the simple reason that beta lactamase appears once in 77^10 sequences.

     Second, I don't need to tell you what happens to a scientist who tries to publish research that disproves an evolutionary claim. It is enough to watch the movie expelled, to understand what it is about.

     "And you'll be surprised, not all scientists support evolution" - so scientists who deny evolution conduct peer reviews of studies that support evolution? Yes, sure…

309. It's not because of the loud voices but because of the lack of time. This is a complex model that requires the study of quite a few basic concepts. I tried to interest the commenting public in a certain metaphysical question and I encountered rejection and reluctance to deal with it on the part of the authority. On the part of the other commenters (with the exception of two, R.H. and Moshe), I encountered indifference. I am now working on it in an academic setting. If and when he has a public one, I assume that the echoes will probably reach here as well.

310. The truth is that Camilla actually surprises me.. after all, she is usually eloquent enough to take advantage of the sweeping denials of evolution to explain the scientific logic, I am aware that given such a broad consensus in science for evolution, there is no need to be 'afraid' of these or other reactions. There is always a way to explain and it can even be a golden opportunity to instill scientific logic to those who are interested in hearing..
     And especially that there is so much disinformation on sites like 'Hidbrot' and similar.. it doesn't really matter. Evolution is in any case not 'intuitive' but scientific and as such requires a desire to try to understand how it manages to describe the complexity of the natural world.

311. jubilee,

     It's a shame that loud voices stopped you from expressing yourself here, this is not the way of enlightenment in my eyes.
     The very essential question of whether every opinion of Goth is legitimate for expression, is still subject to clarification between me and Camila, and as a prelude to the discussion to come, I wonder what Camila's reaction is to the fact that you exclude your opinions from here because of the spirit of delegitimization of certain opinions she favors.

     I would love to hear more in private correspondence, and if the things are worthy of a stage and you want it, we will also find a stage that allows guests to present them in public.

     cedar
     erezliv@gmail.com

312. Birch cedar

     I skimmed through things you wrote here. I saw many familiar sights from my private world of thoughts. I will gladly talk to you.
     I once tried to tell here about the model I built to describe the world of matter, but following a severe Camillaite-Rothschild quarrel I realized that in the meantime the science readers would not be able to enjoy it.

     ivrit.yuval00@googlemail.com

313. Thank you Yuval.

     That's not what I was aiming for, but I'm always happy to learn something new.
     Can you expand?

314. Birch cedar

     Your words are beautiful. About forty years ago, I started formulating a model that presents the world of matter as the product of one elementary particle. One of the conclusions derived from it is that life preceded inanimate matter. Let us understand, life was not created from inanimate matter, but inanimate matter was created from a living being that preceded it.

315. Regarding the question of the beginning of life, my opinion, which is not the accepted opinion, is that there was no such event at all.
     Attached is an article I published some years ago about the meaning of the concept of life:
     http://www.haayal.co.il/story_921

316. R. H. Thanks for the clarification, the point was still that there is a lot to be done in this field in order to describe a consistent and clear process that would even describe 'what could have been', while the evolution of the animal world is today considered a fact, although contrary to how Xingua presented it, there could have been a researcher who did not Messing with intelligent planning because it simply doesn't interest him, and still bringing up a study in the style brought by Xingua about how Darwin's theory of evolution cannot describe certain phenomena.. it doesn't happen..

317. Eric,

     The problem with abiogenesis is not that the research is in its infancy. There will probably never be a way to know the answer to how biogenesis happened. What can be done and is really being done is to propose abiogenetic processes based on the assumed conditions that existed about 4 billion years ago. Even if such a process is found, we will not know much beyond the fact that it is possible.

     In contrast, evolution is happening around us every day. There is no laboratory that deals with molecular biology, there is no agricultural improvement, or improvement of pets and ornamentals that do not confirm evolution every day. In addition, the principles of evolution are true in a variety of systems that are not related to life, provided that there is competition for resources between proliferating and changing factors. Examples are languages ​​(which are a wonderful example of evolution), economic societies, ideas, fashions, trends of various kinds and many products.

318. If you can intervene..
     For biogenesis, for example, there is no consensus regarding the process (because simply the research is still in its infancy). Whereas evolution has..
     And this is just a good example of how not supporting evolution does not have to come together with creationism, and for some reason (in the marginal cases of such non-support) it always appears together

319. xianghua,

     "When examining a claim, one must refer to the data and not to the claimants. The researcher in question (Dalges X) has published many scientific articles in reputable journals, as you can see here:

     True, I agree with you 100%. So why didn't the respected researcher publish the above article in an accepted newspaper (the ones that appear in Pub Med)? This is exactly why the article cannot be taken seriously or brought as evidence. It is similar to publishing a new article with the results of your own hands on the science website. Even if the results are very beautiful, no one will take them seriously because they have not passed the accepted review by experts on the subject.
     And you will be surprised, not all scientists who support evolution are one monolithic block and the arguments between them are heated so that there is no conspiracy to hide the truth. Your "truth" simply does not meet the scientific criteria and does not hold water.

320. R. H.,

     When examining a claim, refer to the data and not the claimants. The researcher in question (Dalges X) has published many scientific articles in reputable journals, as you can see here:

     http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Axe%20DD%22%5BAuthor%5D

     What do you mean by "real objective Royo"? By this logic, all articles dealing with evolution are inadmissible because the review was done by scientists who support evolution.

     He said, evidence, that's the whole story.

     have a nice weekend…

321. Michael
     It was also clear.
     His sentence is like:
     "By the way, it's not really a prediction. Evolution can get along very well with a different number of chromosomes in similar or different creatures."
     In an attempt to present Ken Miller as an idiot.. and worse: that maybe there is someone on the side who thinks there is a connection between the nonsense he wrote and the 'refutation' of what the video is actually trying to say, only emphasizes who they are dealing with..
     But it's just desperation... I have a certain amount of pity for him. Nevertheless: his only 'tool' is to repeat over and over nonsense that no scientist would accept, it's in talkbacks in 'Hidan'.. or in 'Vinet'..

322. jubilee:

     The survey is legitimate but the belief that you will get real responses from people is naive.
     Besides, belief in eternal life is only one of the components of religion and the desire for eternal life is only one of the factors
     Belief in eternal life and there are also cases in which the will exists and the belief does not.

323. xianghua,

     You'll have to work harder to float.

     The article you give comes from a newspaper with a creationist agenda that calls itself the neutral name "Bio complexity" and in the two years it has been in existence has published 5(!) works and all of them, by an amazing coincidence (there is no doubt that this is the result of intelligent planning) deal with attempts to disprove evolution.
     I wonder why the aforementioned paper does not appear in pub med? Do you seriously think that the articles have undergone a real objective review?
     It's like you'll learn about the Jewish-Arab conflict from Mealon Bir-Zayit.

     Regarding the gradual functional transition, we really exhausted it, my fingers are already hurting from writing about it.

     Shabbat Shalom

324. Eric:
     Hingoe is babbling (not to mention lying) in his reference to the link you brought from my words.
     He calls a "refutation" to grandmother's stories that lie in her heart. It is clear that if this is called a "refutation" then it is easy to refute (which is no wonder - Hingoe only does easy things. Getting into the thick of it and understanding it is difficult, so he refrains from doing so).
     By the way, in my opinion, of the evidence with which I challenged Hingoe, this is precisely the most significant:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/far-beyond-reasonable-doubt-1912103/

     Of course, he ignored it too, like the challenge that allowed him to show that he understood what he was saying when he used the word "probability" or its derivatives.

     Of course, he also ignored the point about the fact that Pibruk, the intelligent planner (in the name of God! Literally) does not give any answer.

     Good. At least he can draw encouragement from the white cedar desert.

325. R. H.,

     I don't sink in anything, and if I sink I will also know how to float. The synonymy is not only in dna but also in the ha sequences themselves. Different sequences can result in similar/identical proteins. This is because there are overlaps.

     Regarding the time required to accumulate 7 mutations, see the pdf here and you won't laugh at all:

     http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1

     The researchers took archaic and modern enzymes, and found out how long it would take for A to turn into B (Kbl2 to biof2). Guess what the result was:

     Considering that Kbl2 and BioF2 are judged to be close homologs by the usual similarity measures, this result and others like it challenge the conventional practice of inferring from similarity alone that transitions to new functions occurred by Darwinian evolution

     How do I know there is a limit to variations? Try to go from car to plane gradually, where each step is functional in itself. it's impossible.

326. xianghua,

     It's a shame, you're drowning in mistakes on top of mistakes.
     What you call "synonymy of the DNA" probably, if I understood your intention, refers to the third base in an amino acid codon. So if the whole genome was coding for proteins it would only be 33.33%. Since only a small part of the genome is encoded this number is much smaller. In any case, the difference between humans and apes is less than 1% and from mice 50%. If you have information on 80% please show it.

     Secondly, you must be joking about the accumulation of 7 mutations in 17^10 years. Interestingly, in my lab it took two weeks.

     Third thing, where did you get that there is a limit of variations? Analogously the airplanes and their engine also came from the same place and the same knowledge of cars. So why is this impossible in nature?

     Rafa*im, the troll is you. xianghua may be wrong but it is not a sin. It is a sin to insult, to be condescending, to curse and blaspheme. Derech Eretz preceded the Torah. You are not religious either, Yom Kippur is coming soon, do a little self-reflection and realize that many of your comments do not add up and are inappropriate and that is a shame. Take yourself seriously and you will be taken seriously.

327. R. H.,

     A forehead bump is also a new thing. Does this prove that an incompressible system can be formed gradually?

     The entire genome (I'm a bit carried away but I heard about 80%) can change completely, and still the creature can remain the same creature. This is because of the synonymy of dna.

     You claim something new over and over again. But forgets that no one has yet answered how to move from protein A to protein B gradually. Which also brings me to Eric's claim. It is very possible to switch from a protein to a protein belonging to the same family (the truth is that this is also impossible according to a study published not long ago, in which the transition between two homologous proteins required only 7 mutations and the researchers came to the conclusion that it would take about 17^10 years). The point is that according to evolution many proteins were created with A completely different structure. For example, you can gradually switch from a car (replica) to a van, but you cannot switch gradually from a car to a plane. That is, there is a limit to the possible variations, and in the end we reach a dead end.

     As for phylogenetic trees, we exhausted a long time ago. All that remains is to climb a tree.

     to heath…

328. Hello Camila,

     You obviously put time and thought into your last two messages to me and I wanted to give you the respect you deserve by giving an answer with the same amount of consideration. Thank you for your patience.
     You raised many points and so that they don't get lost I will try to respond to them in a quote and answer format.

     "What benefit grows from your last arrogant response in which you call some of the respondents dogs and beasts (which you are not included in of course because unlike them you are a human being). I hope you don't end your response by stumbling and dragging in the belligerent tone that characterizes certain commenters on this site."
     —
     My words were not tongue-in-cheek and I stand by them. As a general rule, I make sure to be careful with the honor of others, especially when these are said in the plural, and if I responded as I did, then I believe that anything less than that would not do justice to the humiliations that some of the Danes here reached. Tones of violence such as those heard here have already led to one political murder in our country and no doubt to many other acts of violence, including those of which you are so proud, and rightly so, of forcing one public over another. Accompanying this humiliation is the pitiful cowardice of one who behaves like a bodied lion while no doubt cowering like a frightened mouse behind his protective screen of anonymity. In the face of abusive behavior, society can react with condemnation or ostracism. I chose this condemnation in order to make it clear that I do not give my hand in silent agreement to the scumbags that are said here by some, and thus, I ended my reference to those who do not deserve further reference, who will bark like a mad dog wherever they want.

     "The question I ask myself to examine the nature of the commenter, especially on a site like this, is: does the commenter provide content that is based on scientific facts and/or on rational thinking and sound logical arguments. I would prefer that we all be polite and nice to each other (style), but for me at least this is a secondary issue compared to the content and having a factual reference aside from the other things... a good example in my opinion of a person who has quite a bit of criticism for his style but in terms of content you will not find his equal here... for learning I prefer a person Like him in front of commenters who are ignorant (in terms of knowledge of facts) and whose thinking is full of holes and internal contradictions, even if they are supremely polite. There are enough places where you can practice polite communication where every opinion is accepted, even the most crooked"
     —
     withering,
     It is evident that in many ways we share similar values ​​and that you are my partner in the journey. We both value intelligence over ignorance, a good question over a bad answer, and human progress over degeneration and stepping in place (or backwards). Our religion is the search for truth, and we do not make concessions to ourselves in the name of convenience or the traditions of the past. Like you, I too have studied for many years, and will continue to study, most likely until the day I die, out of a desire to grow, out of wonder at what surrounds me and a desire to understand the principles underlying this beauty, as well as the benefits that can be derived from them.
     However, what is the use of all the knowledge and technology if we don't know how to be human? The axis of education and the axis of humanity are parallel lines without a binding relationship between the two. You can be advanced in one and degenerate in the other, and while progress is something we want, humanity is something we need. Broad education and extreme knowledge are no guarantee of human quality and morality, and the worst of our tormentors have already demonstrated their impressive mastery of the natural sciences and their terrible inferiority in human-to-human relations.
     In my understanding, we should not deny our humanity to any other value. Culture and the way of the land is not equivalent to the skill of "polite communication" which can be practiced as you say on another occasion, it is much more than that, it is a way of life and a second nature, which goes with those who choose it wherever they go. Humanity does not turn its way to the ideals that set up a race of human to wolf-man behavior. Be the original will as good as it may be, fundamentalism is destructive, its responsibility is one, whether it is in the name of Allah, the Lord of Hosts, the purity of the race or progress in its struggle against the absurdities of creationism.
     You don't have to be a believer in the Creator, or accept the Bible as his word, in order to understand the importance of a person's relationship with his fellow man (and now the terrible days are moving upon us, and the idea of ​​reckoning is another idea that even a secular person can adopt into his life regardless of the judge on high). Not for nothing did a religious Jew know that "the way of the earth preceded the Torah". This has nothing to do with Judaism. This is humanity, and it appears in many forms, languages, religions and in every human culture. In any culture worth living in anyway.

     I invite you and everyone who has chosen to read this far the fascinating and true story of the "blood tube from Eilat", an affair that stirred up the Technion and the entire country in the sixties, about the abyss between education and humanity:
     http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%97%D7%A0%D7%A0%D7%99#.D7.A4.D7.A8.D7.A9.D7.AA_.D7.A6.D7.99.D7.A0.D7.95.D7.A8_.D7.94.D7.93.D7.9D_.D7.9C.D7.90.D7.99.D7.9C.D7.AA

     Due to the brevity of time and space, I will refer to the other important points you raised regarding the degree of legitimacy of opinions and the appropriate manner of dealing with them in another response later.
     Shabbat Shalom,
     cedar

329. Winning quote for the skit:
     "Regarding phylogenetic trees - I can also find the same match in designed objects like cars. After all, in the past cars were simpler than they are now."

330. to troll a ghost
     No one defeated creation, because there was nothing to win.. It doesn't even begin..
     Just for example:
     Shingua claims that phylogenetic trees are completely arbitrary and do not predict anything because of all kinds of 'problems' as he says..
     And he compares these trees to 'planned objects'
     Today in the age of the Internet, you don't have to do much.. All you have to do is search the Internet about 'phylogenetic trees' and the intersection between them, both for fossils and try to explain it to him..
     And the same for all the other things..

     Tomorrow I will sit in the university, vote, and tell the lecturer: 'Listen my dear, you are just talking... Mr. Xingua from the internet said that these 'trees' have no predictive ability'

     It not only doesn't start.. it's not even in the area.. and you know what: not even as a joke.
     And it's like that for the entire length of the talkbacks..
     Just another example:
     The evolution of proteins is such a basic thing that all you need is to search on the internet about 'protein families' homology of proteins and find out for yourself.. We will see Mr. Shingua dare to sit in class in front of a professor and compare proteins to car models.

331. Sorry.. I meant this link:
     http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/science/1.1481258

332. Xinghua:
     See the following link:
     http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/politics/1.1481714
     A dramatic discovery that challenges Einstein's statement about the speed of light..
     Come on! Say something like 'I told you all this science is bullshit..'
     : )

333. R.H., Eric (Yuval, you too, I haven't forgotten you 🙂 )
     It's interesting to find out why you haven't defeated creation yet?
     You pamper the troll and he just repeats the same action for another treat.

     You are just as pathetic in your attempts as he is.

334. Eric,
     Well said, I agree with you in every word.

     xianghua,

     So now after your other arguments collapsed you found this: "a mechanism from simple to complex *gradually* no"?
     Which of the following arguments can you object to?
     1) Mutations happen
     2) As soon as more than 50% has changed (with a very, very strict assumption, since a gorilla is 99% human) of the genome sequence, are we allowed to talk about new production?
     3) Complexity is created when material arrives from another source in horizontal transfer or existing genes are duplicated (now you will claim "not new", but wait a minute) and then it is changed by mutations we have already agreed on. Wonder and wonder there is something new! Material arrived and changed to new. complexity from simplicity. Watson Elementary.

     What exactly doesn't make sense to you?

335. Xinghua:
     It's like a criminal suspect walking into a crime scene with a forensic investigator and saying:
     'The knife I was holding in my hand, it's because I took it from the scene of the incident, what can't it be?'
     'Well.. and that I ran away from the area of ​​the event.. it's just because I felt like doing sports at that moment..'
     And the fact that I was motivated to take part in the inheritance, so what? Does that prove anything?'
     And the fact that there is a recording of a confession to the murder, so what? I lied.. It was such a joke.. What? can not be?
     And the fact that I was jailed for the fact that the murdered woman was a battered woman... well, so what? What, there can't be a mecha husband who doesn't kill his wife? What does this prove??..
     It is clear to all of us that the policeman will tell him 'see you in court..'

     About the artificial evolution from the wolf to the Chihuahua you say 'it's still dogs'
     On the fact that there are phylogenetic trees that the crossing between them gives a complete match, and matches what is expected according to the fossil history, you run away to places where there is no match (when there are also in-depth scientific explanations for this) even though you have no way to explain why there is such a match..
     Regarding the agreement that there are families of proteins that have the same function as hemoglobin, when in every biology course they explain to you the events that led to the splits, you claim that it is roughly like comparing a 2002 Toyota Corolla to a 2010 Toyota Corolla, although of course there is no place for the comparison..
     Regarding the fact that the genetic sequence of a mouse is 90% similar to our genetics (according to you) you claim 'but there is still another 10% that is not similar'
     You cite the studies of a Nobel Prize winner on ATP binding and 'prove' from the data of his research something that in your opinion the same Nobel Prize winner himself did not notice at all.. (and you admit that this is a famous abiogenesis researcher..)

     It reminds me of this event from the popular book by the neurologist Oliver Sex about one who due to a neurological event does not recognize people and objects but only as parts..
     You probably have a problem with integrative thinking.. or you deliberately prefer to ignore.

336. You ignore again, you don't answer again.
     Beyond your fundamental ignorance of evolution, including that part of mutations, the duration of time and the transition from the simple to the complex - which really does not sit well with an intelligent creator - you refuse to address the fundamental problems in your argument.
     So what's the story?
     What do you think, that if you claim problems with the above theory - and it doesn't matter if you have a clue or not - this is what an intelligent planner, who just so happens to be blessed, will create?

337. R. H.,

     "If we see today a complex life and in the past a simple life and we know the mechanism for moving from simple to complex," - a mechanism from simple to complex yes. A mechanism from simple to complex *gradually* no. Long live the small difference, a small difference that is all big.

     "Then it must be assumed by extrapolation that there was abiogenesis of very simple molecules that replicate" - the assumption is the mother of all mistakes.

338. xianghua,

     Unfortunately, you just continue and show that you do not understand what evolution is and what its claims are.
     You write:
     "...evolution, which is generally a theory that tries to explain a very specific historical event - the entire natural world shares a common ancestor."

     And this is a mistake, this is not the essence of evolution. This is a consequence of the evolutionary model and it is an important difference.

     Get a quick lesson in evolution:
     What evolution claims is that if a replication process takes place there is a chance for change, and there is competition for the most suitable resources that will survive. That's it, that's the evolutionary model. It is proven and there is no doubt about it, mutagenesis and selection are facts.
     From here on these are predictions, conclusions and interpretation. If you accept that there are mutations in the world then their accumulation will eventually change production? or not? Will a bacterium with all the bases in its genome changed be the same species? of course not. And if you take a bacterium and change the sequence to that of an elephant, theoretically you have created an elephant.
     Now you will come and say, true, but there is no selection that will turn a bacterium into an elephant. It doesn't matter that the very fact that there is such a possibility + billions of years + conditions eventually resulted in a selection that turned a bacterium into an elephant. And this is probably a fact, even if xianghua's "gut feeling" opposes it.
     Another fairly well-founded conclusion from the evolutionary model is made by extrapolation. If today we see complex life and in the past simple life and we know the mechanism for the transition from simple to complex, then we must extrapolate that there was abiogenesis of very simple molecules that replicate. As mentioned, this is a conclusion and a hypothesis and not the essence of evolution as you insist on presenting. And so I realized in the last stages of the debate with you that you actually have no idea what evolution really means.
     It's like saying that everything the theory of relativity says and that's what it stands for is that there was a big bang.

339. Xinghua
     You continue to ignore fundamental problems with intelligent design.

     Is it because you don't know, or simply because it is a terrible and terrible blasphemy, this way - talking about intelligent planning and then having to confront the factors of its irrationality and the failures of execution?

     - and this is without referring to another dozen fundamental problems in this theory.

340. Thank you.

     I am an evolutionist in the present. So much of an evolutionist that I even tend to believe that not only biodiversity is a product of natural selection but also all the laws of nature and fundamental mathematical principles. And although we still don't know all the details of the mechanism that produced the building blocks of life, I believe that this is yet to be found.

     Belief in a planning creator is very far from me. I also do not believe that the power that created the world interferes in our lives in the way described in the scriptures of the various religions. Also, I rule out the possibility that the human spiritual functions of man continue to exist after the death of the body.

     Since we have given up on evolution and have moved to believe in planned creation, we disagree on at least one thing. Are there, in my belief, as I detailed above, other details that you are misleading?

341. Yes.. but as explained in the video, an entire chromosome could not 'just' disappear over the generations because it is fatal.. fusion is the only explanation, and that is exactly what they were looking for.. and if they did not find it then there would be a problem explaining why man appears as a primate who lacks the chromosome this..

342. Eric, that's just a form of toy.

     By the way, it's not really a prediction. Evolution can work out very well with different numbers of chromosomes in similar or different organisms.

343. Retroviruses:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA

344. In addition: you have to admit that unlike Ken Miller who explains why the understanding of the chain of development gives us a predictive tool (not in retrospect but in advance, since it is bound by reality that there will be such a fusion.. and therefore they looked for it) while the Torah you present, cannot present any prediction!

345. 'Ask nicely..'

     Cheeky.. ! Who cares anyway. Do as much as you like, no one has tried to block you here (unlike the situation on sites such as Chatbots, for example...)

346. Eric, you should thank me that, unlike Ken Miller, I present a real explanation, and not a hindsight prediction, a prediction that has nothing in it anyway.

     Do you want to raise the retrovirus claim? Please, we'll break it down too, if you only ask nicely...

347. Xinghua

     I asked you several questions, all of which you ignored.

     True, for a believer they are very uncomfortable, even difficult.
     Yet; After all, you're in the business of investigating after the truth, aren't you?

     Or not - and all it was was an attempt, pathetic, to try to find holes in a theory that threatens the foundations of faith?

     As you have noticed, it does not work, but as I believe it will not affect your faith.

     Because faith does not rise and fall on all of the above but on personal need.

     Only good.

348. In addition: contrary to the usual nonsense you spew about phylogenetic trees, and speaking of your statistical calculations... when, for example, we talk about the chance of finding fusion points of retroviruses in the same place in the genome, and in similar species, while in species that are further away, it no longer exists - it's really a very slim chance .. and here we are no longer talking about irrelevant statistics, but that the only thing you can say is that this 'creator' of yours deliberately 'planted' disinformation in order to confuse us all...

349. Moreover, the point was simply to make it clear that such a thing can indeed be predicted... This is the strength of science - and this is the strength of the theory of evolution. It could have been predicted that there would be such a fusion of chromosomes because of the common origin.. and this is just an example. While unfortunately Mr Xingua, the theory of intelligent design gives us 'air business'..

350. Xinghua..
     It is clear that it is possible to 'refute' as it were.. all that is needed is to rely on an audience from the side who does not understand anything. But when it comes to court, it's a bit hard to win with your kind of bullshit.. and that's exactly what happened..

351. I almost forgot about you Eric,

     In the video you linked to, Ken Miller (one of the top evolutionists in the world today) presents the claim of chromosomal fusion (chromosome #2). What he does not say, is that the chromosomal fusion occurred at all in man, who initially carried about 48 chromosomes, regardless of any ape.

     That is, according to the planning scenario - 2 creatures were created with 48 identical/similar chromosomes (the claim of common similarity, which is also refuted as evidence of common origin). Fusion occurs in humans, but not in monkeys.

     Just look at how easy it is to disprove one of the "greatest pieces of evidence for evolution", without blinking.

352. One last round of answers, because there are only questions here anyway.

     someone. If you want to go from a protein that performs a certain activity and then go to an atp-binding activity, you'll have to believe that the same sequence is next to the atp-binding sequence. And in general, you will have to believe that next to each functional threshold there is another functional sequence in the array of sequences. And it is easy to refute this claim when you see the spatial structure of many proteins and their sequence, which are often completely different.

     R. H.,

     Do you really think I don't know what you're saying? My argument is terribly simple - selection and mutagenesis are true *regardless* of the theory of evolution, which is generally a theory that tries to explain a very specific historical event - the entire natural world shares a common ancestor. You can mutate a bacterium a billion times squared, and the bacterium will remain a bacterium. There is no selection that will turn it into an elephant, for the simple reason that there are no small *advantageous* steps from a bacterium to an elephant. So mutagenesis+selection is not a guarantee for evolution. I really exhausted R.H.

     jubilee,

     The answer to both of your questions is negative. FYI, I am a former evolutionist. Lives in the holy city of Tel Aviv.

353. thanks from.

     What I am now trying to examine, following on from previous attempts, is the question of whether the tendency to reject the results of scientific studies stems from mental reasons that I claim boil down to the desire to believe in the eternity of life. Right now I'm just trying to conduct a modest survey and I'm not pitting my metaphysical beliefs against Jiang-Hua's or anyone else's.

354. Michael
     I wonder how 'Shingo' will respond to the link you gave there:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMj_45epINM&feature=player_embedded

355. Tinkering:
     I ask that you maintain justice and order and before you answer Yuval the questions he asked recently - answer the questions I asked you a long time ago (and so far you have avoided answering them)
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-304979

     You will surely feel more comfortable with deferring your answers to Yuval since I have already bothered to answer his questions for you.

356. jubilee:
     Obviously, the answer to both of your questions is positive.
     That's why I wrote to R.H. the following response:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-306192

357. R.H
     : )

358. xianghua
     Golden day to you too.

     Since you have exhausted the discussion, this is an opportunity to start a new discussion.
     If I understood correctly, you believe (and maybe even believe) that the origin of life on earth is by intelligent design. Although I have a firm belief in this question, this is not what I wanted to talk to you about.

     As far as I know, this approach is mainly presented by the "creationist school". Also, the impression I got from reading the newspapers is that creationism is widespread among populations known for their religious piety (such as the "Tank Belt").

     I have two questions for you and anyone who is interested:
     1) Are you a religious person?
     2) If so, does your support for creationism stem from this?

     I may have more questions later

359. jubilee,

     There is another meaning for troll, a ghost.

     xianghua,
     I read very carefully what you wrote and I am still amazed by your basic lack of understanding of the essence of evolution. How are you going to argue about so many issues when you don't understand the basic and primary definitions of evolution?
     After all, also in your second response you wrote "Mutagenesis and selection have nothing to do with the claim that the piranha fish shares a common ancestor with a banana." " Really? There is no connection? check again!
     I suggest that before you get into a debate about phylogenetic trees, biochemistry, statistics and probability, you learn what evolution actually is, what drives it, and then maybe try to disprove it.
     What you wrote and repeated and insisted on is a gross mistake that indicates a lack of understanding of the process.

360. Xinghua
     There is no need to go into 'all the things you said' but just to clarify the point..
     You wrote
     "What kind of evolution is possible if there is no selection condition? Have you thought about it? After all, if there are only 40 Kha, there is no benefit. Natural selection will not produce such a peptide. My argument is absolutely correct. The funny thing is that this is a completely trivial thing and yet I have not yet received an agreement on this small matter (those who look at the professional literature will understand what I am talking about). And yet this discussion is still stuck at the beginning."

     "After all, if only 40 khas exist there is no use in that."
     But the study you cited did not at all claim that it is required that 'natural selection will identify such a peptide' when there are 'only 40 HA' but that there is a transition from a molecule (with a different function) to an ATP-binding molecule..
     Is it possible to understand from your words that the 'Nobel Prize winner' you quoted did not notice that 'those who look at the professional literature will understand what you are talking about'??..
     : )

361. Is it a coincidence? Just today I received the following definition in the mail:

     Troll is the term for an offensive message that is intentionally uploaded by a surfer in a discussion group. The goal of the surfer is to enthuse, anger and incite the discussion on negative or unrelated topics. For example, if a surfer writes a comment along the lines of "There are bigger problems, like the one that cut my cables..." under an article about car accidents, it will be considered a troll. The initial explanation required is the comparison to a small and ugly monster taken from Norse mythology.
     In addition, and more importantly, the action to troll is taken from the world of fishing. This is a method where bait is slowly dragged behind a boat to catch unwary fish. Exactly the way a troll drags after him angry reactions from surfers.

362. Hi Abby,

     I was not talking about abiogenesis but about evolution itself, which according to the scientists who support it, many proteins developed from other proteins gradually. Once upon a time, for example, there was no hemoglobin, no cytochrome, no shotton, no ttss, no glycolysis, no blood coagulation, and no, no. According to them, these developed gradually. I also do not understand your claim regarding unknown catalysts (reactions can also occur without enzymes at all, but in many cases this is impossible in a gradual way, especially in multi-step reactions). Not to mention structural proteins, which are not related to catalytic reactions at all, but to their spatial shape in general.

     It is true that a theory should present positive evidence, and I fill this positive evidence with a replicating organic clock. An organic watch, which is all planner-proof.

     On this occasion I will say goodbye to you, because it seems to me that we have exhausted the discussion. I don't think I will participate in this discussion anymore, but I will follow the continuation of the discussion.

     Have an orange day everyone...

363. Shiguay I didn't just offer you the nickname stubborn creationist. Large chains can be formed in a supportive environment and with appropriate catalysts much more easily. And it will also take nature a trillion years to create the enzyme over, say, a square meter of oceans, there are enough millions of square meters and enough hundreds of thousands of years to create one chain that will then easily multiply from the surrounding materials, but in addition, as explained to you, the beginning was much simpler and not in such long chains. And the excuse of big numbers will not help you.
     In addition, a scientific theory should be positive and not only find flaws (which are not there) in the rival theory but offer a better explanation for natural phenomena. Creationism explains nothing.

364. By the way, just for the record, here is a study published in 2004 that examined exactly the above issue - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723

     Briefly, the researcher took the enzyme without lactamase and concluded that it would appear once in 77^10 sequences. Very far from the protein tested in Shostak's experiment. The reason for this is clear - it is a larger protein, 150 ha long.

     In other words, it would take nature something like a trillion years to create the aforementioned enzyme. A bit ridiculous considering the fact that the universe is only 14.5 billion years old.

365. Someone, if you didn't understand what I wrote and ignored the rest, I don't have much to say.

366. "I mean by definition I did not mean that an ATP-binding protein would appear once in 45^20. I only claimed that this is the space of sequences possible in a genetic jump."

     $%^#@ mind! You presented this so-called 'sequence space'.. as if it is specifically related to the appearance of the ATP-binding protein at the same time that it is just related to your usual delusional combinatorial calculations about any protein..! You simply preferred to link it to the specific study to show that supposedly the researchers themselves 'admit' this, and this is also what you wrote:
     "A study carried out by Jack Shostak in 2001, showed that a minimum of 45 ha is required to bind ATP. That is, there are no advantageous small steps in creating such a binding site. That's all my argument."
     And as Camila also wrote, the research claimed that the proteins are common enough to be discovered in a random process from among other proteins.

367. Apologies for being late

     True, and I am sorry and apologize from the bottom of my heart. If I had access, I would have deleted my stupid, sick comment right after I sent it. I would be grateful to you or someone from the system if you could delete it (307155).

     But please look at R.H.'s response:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-307182
     Even I, like him, believe that it is not necessary to show the above-mentioned Saber a beautiful face.

     The response is awaiting approval.

368. R. H.,

     Before you give me compliments, you should re-read what I wrote, this time more carefully. Mutagenesis and selection have nothing to do with the claim that a piranha fish shares a common ancestor with a banana.

     To someone,

     I did not understand what you want and from whom.

     you said:

     "A. 45 HA "This was a condition for minimal functionality of the protein regardless of its evolution" - what evolution is possible if there is no selection condition? Have you thought about it? After all, if there are only 40 Kha, there is no benefit. Natural selection will not produce such a peptide. My argument is absolutely correct. The funny thing is that this is a completely trivial thing and yet I have not yet received an agreement on this small matter (those who look at the professional literature will understand what I am talking about). And yet this discussion is stuck at the beginning.

     "The real stochastic-random calculation from the article was many orders of magnitude smaller, of course, and it is: as Kamila also made it clear to you: about 1 to 11^10." - if I was the one who made it clear to her. And not only did I clarify, but I even got to the root of the matter and explained that there are a billion other sequences that can lead to the same function. In other words, I did not mean that an ATP-binding protein would appear once every 45^20. I only claimed that this is the possible sequence space in a genetic jump.

     more than that. Even a chance of one in 11^10 does not fit many evolutionary models. If it is a protein that develops gradually, and a small genome consists of 9^10 bases, we will need about 20^10 mutations to create a new binding site. This is a difference of several orders of magnitude compared to the evolutionary models.

     More than that, there is no benefit in even binding atp. Because there is no benefit in just binding atp. ATP is an energy currency used in many enzymatic reactions and no biological benefit is derived from ATP binding per se.

369. xianghua,

     the cat is out of the bag. It turns out that after all the arguments you simply have no idea what evolution is.

     You say: "Mutagenesis and selection do work, no question. What I claim is that this has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, that is, with the question of common origin."

     Mutagenesis and selection have nothing to do with evolution ??????

370. 'Ghost'..
     Are you actually a creationist who 'upside down' behaves as a troll supporting evolution just to prove that there are such..? Because otherwise it is not clear what these comments of yours are meant to achieve..

371. To all those who are offended by the facts I have presented, and to those who are offended by the truth piercing their eyes (even after I have revealed their true faces): you can jump at me. 🙂
     Oh, and it won't hurt you either to learn what discussion culture is.
     At least I find solace in the fact that there are people here like Michal Rothschild and Kamila who put things in order, and present the truth - despite the embellishment, flattery, and licks for liars that some commenters make here.

     jubilee

     In gematria (and you can ask any Haredi you like): Yuval Chaikin = a big defect. So here you go (imagine a tongue pointing at you plus a grating sound) 🙂

372. Xinghua

     I know you choose to ignore, but this is important for those who haven't been following the thread:
     On September 13, 2011 at 12:55 you wrote to Kamila:

     "Regarding the "stupid" calculations as you say. I gave a nice proof why they are not stupid at all, and you didn't respond. Here again:
     "The lower threshold was demonstrated in the study I brought. If we assume that about 45 ha are required to create a minimal binding site (as demonstrated in a 2001 study published in Nature), then this is a jump of 45^20"

     In response before:
     "Camila, the lower threshold was demonstrated in the study I brought. If we assume that about 45 ha are required to create a minimal binding site (as demonstrated in a 2001 study published in Nature), then this is a jump of 45^20.

     And in the response before that: (the one you were referring to: you wrote:
     "It is indeed a hopeless evil. That's why evolutionary scientists are also opposed to such changes. But the studies show otherwise. For example, a study carried out by Jack Shostak in 2001 showed that a minimum of 45 ha is required to bind ATP. That is, there are no advantageous small steps in creating such a binding site. That's all my argument."

     In practice, what turned out to be the case in the aforementioned study:
     A. 45 HA This was a condition for minimal functionality of the protein regardless of its evolution - the stochastic calculation!
     B. The stochastic - random calculation, the real one from the article was smaller by many orders of magnitude of course and it is: as Kamila also made it clear to you: about 1 to 11^10. And that the Nobel Prize winner did try to emphasize through this that it can actually appear.
     Do you agree with me that the sentence you wrote: "The study showed that a minimum of 45 KHA is required for ATP binding. That is, there are no advantageous small steps in creating such a binding site. That's all my argument."
     Proving you're a shameless pathological liar? (Given that the 'research showed' something completely different..) As Camila also made it clear to you?

     (You can do a 'copy' to the quotes > CTRL + F > 'paste' > and get Mr. Shingua's response..)

373. Michael! True, and I am sorry and apologize from the bottom of my heart. If I had access, I would have deleted my stupid, sick comment right after I sent it. Please do so, if you can.

     But please look at R.H.'s response:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-307182
     Even I, like him, believe that it is not necessary to show the above-mentioned Saber a beautiful face.

374. R. H.,

     I hope it is also clear to you that your claims have been refuted. And when we are both clear that everything is clear, there is nothing left but to move on to another difficulty.

     Mutagenesis and selection do work, no question. What I claim is that this has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, that is, with the question of common descent.

     On this occasion we will raise another problem, genetic isolation. How does speciation occur gradually? Is there any evidence that this is even possible? (Ring species are not a good example, as they are still capable of producing offspring, albeit rarely)

375. jubilee,

     What do you refer to Kasper/Rafa*im? He is not worth it, except for the slime he has not contributed anything to any discussion. Besides, I think it was a bit unfair to attack Michael for the nonsense of the aforementioned troll.

376. xianghua
     September 20, 2011 at 15:45 pm #

     It is clear to you, I hope your answers are unfounded and if you go back you will see that you have received answers to every matter and interest and you are really tired of repeating and chewing (silicone, did we say that already?). You only raised an interest in this response, only one new interest:

     "2) With the help of mutations + selections, it is possible to build new varieties - all genetic engineering, the success of which, as you know, is not in doubt, is based on principles we learned from evolution." - This is not at all related to the theory of evolution, but to genetics.

     What you stubbornly insist on not understanding is that there is no such thing as "it's not evolution it's genetics" or "it's not evolution it's biochemistry" everything is connected and everything relies on each other. I don't know how many genetic constructs you have built in your life, but I have built at least a few hundred and believe me that in each case I used evolutionary principles of mutagenesis + selection. So I know from experience that they work. And millions more like me.
     It's like you come and tell an engineer who forgot gravity and who collapses his bridge, it's not engineering, it's physics.

377. cedar birch,
     In light of one of your previous comments -
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-307034
     What benefit grows from your last arrogant response in which you call some of the respondents dogs and beasts (which you are not included in of course because unlike them you are a human being). I hope you don't end your comment by tripping and dragging in the rambunctious tone that characterizes certain commenters on this site. There have already been those who have used this poor excuse to justify their disfigurement after disqualifying others with the same disfigurement.

     The question I ask myself to examine the nature of the commenter, especially on a site like this, is: does the commenter provide content that is based on scientific facts and/or on rational thinking and sound logical arguments. I would prefer that we all be polite and nice to each other (style), but for me at least this is a secondary issue compared to the content and having a factual reference on the side of the other things. Commenters who use a lot of "style" but little content do not particularly impress me, whether they are polite or angry, I don't tend to pay too much attention to this because I think it is obvious which of the commenters provides content. Mr. In my opinion, he is a good example of a person who has a lot of criticism for his style, but in terms of content, you will not find his like here, and those who wish to learn both in terms of knowledge of facts and especially about rational thinking and logical arguments would do well to delve into the many contents found in his responses. For learning, I prefer a person like him over ignorant commenters (in terms of knowledge of facts) whose thinking is full of holes and internal contradictions, even if they are supremely polite. There are enough places where you can practice polite communication where every opinion is accepted, even the most crooked. In my opinion this site should not be a democracy of opinions. A plane does not take off because there were more people who thought it could take off. The earth is spherical not because the people of the flat world were in the minority. There is a framework that the discussion on such a site should be contained within as much as possible, a rational discussion on a factual basis. Although at the end of all things we rely on faith (even reading a measuring device like a clock requires a small amount of faith), a gut feeling about the existence of God is not in itself a good justification just as a gut feeling cannot alone be a good justification for the correctness of evolution.

     In these discussions, many issues are raised about which not every opinion is legitimate and reasonable. When Shingua performs, for example, a simple combinatorial calculation and very incorrectly draws far-reaching conclusions from it, he should be shown the obvious error he is making. When he continues to use the same absurd argument (which is very common among creationists) while blatantly ignoring the knowledge that exists regarding the biochemical context, it is no longer a matter of explaining where the mistake is or providing facts that are not in his possession, at this point he contaminates the purpose of this website (to make knowledge accessible to surfers and develop discussion on a factual or at least rational basis). He continues to do this even after the problem has been presented in principle (which he does not know what the probability model is relevant in this case, but it is clear that it is not a simple combinatorics of pulling balls out of a pocket) and after it has been demonstrated in a number of examples that very complex things can be created from very simple things without the need for a deliberate hand as well as illustrating the absurdity Using an incorrect probabilistic model it is easy to show that there is no chance that a solution of sodium and chlorine ions will crystallize into a neat ionic lattice of table salt. If he had at least answered all of these in a matter-of-fact way (in terms of content), let's say, it would be possible to reach some understanding of things, who knows, maybe I would even be convinced that proteins do behave like balls in a sack. The same commenter does not do this, he ignores all of the problems presented to him, discredits the other commenters (for example, who are not professionals in their field) and repeats the same errors over and over again, sometimes with the seasoning of distorting the words of commenters or studies, sometimes with evasive maneuvers in which he changes the definitions of itself (see for example the "evolution" that the clock went through) and sometimes simply by telling outright lies. This is disturbing, it interferes with the main purpose of the site and the purpose of those who want to discuss rationally on a factual basis, it is not fair to readers who are not familiar with the facts that under acquiring knowledge and skill of scientific thinking they are forced, for lack of other knowledge, to take seriously flawed thinking as if there was something in it real. If everyone could see the flaws easily, then there would be no need to respond to his kind of commenters, we would simply ignore them, but this is not the case and therefore the failures must be pointed out and then also condemned if they continue.

378. jubilee:
     Your insinuation is sickening.
     When I have something to say I say it in my name and I don't feel any need to lick myself.

379. Nicely said Yuval,

     It is only natural that in the discussion of evolution there will be both animals and humans.
     Let us let the dogs bark and the cattle bellow, while we humans keep talking.

380. A person who can write letters gives "prime shit", we mean BULLSHIT, and not for nothing.
     He explains that this is his way of defending himself. Probably, through the smell.

381. To Eric and the other victims of Casper the Unfriendly Ghost
     It prompts us to respond, and the one who benefits from this is the knowledge system. He writes under a pseudonym, and for that reason it is not impossible that he also writes here under another name. Pay attention to who he licks the most...

382. to a ghost
     “I'm sorry you had to read this 🙂 ”
     A little discussion culture won't hurt you, and in general a little less hate in your personal life..

383. ארי

     I'm sorry you had to read this 🙂

     I don't know about you or others, but I have always defended my righteousness.
     Every time I meet someone who tries to convince me that the reality I perceive is not correct, and that their reality is the correct one, I feel a strong need to reciprocate.

     Wouldn't it bother you if someone said that what you and every reasonable person accepts as true is actually 'wrong'?

     Have you noticed that the use of God's name, or actually the distortion that people like Itzik Beloy and his ilk do to the definition of God, is actually blasphemy?

     Doesn't it seem strange to you that these religious people blaspheme the name of God and at the same time try to convince you that there is a God and that He is so and so and think that they will not burn in boiling feces in hell?

     The content of Itzik Beloy's words are actually a distortion of the content of the rational person's words. He is also sure that what he says is 'legitimate'. That is, he is allowed to say that, he thinks he is allowed to say that 'this is what he thinks' and 'this is reality', but if you say that 'there is no God' it is not legitimate. Don't you think it's a little strange?

     Personally, the things of weirdos like him make me very angry.

384. white cedar (https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-307034):
     You complain/sneer at the arrogance of some of the commenters over another.
     Whether there is such arrogance or not - what is clear is that you are arrogant!!!!!

385. Itzik Beloy:
     You wanted me to point to your lies and I pointed to some of them (the sheet was too short to include them all).
     I had no intention of starting to argue with you about the matter, so my response is the last one I dedicate to arguing with you.
     You are a statement statement. When someone makes a statement - he declares it as truth.
     If this is not true - there is nothing to declare it.
     If you made a statement that you did not know to be true - you lied.
     You wrote that old Hillel knew everything written in the article even though he didn't know (and you probably don't know until this moment).
     You brought evidence that not only does not confirm the claim but is really close to refuting it.
     In short - you lied about this.

     I didn't write anything about science as fact (what is a "reverse fact" anyway? Is that the truth?).
     Although evolution is a fact, I did not write it.
     Where did you get this new false claim from?

     You are talking about old Hillel again.
     They did not know any such fact (backward or forward or right or left or up or down) and the quote you brought does not show that they knew this fact at all. I explained it in the previous link, but it was clear to me in advance that you would continue to ramble.

     You said that there is no contradiction between faith and science and now you add and tell me that although there is no contradiction - you - according to religion - think something completely different from what I think according to science (but of course there is no contradiction between a thing and its opposite).

     Ben-Gurion did give the ultra-Orthodox (in the number he limited in advance, I think to 400) the possibility to be exempt from military service and be in the status of "his teachings and his art" but his motives were not the same malicious ones attributed to him in the plot that was woven around him.
     What are you trying to do now to create a presentation as if the argument was about something else.
     This is just another example of a lie.

     Itzik Beloy - I'm sorry for the words that I am corrupting your virgin ears.

386. First, a clarification: my previous response referred to the fruitless arguments against xianghua.

     Grace. The evolution you are talking about is not Itzik's evolution. Itzik is an intelligent guy, but, to protect his heart, he is not eloquent in a thousand words of scientific discussion. The questions he raises are beautiful and important, but his jumping to conclusions stems from a wrong approach.

     The comparison that Itzik makes between the belief in the Big Bang and the belief in God is wrong, since God is a flexible concept that was used even when people believed that the earth was flat, and since then it has been perfected with every breakthrough that science has added to our knowledge base. The "big bang" is the best explanation found so far for the phenomena of physics, and as such it is open to refutation tests. Not so God, who, because the fact of his existence is not at all subject to debate, he had to be flexible in order to survive. See, for example, the words of the last Pope, who, contrary to the opinion of his predecessors, confirms the existence of evolution according to Darwin, but still places God at the head of the process. I've already heard people express themselves something like this: "In the beginning, God created the big bang".

     God's place is good for theological or psychological discussions. In the natural sciences, as they are today, it is completely unnecessary. Itzik loves God and wants to subordinate science to him. He is not the only religious person interested in science, but he has not yet learned to make the distinction. Because of this, he receives insults and accusations.

387. Erez
     Well, what to do, and I must have messed up. Fact, my response was not understood. Although I wrote as Hai Lishna "everything in the field of science is subject to criticism and requires skepticism" but if you didn't understand what I meant by that, I probably messed up the wording.

     Currently, the Big Bang theory is a proven theory that has a very well-established theoretical basis, observations and future observational (predictive) compliance. Does she have unresolved issues? Will something else be revealed? We'll see then. For now it works.

     I am not known to believe in the above theory. The verb faith does not stick to the above-mentioned objects for me.

     Regarding proof I understood; That is why the laws of gravity have not been proven, quantum mechanics has not, nor have the laws of thermodynamics, and so on.

     Regarding the Big Bang: there were prerequisites (background radiation, irregularity) and she met them.

     The requirement to be a refutable theory is a threshold requirement to be a scientific theory. So?
     Thanks for Popper, I met him already. long ago.

     I'm sorry, in my language "faith" does not refer to anything except mathematics - only "at different levels of stability".
     Belief refers to something that cannot be proven, but about which there is hope or a feeling that it exists; Gravity is provable in principle, it is practically proven and there is nothing to contradict it. Meanwhile.
     If it is hidden, my knowledge, in retrospect, is wrong.

388. To R. H. Rafaim
     Phrases like "I will not pity the likes of you if you fall into my hands." They give me chills.. what's going on with you..?

389. Itzik Beloy:
     You wrote: "In evolution to a small point or to something that cannot be explained you can call it a bang or whatever you want and I will call it God."

     For the billionth time there is no connection between evolution and the big bang.
     Anyway, the point is we didn't invent the big bang thing
     We didn't come and think, how was the world created? Explosion!!! Started from a small point, wow sounds great!
     No!
     This is from the analysis of the findings we have received so far as a result of in-depth research that has been attacked from many directions.
     And that is the only conclusion that can be drawn at the moment!
     And it is important that you understand
     If you decided to investigate how the world was created, you would make observations, put telescopes into space, measure radiation, measure the speed of objects in space and what they are made of, study in depth the atoms and the nuclear reactions between them, understand the force of gravity and electromagnetism, and many areas that I currently do not think about on them.
     You would also come to this conclusion!

     what can we do? No one brought it out of nowhere.
     And you have to understand and then accept it.
     But instead of thinking it doesn't make sense, you should think carefully assuming it is like that, let's go deeper and understand exactly how it happened. And it is clear to you that our knowledge of the Big Bang is much more detailed than it was even a few years ago.

     And it's a fact that we don't stop here.
     The fact that there was a big bang is all well and good, but we will not accept it and continue our lives as usual (some people this is their life).
     We will try to understand until all questions are resolved.

     It's science.
     If there's something that doesn't add up, any contradiction, I'm the first to jump in and try to explain it. I will not give up, I will look for an explanation that does not contradict the phenomena of nature and physics and mathematics, etc.

390. jubilee

     What are you trying to achieve in your last comment?
     Do you think you contributed something to the discussion? Do you think you were able to refute the words of Itzik Beloy and his ilk?

     Don't you think that Camilla, who understands much more than you on the subject, has already explained and refuted the creationist's words a long time ago?

     All I learn from you (more correctly - about you) is attempts to flatter yourself and protect liars.

391. idiot.

392. When someone trashes their mouth during a discussion, it takes away my desire to respond. So just in short:

     When examining random processes (someone said stochastics), one should also take into account the presence of catalysts (a forgotten Hebrew word for catalysts). The presence of catalysts amplifies by many orders of magnitude the probability of the existence of reactions. And the ancient earth did not lack minerals that could be used as such.

393. Itzik Beloy

     Your mind is worn out.

     According to your 'biography', I am not surprised that your twisted thinking is in line with the ideology of 'Naturi Karta'.

     Understand something,

     I personally have no problem with how twisted you are. I definitely think you have the right to exist in this world even though you are crooked.
     I'm sure other rational people think like me.
     But it is even more important that you understand one fundamental thing:
     Once your crooked thinking has devastating effects on the society in which I (and you too) live, then I will not pity the likes of you if you fall into my hands.
     The fact is that you and your ilk are destroying the society in which we live.
     Rational people - (mostly) build the society.
     People like you (and you are welcome to call yourself whatever name you want) - destroy the society in which they live. Destroying the society that lives next to the society you live in. And destroy any good part that could be for the future generations that need to come in order to sustain this world as a civilized human society.

     No one here is mad that you're stupid.

     Every sane person here is angry that you are 'selfish'. In other words, you are trying to convey an agenda here under the pretext of 'I'm trying to understand'.
     And to get your crooked agenda across, you have to lie.

     You have to distort reality for it to fit the movie you are living in.

     Get out of your movie, open your eyes, and only then you might be able to begin to understand the reality around you.

     I suggest you do it yesterday. Because otherwise reality will just slap you in the face when the day comes. A slap from which you will not be able to get up.

     If you knew history that is not only related to the Jewish people (I think you don't know this history that well either), you would clearly see that the world separated from religion just as the Jews separated from the ghettos.

394. I mistakenly wrote "since it is clear that the ATP molecule was not created like this just like a collection of balls" and not 'a molecule that binds ATP..

395. By the way
     In the midrash it is written that during the flood some people turned into monkeys, really evolution.

396. Michael
     I am not saying these things as a lie or truth but as a thought, obviously Hillel is not talking about the concept of evolution which was not known at the time, but he claims that if a person moves, over time he will change and adapt to the environment (or vice versa).

     You once again wrote about the "science" of evolution as a backward fact, and it is not, it is a fact that the world operates according to the laws of evolution and Hillel and the sages of the Talmud did not recognize and know how to explain this, but they saw and recognized such a phenomenon without a name, how the world was created is already a belief, my belief is that the world was created as it is written And according to your belief the world has moved backwards in evolution to a small point or to something that cannot be explained that you can call it a bang or whatever you want and I will call it God, and I think it is better to agree that this debate at this stage of history is unnecessary, we will not change anyone's mind and that is not what will change The science or the future.

     Ben-Gurion gave a person the opportunity to declare that his teachings were his art and I heard first-hand from a loyal person who heard from Ben-Gurion's personal assistant that this was the reason, and when Ben-Gurion repented, if he did, it was already too late.

     my father
     If it were possible to upload photos here, I would upload a photo that was published this week in one of the ultra-Orthodox newspapers of four of the supreme court judges of the state of New York who are ultra-Orthodox. And this is the huge difference between the ultra-Orthodox in Israel and the ultra-Orthodox abroad who are finding their place, only today the State of Israel realizes the enormous damage done by blocking the cooperation of the ultra-Orthodox and possibly the Arabs as well.

     Yoel
     This really goes off topic, but this argument is an urban legend, a lot of history is missing here and because the writers of history came from a certain side, many do not understand the role of ultra-Orthodox Judaism and its weight vis-à-vis the governing bodies that were in Israel, my grandfather was a partner with Ben-Gurion and testified before the Peel Commission http://www.rivlinfamily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=344&Itemid=181 And without the agreements with the ultra-Orthodox, the State of Israel would not have been established, but in these agreements, the ultra-Orthodox never demanded exemption from the army and it came as a "gift" from Ben Gurion.

     You are still debating about faith and not about science, in the eyes of the believer there is no wrongdoing here there is a misunderstanding, even the most convincing scientist does not understand everything and the believer is allowed not to understand and I have already written about the holocaust.

     cedar
     I don't think for a moment and I'm not sure that I'm right, I have no arrogance in God and I'm not trying to put someone over the fence, because in my opinion there is no fence, there is not and cannot be an argument with science that is proven because from the moment it is proven it is not science but life, and in my belief he also created them God gave the possibility to the scientist to understand them, and there is and cannot be a debate about faith, every person believes in evolution according to his position and status in the universe, my faith developed over generations and the other's faith developed at the same time.

397. to camila
     Thank you for the clarification..
     I imagined that Mr. 'Shingua' creates deliberate obfuscation and mixes up the 'chance of the formation of a certain protein out of nowhere', which of course is not related to the discussion since it is clear that the ATP molecule was not formed like that just like a collection of balls that 'got stuck' from a basket, as you did well to explain to him.. - and the chance The real stochastic for the appearance of an ATP-binding molecule from other molecules.. which you also explained very well from the research..
     Hope I understood.
     What's more, given 'Google', this is a Nobel Prize winner who leads research in abiogenesis, and it's a bit ridiculous to 'accuse' him of disproving evolution without even him noticing..

398. Camila, you made a mistake,

     I never claimed that the researchers claimed that the chance was impossible. On the contrary, the researcher is Jack Shostak, a world-renowned evolutionist, a Nobel Prize winner and one of the world's top abiogenesis researchers today. I'm simply arguing that the odds are inconsistent with evolutionary models. Note that this is a protein of only 45 ha. The previous research I gave showed that certain proteins require a minimum of 300 IA, so do the math yourself.

     Regarding the silicanth/zilkanth/zinikan. We are not in a linguistics class, but it is easier to call him "Latimaria".

399. withering,
     Time is short and the work is plentiful..
     I promise to address it later.

400. Joel,
     Given your responses to my words, it is evident that my words did not reach their destination.

     I find it fascinating that you found it interesting to address in considerable detail the subject of God that I casually mentioned in my response, as if I were waving a red handkerchief in your face. That was not the message.
     I referred to the danger of excessive faith (yes, faith) in one or another scientific theory, which not only does not constitute a scientific tendency but the opposite.
     I also pointed out that your steadfast belief in a spontaneous big bang is not fundamentally different from a person who claims a spontaneous creator (note by the way that I don't have to be a believer in God to be able to bring up the idea of ​​God in a discussion. I can also discuss a flat earth or dragons. The very idea of ​​God is not obscene. There are no obscene ideas at all, only obscene actions).

     "As science came to know and knew how to prove during the 20th century"
     The strength of a theory comes from its confirmation and non-refutation, not from its proof.
     In order not to expose such discussions to justified objections from your creationist interlocutors who may be familiar with the philosophy of science, allow me to suggest that you refrain from relying on "scientific proof". There is no proof in science, only in mathematics, and every scientific theory is at the end of the day a belief (stable and more worthy in my eyes than other beliefs, but still a belief) until better theories are discovered.
     For further reference:
     Popper's refutation principle:
     http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%94
     The confirmation mechanism of the waterfall:
     http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%A9

401. The blind confidence in the rightness of the road, the condescension in front of the babies who fell on the other side of the fence, a restrained or unrestrained anger, ignorance of the other's world, the need to prove, the need to be right.
     And what do we do with all this justice? Besides hot air and a sense of emotional satisfaction, is there any wisdom or benefit to anyone?
     Anthropologically, it is fascinating to see how bigotry is followed by bigotry, and despite their claim that there is a gulf between them, they are made of the same materials. My friendly advice: be careful not to become the object of your hatred.

     "From the place where we are right, flowers will never grow in the spring"
     - Yehuda Amichai
     http://www.zds.org.il/makom.html

402. R.H. Are you sure you know enough biochemistry to continue the discussion with him? 🙂

403. ארי
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-306965

     In the same study, the researchers dealt with the question of the frequency of appearance of functional proteins. To this end, the researchers artificially and randomly created protein sequences and looked for those that have a certain activity (in this case, the ability to bind to an organic molecule that underlies many biological processes that are important for the existence of life). The researchers estimated that the frequency of the appearance of a functional protein as mentioned above is about 1 in 11^10.

     We therefore estimate that roughly 1 in 10^11 of all random sequences
     proteins have ATP-binding activity comparable to the proteins isolated in this study.

     In addition, the researchers wrote that proteins as mentioned above are common enough in the possible sequence space and can even be discovered only in a stochastic process, as was probably the case at the time when they were first used by living organisms.

     In conclusion, we suggest that functional proteins are sufficient
     common in protein sequence space (roughly 1 in 1011) that they
     may be discovered by entirely stochastic means, such as presumably
     operated when proteins were first used by living organisms.

     As mentioned, that commenter tried to claim that the very number reached by the researchers shows that this is not possible, which in principle is not true. In the same way, it can be argued that it is impossible to win the lottery because the chances are very low. Of course it is nonsense if at the same time there are many people trying to win the lottery (it is enough that only one of them wins) and that these attempts last for a long time. But the same commenter did another thing, he tried to present as if the researchers themselves were asserting his wrong claim, which is in complete contrast to what clearly follows from what the researchers themselves wrote in the article (see the quote above). But of course, it could be that I simply don't understand biochemistry as that commenter suggested, instead of addressing in a matter-of-fact manner the problematic nature of his words in this context and in other contexts that accumulated with the addition of responses from his side. It seems that he is so insistent on being wrong that even in a small matter like writing the name of that fish correctly, he is unable to, even though I tried to correct him several times. Well, he will always be able to say that I simply don't know anything about Latin... At least I know that there are others who are as wrong as me:
     http://books.google.com/books?id=lzb3qCLOM7sC&pg=PA389&lpg=PA389&dq=%D7%A6%D7%9C%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%AA&source=bl&ots=L5YoL5QBu2&sig=Gsr0m8ozMOezxmke4n09x9ZlrUA&hl=en&ei=3KB4Toi9G4G2hAe-1_XqCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%D7%A6%D7%9C%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%AA&f=false

404. How long will you regret with me?

     Who told you about a planner, who? In the Torah it is written about God who created finite beings, not someone who created recipes for something that continues to organize itself.

     So what happened to Xingua, what is written there (and only there) doesn't stand up to the entire collection of things proven in evolution, so we rape the being that creates all creatures and make her a planner of a soup of proteins and DNA that replicates itself with mutations? Darwin demoted his name blessed?

     Isn't blasphemy terrible and terrible, isn't that how Xingua is?

     And if there is an intelligent planner, then why so many mistakes, why? And where does this low level of performance come from?

     Because it was trial and error? I mean, he didn't know everything in advance? And that's what he can do, this intelligent planner?

     Simple, try to absorb it: you don't need an outsider to get started, you certainly don't need a serial programmer to arrange mutations as part of the business.

     And I am also personally offended. you never answer me

     Is it because I'm not nice, or because in the face of principled claims, not even a notebook of chromosomes works?

405. R. H.,

     See how all your predictions match up with the planner:

     "1) The fossils are arranged according to the phylogenetic trees, from simple to complex." - Replicating cars can also be arranged from simple to complex. In addition, there are opposite cases where the species become simpler. Is such a case a refutation of evolution? (I'm guessing not)

     2″) With the help of mutations + selections, new varieties can be built in the wild - all genetic engineering, the success of which, as you know, is not in doubt, is based on principles we learned from evolution." - This is not at all related to the theory of evolution, but to genetics.

     "3) Take a new species, examine its morphology and fit it into a phylogenetic tree. Now check the genome and you will see that it is indeed located in the same place in the tree." - So I digressed a bit in the study I linked to earlier:http://www.discovery.org/a/10651

     For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Baptiste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change

     So it turns out that leading evolutionary biologists also claim that there is no tree at all. And this is not a single opinion, as you can see below.

     "4) Take species that have physically split (say by migration) to places where the selection is different and you will see that each one has changed according to the selection in which it is subjected." - changed to the exact same creature. A bird remains a bird and a dog remains a dog

     "6) Today there is no creation of species "there is a source" every creature is created from another creature". When was the last time you saw a new creature emerge from another creature?

     "Beyond your gut feeling, what makes you rationally conclude about the correctness of the theory?" - I'll try again: Is a replicating organic robot proof of a designer? Yes/No?

     "As for the fish, I feel a bit like a stuck record. It does not refer to what Dawkins said if a new paper came out in 2011 that proves that fish resemble fish." - What is interesting here is why you claim that if this is true, evolution will be disproved. Are you claiming that Prof. Dawkins deliberately brought an opinion that contradicts evolutionary prediction? What, he didn't notice that the above claim refutes evolution?

406. The first agreement referred to 400 Yeshiva students who were in the promotion exam. Over the years, there was a spillover and the numbers increased. When the Likud came to power, the trend changed and the exemption was given in increasing amounts; Begin was a traditionalist and his relationship with the ultra-orthodox parties was more than give and take of the Ben-Gurion type. After all, he decided to ask about not flying on Shabbat.
     Ben-Gurion's regrets are not worth a penny; He preferred to base himself on the religious, who were not a threat to his political environment, than to make a coalition with a close competitor like Mapam.
     But all the anger at the ultra-Orthodox is not appropriate.
     Those who gave them are the seculars who did so for political-coalition considerations only. That is: the secular parties sold certain principles, including "sacred" ones such as service in the army, in exchange for membership in the coalition.
     This means that the claims should be addressed to the two main movements that led Israel, and both of them he sent to the Israeli "electoral" government.
     So why make allegations against the ultra-Orthodox? They didn't take anything, everything they have, they got from the seculars.

     To my father
     They don't want ultra-Orthodox to succeed in academia, because they don't want ultra-Orthodox to go to academia.

     60 years they build a wall, in this way the wall will be destroyed. Since the state has allowed them to run such an arrangement, they will continue it until it doesn't work. As much as it depends on the ultra-Orthodox leadership and secular politics and its immediate needs, it will not change.

407. Regardless of recruitment, how do you want an ultra-Orthodox to succeed in the academy if his level in math and English is XNUMXth grade?

408. Itzik Beloy:
     And regarding the lies, I skimmed over your continued response to Kamila and came across the following sentence: "From the testimonies I heard, Ben-Gurion preferred not to recruit the ultra-Orthodox in order to cause them to be discriminated against in the other institutions, especially in the scientific institutions, and this is the result."
     What a false and stupid slander!
     Ben-Gurion forbade the ultra-Orthodox to serve?
     Ben-Gurion all in all allowed a handful of ultra-Orthodox who wanted it and were scholars to evade the service.

     He even regretted it later, as is easy to see in this letter

409. to Xingua
     Lungfish and coelacanths are definitely close to us, simply due to the fact that we evolved from them, the concept of 'fish' is a concept we invented even before we had the classification system of cladistics.. there is no reason why creatures within a certain niche should not survive for very long ages.. and a modern fish It is a modern fish, which is far down the cladistic tree from the ancestor, it still makes sense that lungfish and modern fish would look similar because they remained living in similar niches. (What's more, lungfish are relatively rare and belong to limited niches..)
     As you were told: no one 'rapes' the method in order to get the result.. Obviously, if there were illogical discrepancies such as: a certain mammal that is closer in terms of the sorting method to a fish, then there is a problem.. but there will still always be special cases that are required To understand the processes behind them, just as in Drowin's time there was still no, and genetics was needed as a pillar for understanding evolution. Only people like you who are completely uncreative will just throw out an illogical conclusion along the lines of 'God' instead of deciphering the real explanation..

410. Even the first sentence you wrote is a lie.
     Old Hillel knew nothing and a half about evolution.
     To this day, many of his students oppose evolution.
     The quote you gave has nothing to do with evolution at all.
     Do you see anything there about mutations?
     Do you see anything there about natural selection?
     More than that.
     The text is more suitable for creationism than evolution.
     After all, one of the claims of the rational planning quacks is based on the conformity of all things to each other in such a wonderful way (which is not true, but they claim) that it is impossible to imagine that there is no planning here.

     Hillel speaks exactly of this adaptation and does not speak of the process of its development and we know what the Bible says that Hillel did not exonerate regarding the manner in which the animals were created.
     In other words - the words of Hallel should be perceived as a song of praise to the wisdom of the Creator much more than as something else and in any case - under no circumstances as an understanding of the process of evolution.

     In short - nothing at all, but that doesn't stop you from claiming (and right after an article explaining what evolution is) that old Hillel knew all this.

     Even Rashi's interpretations of the above do not talk about evolution and at most one of his words can be interpreted as a process that goes through a single animal (again - nothing about mutations and natural selection which is the whole idea of ​​evolution).

     In the second response you write a lot of nonsense but one of them is a blatant lie.
     You write "The Torah nowhere denies evolution and the opposite is true (see Hillel the Elder)."

     So while it is clear that the Torah will not bother to deny something that its writers have never even heard of, the Torah tells a completely different story about how the different species of animals were created than the story told by the science of evolution, in other words - it denies evolution in a total and comprehensive way.

     See Itzik.
     I could go on and on.
     A lie is not saying something wrong out of a misunderstanding, but rather a deliberate saying of things that someone says he knows that he does not know.
     This is the case with many of your words.
     I will not compile an encyclopedia of all the lies here and will be satisfied with the above.

411. xianghua,

     Evolution, unlike for example the planner theory, has many predictions that have come true and this is what has made it such a successful and accepted theory. The morphological similarity is only one of them.
     Other examples from the sleeve are:
     1) The fossils are arranged according to the phylogenetic trees, from simple to complex.
     2) With the help of mutations + selections, new varieties can be built in the wild - all genetic engineering, the success of which, as you know, is not in doubt, is based on principles we learned from evolution.
     3) Take a new species, examine its morphology and fit it into a phylogenetic tree. Now check the genome and you will see that it is indeed located in the same place in the tree.
     4) Take species that have physically split (say by migration) to places where the selection is different and you will see that each one has changed according to the selection in which it is placed.
     5) The immigrant effect
     6) Today there is no creation of species "there is one" every creature is created from another creature

     All of these were found and are found every day routinely. So evolution has been confirmed by millions of observations and experiments.

     I will ask again, what are the predictions for the planner theory? Is it possible for once to get an answer that is not related to evolution? As mentioned, they are not alternative theories, and the fact that you disproved evolution did not automatically prove that your theory is correct. So one last time, what makes you beyond your gut feeling to conclude rationally about the correctness of the theory?

     As for the fish, I feel a bit like a stuck record. It doesn't look like what Dawkins said if a new paper came out in 2011 proving that the fish resemble fish. So really this matter is exhausted.

412. Michael
     It's not nice to throw mud, if you think I lied (strange to me, I ask to learn and understand, and sometimes I'm also wrong) say what, and don't throw.

     withering
     I'm an ultra-Orthodox religious, I don't steal, I don't cheat, and I'm very curious about science (especially popular). I'm sure you're not pointing your finger at me, I'm not trying to "return" anyone and I'm glad that there are balances, your thinking about the other and the different, is not good.

     You should address the main point of your arguments to Ben-Gurion (incidentally, my father's grandfather was the head of Agudath Israel several years before the establishment of the state and he wrote the rules on the common living space and Ben-Gurion agreed with him and this is the status quo), no one demanded from Ben-Gurion not to recruit Haredim for the army and he had no problem doing so, from the testimonies I heard, Ben-Gurion preferred not to recruit the Haredim in order to cause them to be discriminated against in the other institutions, especially in the scientific institutions, and this is the result.

     In my opinion, the budgets are quite balanced and the brain drain is more related to the possibility of personal development, which experts claim that a generation is stuck in universities.

413. Michael
     It's not nice to throw mud, if you think I lied (strange to me, I ask to learn and understand, and sometimes I'm also wrong) say what, and don't throw.

     withering
     I'm an ultra-Orthodox religious, I don't steal, I don't cheat, and I'm very curious about science (especially popular). I'm sure you're not pointing your finger at me, I'm not trying to "return" anyone and I'm glad that there are balances, your thinking about the other and the different, is not good.

     You should address the main point of your arguments to Ben-Gurion (incidentally, my father's grandfather was the head of Agudath Israel several years before the establishment of the state and he wrote the rules on the common living space and Ben-Gurion agreed with him and this is the status quo), no one demanded from Ben-Gurion not to recruit Haredim for the army and he had no problem doing so, from the testimonies I heard, Ben-Gurion preferred not to recruit the Haredim in order to cause them to be discriminated against in the other institutions, especially in the scientific institutions, and this is the result.

     In my opinion, the budgets are quite balanced and the brain drain is more related to the possibility of personal development, which experts claim that a generation is stuck in universities.

414. By the way, R.H.

     Since this discussion has probably exhausted itself, just out of curiosity, why do you think that disproving the similar morphology=similar genetics argument will disprove the theory of evolution? In addition, if this were true, how would you explain the fact that Mr. Dawkins himself, makes the claim that the Silican is closer to man than to its fish brethren. Isn't it a little strange that in a book that claims to present evidence for evolution, it presents a refutation of evolution?

415. To Camila:
     You wrote to Xinghua: "The researcher explained himself in the article and I never claimed that the number that the same researcher presented in the context he was talking about was wrong. What you are asking me to do is to explain why you, you and not him, distorted what was written there and "drawn" a wrong conclusion "based on" what was written in that article. I can't explain it because I can't trace irrational thinking like yours"
     As a biologist: could you present to a layman like me in a more comprehensible way what is the exact context in which the researcher spoke?

416. Erez
     Regarding security: everything in the field of science is subject to criticism and requires skepticism. The matter of God does not belong to the field of science. The matter of God is the matter of a being that we learn about from one source: its book of revelation, otherwise known as the Tanach. Therefore we are dealing with faith, not knowledge.

     Which brings us back to the issue of criticism and skepticism: activating the two, even at low intensity, simply breaks down the essence of that entity.

     The attempt to separate the biblical God from today's scientific knowledge and trying to connect God to that proven knowledge is a nice exercise, but after two rounds it doesn't hold water (they spill after the shakes).

417. Erez
     guess, guess This idea presupposes my opinion because it is immanent to physical reality as science came to know and knew how to prove during the 20th century.

     The idea of ​​a being external to all of this is not immanent to this reality, but it is an expression of the ethnocentric perception of man that a living being is needed to start everything.
     The problem is that the existence of such a being is not supported even by a tail of proof, there are many things that contradict its existence, and above all, what we know about its activities in the field, which is not written in the first two chapters of Genesis.
     And with that, Erez, we're not going anywhere. the opposite. The array of contradictions within the stories and between them eliminates any possibility of treating this matter as a knowledge base, if only for the purpose of the discussion. Now, taking this entity, and connecting it to the big bang, is like taking the level of certainty that a baby has about falling objects and claiming that he understands quantum mechanics.
     In short: Creator God is an excellent and correct concept. For its time - and above all a derivative of human knowledge at the time when this concept was created. Today, as you know, we know more, much more.
     But not all of them, and above all: what they know, really does not help the human soul who nevertheless wants a super being in many cases. And this is something that science not only cannot provide, it even harms it.

418. cedar,
     In the past I already wrote to you that I believe that not every opinion is legitimate (and see R.H.'s example above), in fact there are opinions that are really dangerous because those who hold them sometimes also behave in accordance with the same opinion and then it happens that a person is stabbed just because of his sexual orientation or that a person who has gone to his death is stoned On Shabbat and moved too close to the wrong neighborhood, sometimes a person's blood is allowed because of really crazy things and sometimes just because he is a gentile (which some religious believe is almost subhuman and at most a servant of the Jews). You would have to be very naive not to notice the opposite relationship between religion and science, where the meaning translates very quickly to where budgets are poured. In a country like ours, which is in the process of an alarming panic and an equally alarming brain drain of scientists and other talented people, the existence of my children and yours is already much less secure here (unless you are one of those who trust our heavenly father). If you also want a halachic state to be established here that is based on the true moral values ​​of the religion (those that are realized in practice and not those that are written in books and known to every sane person in the world) including the violence as seen in ultra-Orthodox demonstrations, on Shabbat, in the modesty vigils, in conflicts between the various currents, including the ignorance of science And in art, including the culture of arrogance, excuse the "argument", including the distortion of the law, the arbitrariness of the heart and the cynical exploitation that prevails in rabbinic courts, in the kashrut institution, in burial matters and no less in politics, if you are interested in these, you will continue to accept every opinion as legitimate, as you can see in further discussions On this site, it is doubtful whether a polite and "inclusive" discussion will bring about any positive change in those who have declared war on rational thinking and the secular way of life.

     Continuing in the spirit of your words, I also propose to immediately release everyone who is in an insane asylum because their opinion must also be equally legitimate, after all, what is the fundamental difference between a person who hears voices in his head telling him to kill gays/lesbians and a person who kills them because it is written so in some old book (in complete contradiction of course to what is written in those very scriptures) or because some rabbi said so? Do you really believe that in a halachic state ideas such as equality between people can exist regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc.? Is this a way of life that you are willing to allow to prevail here in the name of cultural pluralism? A way of life that completely excludes any pluralism and is mainly based on hatred of the foreigner and the different, on the preservation of ignorance, certainly in everything related to the amazing natural phenomena that exist around us, and on a compulsive occupation of arbitrary laws invented by the lawyers of the religion that not only have nothing to do with reality, they stand Many times in conflict with the simple reality as can be verified through the senses and/or rational thinking. Are you really not worried about this possibility? Don't you think that it should be opposed even by refusing to descend to its level and by exposing the mental distortion that exists at its base?

     In my opinion, when there is someone who presents opinions and a way of thinking so crooked there is a necessity to reveal his face, of course after an attempt has been made to understand his side better. Read for yourself and judge whether sincere attempts are not made here to understand the way of thinking from those commenters and to get answers from them about the contradictions that arise before expressing resentment about them (whether due to their ignoring the clarification questions regarding their beliefs and knowledge, whether due to their exhausting repetition of obvious logical failures or due to distorting their words of others to the point of telling actual lies while attempting plagiarism). It is of great importance to present the problematic in the words of such commenters, not to change that person's opinion, but to present a proper point of reference for other readers whose curiosity exists and who do not yet know all the facts and arguments, some of them are only a step before degenerating into religion and some of them are still captives Unfortunately, they never got a fair chance to be exposed to the beauty of science. I believe that in view of the problematic opinions and arguments, the repeated evasions of that commenter and others similar to him, the distortions of the words of other commenters as well as of scientific studies, it is difficult to attribute this only to a misunderstanding in good faith, there is an attempt here, as mentioned sometimes while telling lies and actual acts of fraud ( The administrators of the site will surely be able to tell you how much) to steal opinions and slander other commenters who bother to point out the problems that arise from religious thinking. I think that a natural and human response to this is anger, just as I would be angry with a thief, a cheater or any person who is a criminal, by the way, even if he hurts others and not directly me.

     Like the artistic practice, there is no problem for people to engage in religion as well, to believe in any delusional belief, to conduct as many strange pagan rituals as they can think of, under one condition, as long as they do not interfere in the lives of others in a substantial way and try to impose their way of life, either through denial or deceit And whether with actual violence.

     There is a close connection between the way of thinking of the creationists and a significant part of the problems I detailed above, I'm sorry you don't see it, I can reassure you that I don't hear voices in my head and I also don't have an ancient book that orders me to murder the religious because of his different thinking/behavior than mine. I think that being angry at opinion stealers and expressing it in the tone of the writer is still reasonable.

419. Cedar Birch:
     Itzik Beloy lies in some of his comments.
     Does this fit your definition of politeness?
     Does the anger at these lies seem less polite to you than the lies themselves?

420. Itzik Beloy and Yoel:

     Itzik,
     In such discussions about the theory of evolution, the big bang theory comes up more than once. This is a little surprising since we are talking about theories that refer to completely different things, one is a biological theory mainly and the other is a cosmological theory. Apparently the common denominator is the degree of discomfort they cause the believing public (although as mentioned, not all believers, there are observant scientists who live in peace with the above two approaches).

     Although this deviates somewhat from the discussion of evolution, I will address two questions you presented here, in two links that I think may enrich the readership here as they enriched me:

     "The famous big bang, what kind of bang was it, who created that point that exploded?"
     A short and fascinating lecture by Prof. Sean Carroll at TED about a possible explanation for the origin of the Big Bang. As mentioned, this is a scientific opinion that has not yet found its way to consensus, but is certainly thought-provoking (there is a Hebrew translation if you select below):
     http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sean_carroll_distant_time_and_the_hint_of_a_multiverse.html
     (There is also a longer and more comprehensive version, but not necessarily better, in two parts:
     http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sean_carroll_on_the_arrow_of_time.html
     http://www.ted.com/talks/sean_carroll_on_the_arrow_of_time_part_2.html
     )

     "It will be very difficult for a scientist to explain quantum theory to an ordinary person"
     In my opinion, everything can be explained to anyone, all that is needed is good will and talent on the part of the speaker and attention on the part of the listener.
     Here is a great series of short articles by Jordan Nir-Buchbinder for the general public on quantum mechanics:
     http://www.haayal.co.il/story_1177

     Joel,
     Given the above lecture on cosmology, I wondered when you said "The Big Bang matter, which has been proven for a long time, simply does not need someone. The beginning itself. Not feeling well? It's alright":
     "His own beginning" guess your mind? A slightly disturbing idea, are you sure it makes up your mind? What is different from that which originates from itself? Or does it have no beginning at all?
     "Just don't need someone"? Do you find it simple?
     The fact that Itzik believes in false beliefs in the eyes of both of us does not necessarily mean that his questions are necessarily nonsense, he presents (and politely, unlike some of his respondents, if I may add) a number of challenges that are worth considering without automatically jumping in with an answer.
     I am a little surprised and even disturbed by the great confidence with which you say things that are actually not really known to anyone. Overconfidence is not a way of critical scientific thinking. Slow down my friend.

421. Laitzik Beloy
     "The Big Bang" is a derisive nickname that Hoyle attached to the theory that claimed that the universe began with a singular event and with it space and time were created.
     Here is the difference: in order for the theory to be accepted it had to be theoretical about a fact; that there will be observations; And that there will be future demands to validate it - demands that were and over the years, following additional observations, have been validated.
     That's how science works.
     Faith doesn't work that way; the opposite. If there were conditions for proving God, refutable and they would not contradict another proven theory - there would be something to talk about. But anything related to God fails the most basic test of how science works. Don't like it? Not bad.

     The question of who created the point that exploded is fundamentally wrong - and not because the theory does not talk about such a point.
     You asked who created it - since you are unable to see first without a certain entity that did something.
     So that's it, Mr. Bluey: the Big Bang thing, which has long been proven, just doesn't need anyone. The beginning itself.
     Not feeling well? It's alright. Matter can start with energy.

     There is no such thing as "before" the big bang because there is no time before that point. Just as there is no temperature lower than 273.15 degrees Celsius, which is absolute zero. You can punch in a number, but that has no meaning.

     complicated? It's like there is no point north of the North Pole, although up there there is always a point that is north of another point.

422. jubilee
     I didn't write anything different, most believers don't think, just like most scientists don't think about subjects they don't deal with, but there are believers who bother themselves about these subjects.

     Grace

     1. You give up really early, I study and ask questions to explore and understand and not as annoyance, in SSA it seems to me that there are people who have chosen for themselves to explore faith and the purpose of creation and there are people who have chosen to explore creation itself and how it works, I think there must not be a contradiction between the things And one complements the other even if the parties do not always understand each other, I have read and heard many scientists who today already look at things not in contradiction and I have read and seen rabbis who know how to learn from scientists and science and know the Talmudic proverb "wisdom in the Gentiles believe" and I am again reminded of the old Hillel who understood seemingly scientific things Already 1900 years ago (he was a very important rabbi who lived at the time of the destruction of the Second Temple)

     After I received a video package explaining the theory of relativity, which I know, I thought that perhaps the solution to the virtual conflict between science and faith is the theory of relativity, depending on the observer himself and his attitude to the environment, like the well-known debate about what revolves around what Einstein solved in the second.

     2. For exactly the same reason that you think I should ask myself how this machine works or how it was built, if you delve into the question of the purpose of creation you may become more moral, more caring for what is around you, more accepting of the different and the other, more complete with yourself and your place, because "You know more, because your luck was better and you were born into a better family or environment and therefore you are more free to explore and learn compared to the poor guy who could have been just like him and he lives next door to you, so in my opinion thinking about what I am doing here is very important just as much as how I am here.

     I believe that the same God gave us the tools and possibilities to explore, learn and correct and in my eyes this is our goal in the world, we have evolved into a certain area and apparently our monkey has become a person different from the other monkeys who still continue to be monkeys, to do different things, that is, there should be some kind of goal for change and this is interesting to the believer The researcher is just as interested in the scientific researcher as how things work.

423. The problem with your way of thinking Itzik is that it is limited,
     Why do you think I should ask myself why I'm here? What was my purpose?
     In a fixed way of thinking like this, I ruled out a lot of possibilities by defining that I had to have a reason..
     This is not a deep way of thinking, it is quite trivial, and I am not sure that it will advance me anywhere, because then came the overwhelming answer, "The ways of God are hidden" and we ended the discussion.
     How devastating this answer is..

424. "Those scientists are exactly at the same point as the believer"

     "The believer tries all day long to understand the reason for his coming into the world, something that the scientists avoid and explain as believing in fate only, and do not try to delve into research and thinking."

     I read and re-read the same lines and I'm just horrified, I think to myself how do I even begin to respond to you.
     And you know what? If after many visits to this site on your part these are the conclusions you have reached, then there is nothing more to add..

425. At 8:30 you wrote: "I think God created the world, I cannot and do not want to explain where that God came from, because it reminds me a bit of the philosophical and childish debate, can God create a stone that he cannot lift."
     At 9:15 a.m. you wrote: "Even religious people seek G-d forever and ever and try to understand what it is and sometimes even succeed in understanding something (see the teachings of Hasidism and Kabbalah)."
     Look how much you zigzag: in three quarters of an hour you changed your skin.

426. Good Morning

     Those scientists are at exactly the same point as the believer, and just as they will never be able to explain the origin of that point, so the believer will never be able to explain that "point" that he calls God.

     Even people who teach seek G-d forever and ever and try to understand what it is and sometimes even succeed in understanding something (see the teachings of Hasidism and Kabbalah)

     The believer tries all day long to understand the reason for his coming into the world, something that the scientists avoid and explain as believing in fate only, and do not try to delve into research and thinking.

427. The difference between you and physicists who believe that the universe as we know it started from a singular point ("the big bang") is that they don't say "I can't and don't want to explain where that singular point came from". on the contrary. They search for the source of Nablus and Arab, and occasionally even achieve breakthroughs.

428. Yuval, you wrote
     "Please give us as accurate a description as possible of the intelligent planner and his method of operation. Also, if you can, please tell us how the intelligent planner was created. And if it turns out that the intelligent planner was created by a previous intelligent planner, please explain that too."
     That's why I asked you about the Big Bang

429. Itzik, with apologies

     I re-read your response, including your appeal to Amit and Chen. I understand that you are trying to create provocations based on incorrect facts and misplaced comparisons. I'm sorry I even bothered to answer you.

430. In my opinion, a person of faith does not have to explain anything and cannot explain everything, because of our very limited intelligence, just as it would be very difficult for a scientist to explain quantum theory to an ordinary person and like the difficulty of explaining additional dimensions that are beyond the familiar and well-known three-dimension.

     I think that God created the world, I cannot and do not want to explain where that God came from, because it reminds me a little of the philosophical and childish debate, can God create a stone that he cannot lift.
     I cannot explain and understand why the same god destroyed a million children in the holocaust just as an African from the Zulu tribe, if he enters an operating room and sees organs being cut off, will think the surgeon has lost his mind.

     And this, in my opinion, is the big mistake, the intolerable mixing of faith and science and the mistaken thinking of those who have received certification in some field from the university that they understand everything and can express their opinion in matters of faith, and woe betide those who will not listen to their learned opinion even in matters in which they are not familiar and understand

431. Good morning Itzik

     About the big bang you can find a lot of material on the internet. Those older and wiser than me will explain it to you in great detail. I don't understand why you are turning to me

432. jubilee
     Please explain to me for my understanding, (I'm not a scientist and I'm not trying, I want to understand).
     The famous big bang, what kind of bang was it, who created that point that exploded?

     Amit
     I hope you allow me to compare the humanities residents with the yeshiva residents (I didn't mean the scientists), I don't like the condescension, a yeshiva student who studies humanities and Jewish history for decades, his Torah is not considered and his days are idle while the other studies for 4 years and has a "degree" His place in the work will be first for that yeshiva student and then come those who are condescending and complain about the non-joining of the ultra-orthodox sector in the work.

     Grace
     I am a person who is very thirsty for knowledge and that is why I am here.
     This is exactly what I mean, the age of the world because it has become a religious and non-scientific function, must be taken out of the equation, it is a good matter for philosophers and not for science, what do you care what I think about the age of the world while we are investigating the transition to the speed of light, why is it so important for research and discussion The interesting of the miraculous acts of creation.

433. To all the haters and lovers of xianghua:
     He is not wrong. He's just not accurate. He does not have a precise definition of the intelligent planner that he is so partial to, and from this point of view he presents the behavior of a foolish creationist. However, he simply lacks knowledge of the rules of scientific dialogue or fails to apply them.

     xianghua:
     Please give us as accurate a description as possible of the intelligent planner and its way of working. Also, if you can, please tell us how the intelligent planner was created. And if it turns out that the intelligent designer was created by a previous intelligent designer, please explain that too.

     And to the commenter who doesn't always manage to hide the Tourette syndrome he enjoys (but his neighbors not so much):
     Every organism, at least from the unicellular and above, has functions that depend on time.

434. Please people separate.
     Between logic and faith.
     I spit 3 times I see a black cat.
     Do you think I really think that if I don't spit something will happen to me? Like I couldn't think of a bigger nonsense?
     I do it because I'm human and unlike a robot, I have feelings and psychological aspects in my brain (which are probably screwed up), and fear! yes fear!
     But I know how to separate!

435. Cedar Birch I will explain to you why I get angry
     Because before me are humans, who are supposedly known for their developed intelligence over animals.
     Intelligence that allows you to explore, learn, understand.
     But it turns out that the person I'm talking to is just as picky as the cat next to my house.
     Both are unable to understand, and both remain on their own.
     It's all due to an optical error! It looks like a person, talks like a person, seemingly seems to be able to communicate .. but no! He is no different from that cat!

436. Birch cedar

     You are allowed to live and think as you please. But as long as it doesn't harm your environment. FYI - Hitler was also wrong.
     But his mistake had disastrous consequences. We would not like to reach the same results again.

     Chirtotangua

     "A replicating organic clock"-? Where have you seen such a thing, in greenhouses next to an organic replicating eggplant?
     (I bet you've seen too many movies)

437. Beyond the fact that I share your opinion that xianghua is wrong, I don't understand why it seems that so many people here are angry with him.. Is it no longer allowed to firmly hold a false belief? Are we free from false beliefs in which we passionately believe?

438. xianghua

     Your reasoning is flawed. It is not only an organic watch that reproduces but that while replicating it also develops and improves.
     And I have good news for you but also bad news: there is indeed an "intelligent planner", but his intelligence is not of the type you might imagine. This "reason" consists of well-known laws of physics and statistics that have been given enough time to manifest.

439. Xingua, what a beautiful comparison, what an amazing conclusion.
     In retrospect it's so obvious that I don't understand how I didn't see it before..
     Come on guys, throw away your books, Xingua explained everything to us.

440. Adam, you must not have been following the discussion, my evidence is a replicating organic clock. If a replicating organic clock is not evidence of a designer, then nothing is evidence of a designer.

     On the other hand, there is the theory of evolution, which tries to explain how it is possible for a clock to replicate itself without a watchmaker. The problem is that this explanation is based on faith alone, as opposed to intelligent design based on knowledge, that replicating clocks are an exclusive product of...intelligence.

441. To Camila: Report, the circular path

     That. And why do ultra-Orthodox Jews wear a head covering for the sake of the name, even though there is no commandment to do so, even from sages?
     A. Because it is a custom, since the days of Abraham our father - and the custom of Israel is law

     That. And where do we find that this is what our father Abraham did?
     A. This is clear, as it is said "Abraham will go"

     That. And what's the headdress thing here?
     A. And is it possible to go without a head covering?

442. A person,
     If this was his only oversight, let's say, at least it would be possible to discuss evolution rationally even without the existence of an alternative that would be able to test its validity in terms of matching the facts on the ground, and its ability to explain the same phenomena that evolution, cosmology and, in fact, all other science is able to explain. But the hope for a rational discussion was lost quite quickly, especially in light of sentences such as: "How do I measure complexity? According to the logic that says what is safe has been planned and what is not safe."
     This reminds me of the argument of certain ultra-Orthodox people after another rabbi was caught cheating/stealing/raping/abusing/smuggling drugs/forgery, etc. when they say that that person is not religious at all (even though he grew up in a religious environment, studied in religious institutions, in some cases He was even ordained a rabbi by the religious institutions, lives in a religious environment, dresses religiously, goes to synagogue and celebrates holidays religiously). So how is it that he is not religious we ask? Because my religion would not commit these acts! Here comes the winning answer. Did you understand that bro? There are no bad religious people in this world, because by definition a real religious person is one who cannot possibly commit such acts (or at least has not yet been caught committing them...). Where do the graduates of the Shas prison fit in, you ask? Well, religious people have solutions for this too - he is entitled! He is eligible! He is eligible!

443. I read in amazement all the comments here and marvel at the knowledge and expertise. Unfortunately my poor education does not allow me to understand some of the concepts, terminologies and theories related to biology and genetics. I feel like a complete and utter layman when it comes to the scientific side and I really hate getting into a debate with knowledge giants like you.
     Last Camilla I owe you a word or so. I've been following you here for a while now and I can only doff my virtual hat to you and take a bow. Really deep....what a pleasure to read you and your positions and opinions. You have it "big time" and there is no doubt that you are an honorary knight in the order of the Knights of Freedom from the home of the 4 secular horsemen of the apocalypse: Dawkins, Dent, Harris and Hitchins. We will not take the hat off to R.H., Erez Birna, Yoel, and if I forgot anyone - a thousand apologies and apologies. Michael is self-evident by the way...
     As a layman reading from the sidelines and who also has a prior position on the subject, I must point out that despite and despite the partial understanding of the pure theoretical and scientific material, I notice that Xingua repeatedly refrains from answering and addressing and responding fully to the claims raised against him and he only answers what is convenient for him. He clings to some deficiencies and holes in science (even though Camila made it clear to him that for some of his claims it is a lack of understanding. His own) as a source of great spoils and then supposedly collapses the entire scientific base. On the other hand, he repeatedly refrains from giving his own comprehensive explanation and it seems that if he is pushed into a corner, he will pull out the Bible as an answer, and this after applying unreasonable pressure. He is aware of the ridiculousness that this will cause and therefore simply does not respond, does not relate and does not give any alternative point of view. It's amazing how similar the path of the religious and faith people is and is characterized by the same evasive attitude that brings up for discussion - manipulative - only what is convenient and plays into her hands. It is also very convenient because they are the ones who ask the questions and must answer them and explain to them. They don't explain back. Unless you treat the nonsense of faith and religion they emit as an "explanation" at all.

     A final comment to Itzik Beloy: these words of yours: "I am not a scientist, and I do not sit in tents neither in a yeshiva, nor in universities or institutes, I work for my living and I draw and accumulate my knowledge from reading and wandering in the science centers" place the yeshiva sitting parasites in the same row as scientists and academics. I don't know what your background is, but this fundamentally unfounded and even shockingly brazen comparison is made by religious and religious people. In their overlap they compare the incomparable and the incomparable and put them on the same plane. I hope that was not your intention, I'm just sensitive to the matter and your words made me jump. So I jumped…..

444. I just wanted to point out that whenever the venerable xianghua was asked about proof of an intelligent designer, he elegantly ignored the question. He just has nothing to say about it. That is, even if there are doubts about evolution (I personally don't), it is still a supported concept. Compared to proof of an intelligent planner... nada.

445. Camila, after answering a number of times with reasoned explanations, you ignored what we already agreed together, and you were shown that you are wrong, to call me a troll? come on. Even as a joke, it sounds like a joke. And not particularly successfully.

     And it is very important to realize that all the claims I have made here are only a small fraction of the intelligent design claims. I could easily continue another thousand comments. But it just isn't going anywhere. And nowhere is a charming island from the legends. Hail to Peter Pan.

446. For the latest debaters and anyone who is excited by big numbers

     You forgot to take catalysts into account. These are shortcuts that reduce huge numbers to dwarfs.
     On the surface of our planet there are many materials that are successfully used as catalysts. If, for example, they redo the experiments in the primordial soup to create replicating proteins, but this time add different minerals that in the end will not be part of the components of the final product, it is guaranteed that many questions will be resolved.

447. Friends,
     I didn't think Xingua was any different from other creationists (in fact I think it's a creationist I've already come across a few times under other names). I try to use commenters like him to shed some light on the crooked way of thinking that exists among all creationists (at least all the ones I've encountered so far) so that other readers who are curious about the subject can get a little information about the facts, the theory and the type of claims that are legitimate to use and those that are stupid to use in them. Having ignored most of the comments, especially those that show failures in his way of thinking, all that is left for him is to try to exhaust himself by repeating those failures. At this stage, it no longer serves, in my opinion, its purpose, so continuing to feed the troll will contribute nothing but continuing the harassment. There will be those who will say that even so we bothered him too much and it is possible that they were right, in any case I have already reached my border area, check with yourselves if the continuation of the discussion with that Xingua can have a contribution to someone other than him.

448. R. H.,

     As I have already said, if they see how complex proteins are able to be formed gradually, intelligent design will be disproved.

     After all, the argument of evolution is that proteins were created gradually and therefore it divides the statistical chance into small steps. The claim of intelligent planning is exactly the opposite - there are no small steps in the formation of protein and hence the protein is formed in one fell swoop with zero chance without a planner. That is, the contradiction of one of the claims will be the confirmation of the other and vice versa.

     Regarding biochemistry/biology, this was a comment to Camilla's sting. And, not every biologist understands the above claims in depth. It has more to do with biochemistry and bioinformatics.

449. xianghua,

     Is biology not biochemistry? Do you think you can study biology without knowing biochemistry? Are you sure you learned?

     In front of you is a tornado advancing in an unexpected way and surrounded by a calm and beautiful air, could it have been created without a planner? Before you is a tree in a forest of a million trees. The tree was burned by a lightning strike, why exactly? Could it be that there was no planner here? What is the chance that he will be harmed (well, it's easy, one in a million). In front of you is a spiral galaxy, what are the chances that a billion stars will line up in a spiral shape? Could it be that a planner did not arrange them? In front of you is a cloud in the shape of a dog... Well you know what's next.

     So what is your rebuttal to the intelligent designer theory? The people are waiting anxiously.

450. to Xingua
     Your claim about the watchmaker, etc. is principled. Your way is a (failed) penance that looks for one thing in the array of arguments so that it somehow relates to your principle claim. And connection, what to do, there is none.

     Your fundamental argument - I say again: yours - about the clock, etc. is fundamentally wrong. Do you claim otherwise? It has been proven based on scientific principles and since referring to this (also to what I wrote, not only).

     If you can't (and between us, you can't), get off it. Whoever "arranged" the structure of your eye and optic nerve for you is not a planner, and if he is, he is a complete failure in planning.

451. withering,

     Biology is not biochemistry. Second, if you agreed that about 11^10 mutations are required to create a single site, and an average protein requires at least 2-3 sites for its function, we will easily reach a chance of one in 30^10 mutations to create a new function. How does this fit with the theory of evolution?

     Regarding the clock argument. Humans also create artificial genomes, so the argument from prior knowledge means that genomes are the product of intelligence. Hence this argument is unfounded.

     Are you claiming that the argument from complexity is wrong? So please, say you, in front of you is a replicating organic dial clock. You also find watches next to it with different levels of complexity. In that case, would you claim that it was created by a natural process, or did it have a planner?

     Dan, that's why I used the dial clock definition. In other words, an organic watch is reproduced, with two hands, a free axis and a drive mechanism.

452. Dan,
     Further to your response and as a complement to it,
     According to Xingua's logic, our prior knowledge is not important (for example, the fact that we know that watches were made by humans), so I would not be surprised if following his claim that everything that is complex requires an intelligent creator, since everything is simple in its composition, like nylon for example or writing paper or thousands of other products Knowing that man created, does not require an intelligent creator and therefore Xingua would not be surprised at all if he found such a thing (eg a pack of A4 sheets or a bag of plastic flakes) on a distant planet. It would seem very logical to him that it was created by itself. Of course, it is possible that he will simply use the crushing argument he gave regarding the complexity in this matter as well: "According to the logic that says what is certain has been planned and what is not certain."
     Oh sure, Elementary Watson!

453. Xinghua,
     I am a biologist by education, training and my regular occupation (nearly 14 years). I carry out my research at one of the most prestigious academic institutions in the world in the field of brain research, so I know a thing or two about biochemistry. If you want someone to take you seriously you should start addressing the failures that were presented to you and that you ignored and reduce the use of wild imaginations that have no hold on reality. Have you seen an idiot?

454. Xinghua
     Indeed a dial watch requires a watchmaker because man made it and even if I saw Crocs I would assume it had a maker because I already know that man made it for his own convenience and I will never be able to break away from that thought.
     If we try for a moment to detach ourselves from man's involvement and define a clock as something that counts time, then tree rings and even unstable isotopes are excellent clocks, only that, unlike a dial clock, this is not their "purpose" and the time according to them was only discovered in hindsight by man.

     I can also think of a small ball orbiting a big ball in exactly...a year!
     And wonder and wonder, the small ball is also used as a "clock" because it is also surrounded by an even smaller ball exactly one month!!!!!

455. Kamila and R.H.

     Camila, if you accept the researcher's conclusions, you accept the fact that the chance of forming a functional protein is very low. That's exactly what I argued.

     "I can't explain it because I can't trace irrational thinking like yours" - in my opinion you can't explain it because you didn't study biochemistry.

     R. H.,

     The statistical calculations are based on the conclusion of the researchers themselves, so it cannot be claimed that I wink at them.

     "The only proof you presented and I guess it is very, very convincing to everyone here, even the last Camila, is that it is your gut feeling - "There is no watch without a watchmaker" Wow, indeed impressive" - ​​so a dial watch does not require a watchmaker? Well, let it be…

456. xianghua,

     If this is what you have left after all the discussion and the scholarly answers and reasons you have received from everyone here about your difficulties, it is really, really unfortunate.
     Note that on the one hand all your claims about the improbability of evolution fell like a house of cards in the wind, the mistakes in the phylogenetic trees, your miraculous fish, the statistical calculations you showed that you have no real idea how they are calculated, the indisputable existence of complex systems that develop from simple systems and not in the field of life sciences - crystals , stars, weather, etc. and more and more answers to every matter you raised.
     On the other hand, you have with impressive consistency avoided presenting any evidence for an intelligent creator other than the failed attempts to cast doubt on evolution. Note that the evolution contradiction is not automatic proof of the existence of a designer.
     The only proof you presented and I assume it is very very convincing to everyone here, even the last Camilla, is that it is your gut feeling - "There is no watch without a watchmaker" Wow, impressive indeed. It's like standing in front of the famous optical illusion and saying "my gut feeling is that the two lines are not parallel and you won't be able to prove the opposite to me". In conclusion, all I have left to hope is that you are not a pilot....

457. Xinghua,
     The researcher explained himself in the article and I never claimed that the number that the same researcher presented in the context he was talking about was wrong. What you are asking me to do is to explain why you, you and not him, distorted what was written there and "drawn" a wrong conclusion "based on" what was written in that article. I can't explain it because I can't trace irrational thinking like yours. I pointed out some failures in your way of thinking that show some of the mistakes that are why you reach such wrong conclusions as you have shown in your responses in other contexts as well. I even drew your attention to the things written in the article that directly conflict with your "conclusions" from that article. I can't do more than that. I believe that the curious reader already has enough information based on which he can judge about the commenters here who answers the questions throughout the discussion and who avoids them, who knows the facts and who does not and worse sometimes distorts them, who draws logically derived conclusions and who uses arguments at the level of a therapeutic class (Sentences like this for example: "How do I measure complexity? According to the logic that says what is surely planned and what is not certain.") And who treats what the other wrote as his own words and who distorts the things that were written (either because of difficulty in understanding or with malicious intent) as you did Xingua Already several times, both in your last response (17 September 2011 at 23:48 # ) and in your response received at this time: 16 September 2011 at 15:26 # . I don't know what you believe (for the simple reason that you continue to avoid, each time under a different name, from giving an answer for this) but I choose to believe in science and especially in the scientific method. Those who want to behave differently, at least be honest and stop using everything that has been received thanks to science, both in the practical technological and medical aspect and in the theoretical aspect, the one who provides a real explanation of how the sun works, what a rainbow is and why there is so much genetic similarity between us and other organisms, and more Countless phenomena that we know in our world that have not been explained in any other way, including by those who claim that their friends already knew all this a long time ago.

458. Dear Friends,

     So what did we have there? Trees that are also suitable for planned objects, studies on binding sites that remain unanswered (Kamila, you are still welcome to answer why the conclusion that the researcher himself put forward, one in 11^10, is not correct) and of course clocks without a clockwork.

     What wants to claim that an organic clock is duplicated, given other clocks next to it in different degrees of complexity are evidence that the clock was created without a watchmaker, who can believe what he wants. Just let him understand that this is only a belief, which does not really agree with the findings and the claim about gradualism, as explained above.

     good day…

459. Let me explain to you why the debates about religion and faith are pointless, and I will quote what Itzik wrote in his message:
     "The age of the world is a topic that is really not interesting"
     That's it, it's over here!
     Very simple, not interesting, or rather you don't care at all if the world has existed for 1000 years or 100000 billion years.
     The last thing that bothers you Itzik is why the whale has remains of legs.
     You don't care at all what happens when you reach the speed of light, how the moon orbits the earth, what is DNA, what do we breathe, what do we emit, what is all this material that makes up our world made of, if there are earth-like stars?
     I don't think you wake up every morning holding your head trying to understand how it is that our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate?

     I will not go over all the issues in this world.

     Bottom line, you are not a person who is thirsty for knowledge, to explore, to learn, to understand.
     It is enough for you that I provide you with the information (How was man created? And let there be a man! This is a man!)
     Will you get it right? Is that enough for you?
     Why?

     Because it doesn't interest you!!!

     point.

460. to Xingua
     And one last thing: the whole matter would have been worthy of discussion if, from what has already been proven by science, it would appear that there should be some kind of external "start-up". Not only should she not, but the laws that allow things to start without any such intervention are also known.

     In short: science does not need a planner, the believer desperately needs one. why? Because he knows that the basic story is flawed, both because the knowledge fundamentally contradicts it and because this proven knowledge does not need an external entity.

     Your watchmaker is the last remnant, and he is not who knows what.

461. Xingua: "An intelligent clock planner is an excellent explanation. The alternative - a watch without a watchmaker, is nothing more than a hopeless belief."

     You are stuck with this false analogy that what is here is a watch and therefore has a watchmaker. So it's not, there is no clock here, there is too much time here - both in the physical world, in the biological world as well. What is there is not the work of a planner. point.

     In addition, this clock is constantly changing, which requires reference to the work of the aforementioned watchmaker.

     The need to introduce a planner/executor into the universe and life is a religious need, and is intended in this case to preserve the story of Genesis alive in the face of science. He has already lost that. You just don't know it yet.

462. Xinghua,
     If you fail to understand correctly even a simple argument as put forward by R.H. And I also brought up regarding the formation of complex structures from a very simple system (a cloud of "dust") no wonder you are unable to understand slightly more complicated issues (and not by much). I find it hard to believe that you are such an idiot that you thought we were comparing the complexity of a watch to the complexity of a gas cloud (by the way, just for practice, can you quantify the difference in complexity between the two?)

     Scarred! Scarred! Not a silica woman, what do you have against facts? It seems like you insist on expressing yourself and getting everything wrong even after being corrected, even on simple things. Son, there are different methods for estimating the distances between species. Some rely on morphological features (mainly for historical reasons) some rely on the genetic code (where the resolution is much, much better than morphological features) some rely on embryonic development or biochemical pathways or even behavior. Even within a certain method there are features that are more resistant to changes and those that are less resistant and therefore their weight is not the same. In any case, the different methods produce results that are not always the same, sometimes even the opposite, especially when comparing a small number of species and a small number of traits, but this is really not surprising, think about any classification process, given a set of factors to compare, there may be different divisions and relationships. These differences decrease significantly when comparing many species and many traits, this is, for example, a kinship tree obtained for creatures for which the full genome is already sequenced:

     http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Tree_of_life_SVG.svg/2000px-Tree_of_life_SVG.svg.png

     There is no special surprise there. Is this the final tree? Obviously not, many more organisms are still missing, millions. It is likely that there will still be small changes in the existing tree after new facts are discovered, for example about the rate of changes in the genome, sections that show a tendency to rapid change over the generations should probably be given less weight in determining phylogenetic kinship and it is possible that taking this into account will lead to necessary corrections in the tree, not because this is what the researcher set for himself as a goal But because that's what the new information will require. Are there opportunities here to undermine the credibility of evolution? Sure, millions of opportunities. Has even one of these been found? No, not even once. Does this prove the theory of common descent as conclusively as a mathematical proof? Obviously not, like any theory in science. Is it reasonable to believe that? Yes, just like it is likely that the sun will rise tomorrow, it is not certain but all the evidence and evidence points to the fact that it will be, only a fool would continue to argue about it without a more convincing alternative that would explain the variety of evidence and evidence.

     For you, combinatorics is not simple but simplistic. It is also evident that you do not understand what the researchers did in that study and how they arrived at the numbers they reached. As mentioned, this does not surprise me in light of your inability to understand even simpler arguments that are presented here. It is beyond my abilities to solve such problems for you. I will repeat one last time the simple point that simple combinatorics is not relevant to the question of programming obtaining a given protein just as it is not relevant to the estimation of the chances of getting a table salt crystal from drying a solution of chlorine and sodium ions and will inevitably lead you (in terms of probability calculations) to the idiotic conclusion that this is probabilistically impossible. Apart from completely ignoring all my explanations on the subject and repeating the same error over and over again without factual reference as to why you think there is no error here (after all, I am also human and I can make mistakes) you did nothing. I think that the readers have already understood the main issues (and those who are not sure that they understood are welcome to ask for clarification) so I will limit myself to that at this stage. For any further raising of the impossibility argument from probability considerations based on simplistic combinatorial calculations as you have given so far, you are welcome to review my previous responses again until you understand what is written in them.

     You are still welcome to present us with your alternative explanation for all the phenomena found so far that the fact of evolution and the theory of common descent that relies on this fact can explain. As mentioned, to say "intelligent planner" is completely equivalent to the sentence "I have no idea" both provide the same level of understanding and both provide exactly the same level of explanation. You are also welcome to indicate which other technologies and developments (as a critical measure of the understanding we have acquired from the explanations) derive from your alternative theory (and that of the creationists who do not lie, such as Kent Hobind for example, who is an arch creationist and a convicted criminal).

     Regarding the watch that requires a watchmaker. If you were to come to a planet where almost everywhere you turned you would find pieces shaped like springs and needles and gears and glass domes and metal boxes, and you would find that all these pieces are formed abundantly and spontaneously from simpler particles by familiar physical mechanisms, where the gears have a tendency to spontaneously connect to each other in the right way that brings them to a sympathetic action and the spring has a tendency to settle spontaneously inside the metal box and the glass cover has a natural and spontaneous tendency to close the box, etc., and also that sub-parts such as gear combinations have a clear function in other "devices" that you find there, etc. B, when in addition those watches reproduce naturally and give birth to offspring watches, would you also then run straight to logic - watch -> watchmaker? In fact the only reason that when you (and anyone else) think of a watchmaker as seeing a watch is precisely because, unlike organisms and organic biological processes, all of these characteristics do not exist for watches. The whole "analogy" of a clock in relation to protein is fundamentally wrong because the two phenomena are completely different in the known processes associated with them. When you add to this absurd combinatorial calculations and an escape to the god of gaps at every moment when it is necessary to exercise a little intelligence, it is clear how they manage to reach such idiotic conclusions.

463. R.H.:
     Your answer to Hingue is excellent (even though it seems that you didn't notice that Erez Lebane was with you in the first place) but I'm afraid that it will "affect" him (on Hingue) only until evening of Shabbat because what he calls "logic" and what he calls "gut feelings" are both essentially the same thing if If you want to call him by his name, you must use the word "agenda".
     After all, he had decided in advance what the final conclusion of the debate would be and nothing would move him from there.
     He ignores simple arguments that anyone can check all the way and it is not at all a coincidence that he returns and escapes into the fog of the battle of complexity (the inextricable - Aalek) because he knows that when he throws out words that many people do not know, he creates the impression of knowledge even if he does not begin to understand the the meaning of the same words.

464. xianghua,

     You didn't understand my argument. The gas cloud is a very simple system. From it, in a natural process, stars were formed, in these stars, innumerable complex processes take place, such as the movement of continents and weather. What I meant was simply to demonstrate to you the creation of complex systems from simple systems without an intelligent creator.

     Other examples are from physics and chemistry, from a small number of quarks hundreds of hadrons are created, from about 100 atoms millions of molecules are created, how can this be??? Why didn't anyone plan this?? Could you watch without a planner??. What is the difference between the creation of molecules from atoms and: from 22 amino acids millions of proteins are created?

     And this is also an answer to Erez Bivna's question regarding the creation of complex systems.

     As for the fish, it is you who now insists that it is not a refutation of evolution. I told you to look at a fish that is closer to a person and here you are refuting evolution. And again, can you set me a counter condition in which, in your opinion, the theory of the intelligent planner would be disproved?
     Besides, of course, morphological similarity is not a guarantee of genetic closeness. Both insects and birds and bats have wings and yet they are not considered relatives. Morphological similarity is an obsolete parameter compared to genetic sequences.

     As mentioned, a gut feeling is not a guarantee of anything. You remind me of pilots at night who crash because the instruments show them that they are flying upside down, but their gut feeling sends them "up" into the ground. Rely on the devices my dear and not on your gut and science in this case is your device even if it goes against your and Mr. Paley's gut feeling.

465. Be philosophical for all lovers of the clock argument and complexity arguments of all kinds:
     Can high complexity arise spontaneously from less complexity (even slightly)?
     If so, such as the complexity of the pattern of sea sand slips caused by the waves, perhaps inductively we can claim that complexity as high as we want can be created spontaneously, that is, without a deliberate hand.

466. R. H.,

     If you compare the complexity of a watch to the complexity of a gas cloud, I don't have much to add.

     Regarding the person with the mutation, this proves that morphological similarity is not a guarantee of genetic similarity. What disproves your claim and actually theoretically, it could be that the silicona does have a higher genetic similarity to humans than to the fish species. And as I have demonstrated, this would not be a refutation of evolution. And this is where I really end the aforementioned battered topic.

     withering,

     Simple combinatorics. As I explained earlier, for a protein of length 45 ha there may be about 45^20 different possibilities. So how did he get an atp binding sequence by inserting only 12^10? The answer to this is simple and lies in the fact that billions of other sequences can lead to the same result. And this is exactly what he tested and therefore came to the conclusion that the atp binding sequence will appear one in 11^10 mutations and not 45^20. In fact, even if the researcher had repeated the same experiment about a million times, he would not have obtained a sequence that has a natural counterpart.

     Regarding the phylogenetic tree, it turns out that it has caused quite a stir around the world and is also based on world-renowned researchers in the field, as you can see in the link I brought from the Discovery Institute. So it's not accurate. In short, the researchers took thousands of different genes and got different results, and actually couldn't trace the evolutionary history of those creatures.

     A smart watch planner is an excellent explanation. The alternative - a watch without a watchmaker, is nothing more than a hopeless belief.

467. Xinghua,

     In the study of ATP binding, the researchers were able to produce four new families of ATP-binding proteins that are different from the known proteins (those found in organisms that perform this action in nature, i.e. all of them...)

     These families show no sequence relationship to each other or to anyone known
     biological protein.

     This shows that despite the tedious search they undertook, through the creation and review of an impressively large random sequence library, they managed to miss the solutions that exist in nature today. This proves that the method used by the researchers does not cover the space of possible solutions (the fact that they did not find the solutions that are so common in nature). The question remains open, we do not know how the natural proteins with this specific function were created/developed. You are trying to claim that not knowing how something developed means impossibility, and that is an error.
     In light of the researchers' conclusion that the above-mentioned activity is widespread enough in the space of protein sequences that they could have been created based on stochastic processes only (that is, without needing the guiding hand of an intelligent planner) and in light of the fact that their method managed to miss the solutions that are known to exist in nature, it cannot be ruled out as you Trying to do the programming of the development of the natural solution in a much simpler and reasonable way. Despite the ever-present temptation to turn to the God of gaps, I still prefer to keep the question open and continue to research and read other studies and rely on the successes of science in solving mysteries in a wide variety of natural phenomena around us. You are in a hurry to embrace the same god of gaps that leaves you in the dark.

     The "research" you linked to in the context of the tree of life, turned out to be an opinion piece in a popular science newspaper that does not undergo peer review but does sometimes receive criticism for its poor quality (not always). Unfortunately, I could not access the full article (if you have a link to it, I would be happy to refer to it in a matter-of-fact way) but it is evident from other references to the same article that that opinion is on the fringes of the fringes and it is not surprising that the creationists cling to it as finding a lot of spoils and present it in a false way, just as you presented it, More than what it is - a marginal opinion piece and not a peer-reviewed study.
     I also looked at the link to the creationist website (of the creationists who don't lie) and it's really pathetic to see how desperate they are to find flaws in science (by the way, no scientist claims that our knowledge is complete or perfect) instead of offering alternative theories that can be examined in some way and that explain better, let alone better, that explain Even a fraction of the facts we see around us. I would also love to see what technology the creationists were able to produce from their non-scientific insights, do you know anything like that?
     An intelligent creator is not an explanation, it is equivalent to the sentence "I don't know". Why? digestion!
     At some point it becomes boring.

468. Itzik,

     Maybe and maybe and maybe... let's see if you maintain this attitude in your life. I don't understand, for example, how you decide to get out of bed in the morning after waking up, maybe there's a snake under the bed just waiting for you to take one of your legs off so it can bite you? Maybe it's not morning at all now and the light coming through the window is just a new and extremely strong street lamp and the clock has broken down and shows the wrong time and it's actually still two in the morning and you still have a few good hours to sleep? Maybe you're not you at all, how do you know? After all, our feelings sometimes deceive us...
     Our lives are full of information and yet we are required to make decisions based on partial information. There is a way called the scientific method, which helps us to find out in an intelligent way (as opposed to just gut feelings or a bet or blind faith) which of the possibilities is the most likely as of this moment based on the best of our knowledge of the facts related to that subject. This method has been proven for hundreds of years and is the only one, but the only one! Which does this consistently, day by day, in a proven way, through experiments in laboratories, through the technology created on the basis of knowledge gained from scientific research, technology that really works.

     The "skeptical" position you present is appalling because it places every opinion and claim about knowledge in this world as if they were equivalent and this is because your main claim is that knowledge is partial and not yet complete. This is a fundamental lack of understanding of what a scientific process is. For most things, certainly those that have happened in the past, we will never have complete information (do you even understand what complete information is?) according to your opinion, since it is impossible to know with 6000 percent certainty anything about anything, you are throwing out the water with the baby. In your opinion, if there is one opinion that has no basis and factual support by scientific standards (the world has existed for less than XNUMX years) and there is another opinion that is not XNUMX% certain but is supported by a huge variety of facts that all point in the direction of a world that has existed for millions of years, then both opinions These are reasonable for you. If you really lived your life according to this skeptical attitude, I would say that it is sad that you are in such a terrible situation, but apparently you do live and work in this world, and get out of your bed in the morning despite the uncertainty, so it seems that you have a mechanism that nevertheless selects a certain option from among the variety of possible possibilities. Do you do it by flipping a coin? Or maybe on the basis of the partial information available to you (the senses and past experience) and through your mind that chooses the most likely option at that moment even if it is not XNUMX percent certain?

     Please answer me, out of all the infinite possibilities, none of which are certain, from what do you know the age of the earth?
     And if it is too much for you, then you will propose something that you feel confident enough to say that it is so and not otherwise and we will examine how and on what basis you make a choice in a certain option that is also uncertain.

469. R.H
     You wrote: "In light of your last paragraph, some small token fell to me." - Did you just notice? 🙂 You are fast.

470. xianghua,

     In light of your last paragraph, a small token fell to me. Your problem and that of other creationists is probably that you prefer gut feelings to rational thought. You see a pile of sand made up of millions of grains and it looks unplanned to you, but a clock with 100 gears is necessarily planned. Don't you understand that this has nothing to do with complexity? Is the orderly movement of billions of stars of different types and sizes in the galaxy no more complex than your watch? Is this proof that the galaxy was created by a designer? No, after all, we see galaxies in all stages of their formation from a gaseous cloud to aging galaxies and no observation has seen some mysterious hand that places the stars.
     So it is with life, we see all the stages of life and a mysterious hand has never been observed.

     By the way, don't play with words, yes, show me a fish that is more human than fish and that would be a disproof of evolution. What is your rebuttal to an intelligent planner? Don't genetic diseases disprove it? Who makes defective products?

     Besides, I didn't understand your example with the person with the mutation. A pygmy, a Chinese, an elephant man, any other deformed poor man or a fat man mountain from Georgia will be closer to you in succession than a fish, what to do? What here refutes evolution?

     What is this claim about ATP binding? I must have missed her with all the huge words that have been spilled here.

471. R. H.,

     "And yes, if you see a fish that is more similar to a human than a fish in its entire genome (and not just some gene accidentally introduced by a virus, but complete similarity) evolution will indeed have a problem," - what does "problem" mean? Why not a rebuttal? That is, for you, the theory will not be disproved even in such a case. As I said, the ablution absorbs everything. She has no problem with any findings.

     Now see how easy it is to disprove the above claim. Let's say that in a modern person a mutation occurred on an important gene (let's say from the homeobox family) and now he looks completely different. Now, morphologically he will no longer look like a modern man. If we take a skeleton of an ancient man it will already look closer to a modern man than to him. And yet at the continuum level they will be closer. That is, here is a case that disproves the claim that there is a correlation between morphological structure and genetic sequence. Evolution will not be disproved in such a case. You also again ignore the fact that a phylogenetic tree does not prove evolution at all. If you claim again that there is a correlation or that it will be a problem for evolution as far as I'm concerned, I've exhausted the matter.

     Regarding the research - see here (a creationist website, but it cites evidence from evolutionary biologists, so that God forbid they don't claim that those creationists are liars) - http://www.discovery.org/a/10651

     It turns out that there are problems with the phylogenetic tree. So much for the claim-not the above claim.

     I understand that you have already dropped the claim about atp binding. I will therefore believe Camila's answer.

     How do I measure complexity? According to the logic that says what is safe has been planned and what is not safe.

     For example, if you have a pile of sand or a crystal in front of you. You can determine with certainty that a sand pile does not necessarily require planning. Regarding the crystal, you could argue that this is a borderline case, because on the one hand it seems complex, but not enough to decide unequivocally.

     But what will happen if you see a clock with hands? Here you will claim unequivocally that only a planner can create it. It is simply unlikely that a dial clock would be created by a natural process.

472. Itzik,

     Just as the mathematical structure (whatever the structure may be) is built on axioms, so too is science based on a number of fundamental beliefs. Yes Yes. scoop! Science is also a matter of faith.
     Before those who repent and the rest of the timid start to get excited and quote me, I will add and say that in contrast to the complex and not always intuitive beliefs that characterize religions (All-powerful, all-knowing and benevolent God, a world created by the Word and built in six days, a woman created from a rib, the Virgin Mary giving birth, the prophet's fantastic journey Muhammad, the plots of the Greek and Hindu gods, etc.), scientific fundamental beliefs are fundamental and easier to digest. In my opinion anyway.

     One of these beliefs is that the reality around us can be explained in a system of basic laws, that is, that there are laws around us. The action of science is to investigate and reveal this lawfulness.
     Another belief is that this legality is consistent, that is, it does not change just like that for no reason, and if it changes, then there is an even more basic legality underlying the reason for the change.
     Based on this belief, arguments such as extreme changes in reality in the past than in the present, without a satisfactory explanation, are not accepted as plausible.
     Therefore, if we follow the classical scientific approach (the one that landed people on the moon, discovered penicillin, and characterized the periodic table of elements), then we must reject proposals like the ones you have raised here:
     "No one has any idea what the first days of the world looked like, maybe the temperature was radically different, maybe every morning the earth shook and within a year all the ravines were formed, even though it is clear that the mountains and continents were formed by various thrusts and movements, etc., there is no scientific evidence for this"

473. xianghua,

     First of all, Dawkins is not a doom and gloom, unlike religion, there is no doom and gloom in science, not even Einstein or Darwin. The article about the fish I referred you to was written in 2011 specifically states that the fish resemble fish so even if Dawkins said something, he did so before the above article based on partial data and I'm sure he will change his mind now.
     And yes, if you see a fish that is more similar to a person than a fish in its entire genome (and not just some gene accidentally introduced by a virus, but complete similarity) evolution will indeed have a problem, this is one of the predictions of the theory. At the moment there is nothing that even comes close to this and all the predictions have been confirmed.
     By the way, note that this fish also resembles a dou Haim, meaning that this is really a beautiful example of what you claim does not exist.

     Secondly, regarding the "mess in the phylogenetic tree" I have the feeling that, as in the case of Shostak, you are taking things out of context. Did you read the article at all? Because I couldn't download it. If so, then maybe tell us what it says?
     In light of the short summary, it is not clear what the author wants to say, and it is even more unclear that he is trying to deny evolution and support design, but as mentioned, I did not read.
     In any case, even if the article claims so, it is possible to present 58474 counter articles that do support phylogenetics. See here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=phylogenetic

     In short, leave xianghua, you are climbing the wrong trees (literally) and that is not where your salvation will come from. Not from the statistics either and you still ignore the analogy to weather and complex crystals like no other created from a simple system like a homogeneous gas cloud.
     An answer like "Are you comparing Shotton's complexity to the weather" is by definition evasive. It has already been asked, how do you measure complex levels?

474. withering

     I'm not a scientist, and I don't sit in tents, neither in a yeshiva, nor in universities or institutes, I work for my living and I draw and accumulate my knowledge from reading and wandering around science centers, I'm trying to present a thesis and I'm not here as part of a historical debate but to ask and learn.

     Science has already changed the estimate of the age of the universe several times, the science on the age of the world at this stage is a study that has not yet been completed, the collection of correct facts has not yet been completed, for example no one has any idea what the first days of the world looked like, maybe the temperature was radically different, maybe at all In the morning the earth trembled and within a year all the ravines were created, even though it is clear that the mountains and continents were created by thrusts and displacements of various kinds, etc., there is no scientific proof of this and there is still no proof that the world was not created "half" perfect (basic species from which, in the evolutionary method, the other species developed according to their place) ), therefore in my opinion at this stage it is faith.

     I wrote that I accept the other person's right to believe what he wants and on the condition, "unless it is a faith that leads the believer to perform actions in the name of faith".

     I have my beliefs and I'm sure they change like all evolution according to place and time, I didn't write that I accept other beliefs, I accept the other's right to believe in other beliefs.

     Michael
     I'm not your competitor and I'm sure you're more educated and smarter than me, but these are my opinions and I have the right to demand that you respect my right to believe different beliefs than yours and in accordance with my explanations as I think they are (you quote the equivalents of conventions of values, the claims of the other side that do not convince me and do not change my opinion and belief) .

475. R. H.,

     Dawkins clearly claims that they are more similar to humans than to tuna or trout, so I assume he is relying on some research. But the point here is that even if it is true, it will not disprove evolution at all, contrary to what you claimed. In the process I remembered an interesting article that is indeed confirmed because there is a complete mess in the phylogenetic tree-

     http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html

     withering,

     If you read the research analysis in depth, you would find that the same sequence that binds ATP appears once in 11^10 sequences. That is, if your claim was correct, then a shorter and more frequent protein would have to bind to ATP. But in practice this is not what happened. The above claim is unfounded.

     "The fact that it is possible to find some genomic sequence for which the scarab is more similar to the homologue in the human genome than to the homologue in a "normal" fish is not surprising at all" - certainly not surprising. Nothing is surprising in evolution. Everything goes.

     By the way, it's not really accurate when it comes to a certain limit. Look at the research I linked to R.H.

476. Itzik Beloy,

     Estimating the age of the earth is a conclusion that emerges from a collection of scientific facts and this is in complete contrast to belief in astrology or God, which at most could have been in the status of beliefs without a scientific basis, but in fact they are beliefs that contradict scientific facts. No scientist believes that the age of the earth is so and so just because that is what is written in the book. The reason I believe that the age of the earth is greater than 6000 years and is actually about 4.5 billion years is based on physical processes that can be measured and reproduced in the laboratory (some of which I even managed to perform myself). Even if we ignore the estimation of the Earth's age, there are many phenomena that indicate that it has existed for millions of years (fossils, uplift of mountains as a result of continental movement, weathering processes such as erosion of gorges by glaciers). These phenomena involve gradual processes (very different in nature - radioactive decay, soil movement, "growth" of minerals and crystals) that still exist today and whose rate can be directly measured, including under different conditions of temperature, pressure, etc.

     In your comment above (September 14, 2011 at 20:29 #) you present a really confused mix of "facts" and "beliefs".

     a) In your opinion, is every belief equivalent (in terms of the factual basis related to it and/or its relevance to the reality that surrounds us)? If, for example, someone came and told you that all the Jews should be eliminated because he believes that they are the source of all diseases in the world (because that's what it says in some book he holds in his hands and which he claims was written by a higher power), would you be convinced that his belief represents some truth in this world? If someone were to tell you that taking LSD is the way to get to heaven during your lifetime, that this is really what he believes in, would you think that this is really the reality? How can you separate the beliefs of different people about phenomena in this world when the beliefs contradict each other? How can you even trust your own beliefs, because at different times in your life it happens that your belief in a certain thing changes, for what reason do you think that your current belief is the right thing? Science has a simple solution to this matter, but I'm interested in what solution you can give to this.

     b) Do you know how to present a factual basis for the validity of the hypothesis of God or astrology (which there are many who believe in)?

477. Itzik Beloy:
     I can also respond without thinking, but unlike you - even when I don't think - my responses are correct.
     Want to see?
     Here - I will simply repeat what I have already written:

     It seems to me that the site "in ultra-Orthodox" would suit you better.
     There really is no conflict between religion and science.
     In reality, however, the collision is head-on.

     Some of the strange claims of science are:
     The rabbit does not rummage.
     Euphrates and Tigris do not come from a common source.
     The world is much older than 6000 years.
     There was no flood that flooded the whole world.
     There was no creation of animals - they developed in evolution.
     The woman was not created from the rib of the man - they both evolved from a type of monkey that also already had male and female characteristics. In general - the females actually preceded the males in evolution.
     The trachea of ​​the cow does not divide into three parts that together reach the liver.

     Want more?
     Just say!

478. Xinghua,

     You can explain over and over again but this is still not what emerges from that article and it certainly does not stem from the specific quotes you presented. An analogy to what the researchers describe there is: from an inspection of a residential neighborhood in which buildings have 4 to 10 floors, it can be said that in the light of the neighborhood that was inspected, four floors is a minimum that is sufficient for the existence of a residential building. This does not imply (nor is it claimed anywhere) that there cannot be residential buildings with a smaller number of floors. It was also possible to prove, for example, that in order for the fourth floor to exist there must be three floors below it and that it is not possible to build a residential building between four floors that does not meet this condition. But none of the researchers claimed this (in the analogical inversion required) and it does not follow from their words. So, as mentioned, you can repeat over and over again to your heart's content about your "lack of understanding" and try to mislead the readers, but it will still be an error.

     Regarding the scarab (this is how it should be written in Hebrew, the Latin combination of letters COEL is pronounced like the word "shadow" in Hebrew) its phylogenetic position places itself exactly where we would expect it to be, see here for example:
     http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/V/Vertebrates.html

     As befits an intermediate vertebrate, it still has many "fishy" features and some features that are closer to terrestrial vertebrates. You need to know how phylogenetic trees are built to understand what is behind Dawkins' statement. The fact that it is possible to find some genomic sequence for which the scar is more similar to the homologue in the human genome than to the homologue in a "normal" fish is not surprising at all (only those who do not understand and do not read the professional literature on the subject and rely on partial statements in popular books which are not always accurate or can go into details) . What is most amazing is that people like you, who clearly do not know the professional literature (according to their own responses), allow themselves to have a professional opinion on the subject, even when professionals tell them they are wrong. I suggest you the next time you come to the garage try to apply the same approach there. I'm sure it will be very interesting.

     It seems that in addition to a lack of understanding of statistics, you also do not understand that much about the complexity of systems. Can you present a quantitative comparison of the various systems mentioned here? (The formation of a star/planets from planetary "dust", the formation of climate systems, a clock and a whistle).

     Regarding the RNA world hypothesis, as in other places you fail with the same fallacy - you do not know (neither you nor anyone else) what is the minimum necessary for a replication operation. All you know is that replicants of the kind that exist today are probably too complex to arise spontaneously. The point is that looking at variation in replicators that exists in the natural world, shows us that there are many, many solutions, some of which are much simpler than what exists in humans, for example. What is the simplest possible combination? This is an excellent question that we do not know how to answer today, but not knowing does not mean not programming. There are many phenomena that we still don't know how they happen and what are the underlying mechanisms. Until a while ago they didn't know how geckos managed to hold their weight on walls and ceilings, it just seemed illogical. Happily, science, unlike religion, is not satisfied with a filler to plug every hole in knowledge/understanding, but goes to the trouble of finding the mechanism, and indeed such a mechanism is found for the gecko, just as it is found for a variety of other phenomena, and believe it or not, it is not God who sticks its feet there and keeps Don't fall on her.
     What is beautiful about science is that many "hallucinations" one day become reality (following the hard work of people who are probably not your kind).

479. Itzik Blue Cedar Birch and the rest

     Just a clarification, please don't confuse me (R.H.) with that brazen "complimenter" and lacking in the way of the land of the so-called
     R.H. Rafai.M.
     And my father, you should really do something about the discussion culture of Helz.

     xianghua

     I see that despite the summaries we are back to arguing. It is not clear to me what Dawkins is saying, but after a quick search on the fish, it is a living fossil whose genome sequence has not yet been determined. However, in a recent general analysis it was found to be similar to other fish. It specifically says:
     Moreover the GC%, the CpG frequency and the 5mC level of L. menadoensis are more similar to those of fish and amphibians than to those of mammals, birds and reptiles

     You can find the article here:

     http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21867968

480. The word father is not a reserved word, but there are words that have been misused, so we are forced to put them in the reserved word system, the use of which causes the message to be left on hold until one of us views it.

481. Ahh.. where would we be without those great heroes who hide behind an anonymous nick.
     Armed with a keyboard and a protective mask, they will already amaze everyone with the sharpness of their language.

     How weak and ridiculous.

482. R. H.,

     Regarding Shostak, I clearly said that this is not a study of their creation, just for the sake of so-called credibility. lest they claim that he is babbling/twisting/inventing (delete the unnecessary)

     And his research, as I have explained repeatedly, showed that a minimum of 45 ha is required for ATP binding.

     Regarding the silicon fish, I rely on Dawkins' claim in his book the greatest show on Earth, page 163 (in the English version). I was looking for a research reference but the amount of indirectly related articles is too large.

     The heart of the fish itself:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth

     Are you really comparing the complexity of stars to the complexity of a watch or a clock?

     Regarding the world of RNA, since scientists are not ready to accept the simultaneous appearance of proteins and genetic code and a translation and replication system that will pass everything on, they proposed that in the past RNA was used both as an enzyme (as a substitute for proteins) and as a genetic code. This is the probability problem seemingly decomposed into a simpler system. is that so? Not really, since there is also a limit to the number of bases that rna can replicate and also because it is a complementary template-dependent replication. And these two alone push out the rna world hypothesis, or should we call it the rna world hallucination.

483. R.H
     Thanks for the compliment"
     For a "product" in this world to work (for example an electrical product), we need both negative and good that a respectable website leaves people of your kind with market style and violence.

484. Birch cedar

     It's okay, you didn't have to correct yourself. Even so, no sane person believes you. (or to the weak mind who calls himself Itzik Beloy).

485. Itzik Beloy,

     Evolution says exactly the opposite of what Hillel said. According to evolution, those thermodians live in sand because they have poor traits that allow them to live there (selection) and not the other way around. In other words, they will not become poor because they live in the sands, but such poor people do better there than the others. Sounds like a semantic difference, but it is very significant, as Erez Livna wrote above, it is the root of the debate between the Hallmarkist and Darwinist thesis.

486. If time = over time, of course

487. Itzik,

     If by "evolution" you refer to the change of organisms or time, then Hillel, Lamark and Darwin are all in the same boat (unlike Aristotle, for example, who saw in every form of life an unchanging entity), but "evolution" in the context of the theory of evolution means more than that and here there is room for a distinction between These esteemed personal approaches.

     As for contempt and condescension, there is no justification for such behavior.
     I'm actually glad that you dare to enter such a scientific "lion's den" and dare to criticize less popular opinions. I see this as daring in the positive sense of the word.

488. heat
     I invite you to our place at the Weizmann Institute any evening you choose. Our libraries are open 24 hours a day.

489. Avi,
     Totally unrelated question
     how is it going here

     When you write "my father" you automatically receive "the response is awaiting confirmation" or it is according to the number of words or opinions

     Sometimes my comment is published immediately and sometimes it waits for approval

490. cedar
     Darwin is considered the father of evolution, and I in the S.A. show that 1500 years before him, Hillel the elder already understood the matter of evolution in its simplicity, and he does not enter at all into the subject of the acquired or innate, he says that the place changes nature, just as Darwin saw the birds on the different islands and came to the same insight, only 1500 years Later, the difference is in the conclusions.

     Every species in this world or in the universe in general changes in its generations according to its place and time, the question is how the world was created and this is the religious question that does not change anything at the moment.
     One thinks that the big bang is just that it is difficult for him to explain what exactly exploded and where it came from and the other thinks that the Buddha created the world in different and different forms and everyone has their thoughts, opinions and beliefs according to their time and place and as a Jew I believe in God, His Torah and His Sages, and I really don't like the disdain of the arrogant who think they have wisdom and knowledge and reason alone.

491. my father
     I am your follower on science and disagree with you on many of your opinions.

     The "fact" that there is no scientist who disputes the age of the world, does not make the "fact" science, just like there is no believer in God in the whole world who disputes the "fact" that God created the world.

     If science changes, it may be that in millions of years science will find the tools to prove that the world has existed for 6000 years, in the meantime, with all due respect to science for its tools and methods, the age of the world is only belief and not science.

     Astrology is also a belief that many are its members, which may not have a basis but those who believe in it or some of them prefer the 2000 year old maps to the "science" that is changing because of the "improvement of methods", by the way, Judaism does not believe in astrology and believes that a person has an influence on his future .

     This is my belief and I hope you allow another belief to roam your site.

     It is very useful for everyone to understand that indeed faith is not a science and usually it does not change and it is none of the business of the person of other faiths, unless it is a faith that leads the believer to perform actions in the name of faith.

     The age of the world is a topic that is really neither interesting nor influential and is only a philosophical matter and not scientific as mentioned.

     Sages are not God, but they were very wise people and many of them were thousands of years ahead of their time (see Hillel the Elder above) some of them were even wrong about certain things (there are maps of some of the sages of Israel who imagined the Land of Israel and they are not related to reality) hence to underestimate their wisdom and enormity This is a shame for the intelligentsia and especially for those who accept the opinion of all kinds of scientists from the last centuries as Sinaitic Torah while disrespecting the sages.

492. Itzik, a short comment on the example of the old Hillel:

     You comment that Hillel preceded Darwin.
     First, so what? Who said first is a question of history and prestige, not substance. So is there evolution or not?
     Second, it is not at all clear whether Hillel's approach can be compared to Darwin's approach, or to Lamarck's method.
     Darwin believed that genetic variation originates from innate traits, while Mark also believed that it originates from acquired traits.
     On the face of it, it seems that Hillel is in Lamarck's opinion, and this approach was completely refuted a long time ago (although it is being revived these days in special cases thanks to epigenetic mechanisms, that is, inheritance that is not based on DNA sequence)

493. Itzik, I join my friend and inform you that it seems that you made a mistake on the site. Science does change, but it is only as a result of improvement in measurement methods, religion does not change, because it is not interested in current measurements but only what was written thousands of years ago. Just like astrology. It has no basis in any case and Relies on two thousand year old astronomical maps.
     The fact that the universe has existed for over 13 billion years is already a fact that no scientist disputes, just like the fact of evolution.

494. Michael
     180 common comments about what they are, please read the article again.

     The fact that the website reads the science and not in the ultra-Orthodox rooms does not make the age of the world above or below 6000 years, in any way not scientifically, the number of years is pure belief, in this "science" the age of the world has already changed several times, and each age is before the data available today, You have no idea what the temperature and other basic data were in the life of the first man.

     Neither you nor I have any idea what animal they called a rabbit and if it ruminated or not so the debate is not scientific but religious.

     As mentioned above, the Euphrates and the Tigris and all the debates surrounding them and since we are not at a values ​​conference, there is no need to descend to the level of the debates there.

     You have every right to believe there was an ice age and I have every right to believe there was a flood, it's not science it's faith, there is no pure scientific evidence that there was no flood and there is no evidence that dinosaurs were exterminated in a strange way.

     The development of evolution is the debate and the subject of the article and I partially accept the opinion of the author of the article that does not reach the creation of man or woman.

     I brought here the opinion of the old Hillel who preceded Darwin by a few years by about 1500 years and recognized the basic evolution.

     To prove from this that man is descended from the monkey is a joke and it is better to believe that man is descended from the banana, because of the few differences in DNA between them

495. I would love to see science libraries open all night like yeshiva.

496. xianghua,

     Some things:
     1) Regarding Shostak, there is no doubt that the man believes that there was no intelligent creation, otherwise he would not have searched with such devotion for abiogenetic systems. See here: http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/ And certainly he does not think that his research indicates the existence of an intelligent creator.
     So there are two possibilities either he doesn't understand his own research or you don't understand his research (delete the unnecessary).

     2) I don't know the siliconate fish or whatever you call it that is more human than fish. Can you send a link to an article or website describing it?

     3) You ignored a beautiful analogy put forward by Camilla regarding the creation of the stars. How is it possible that a more or less homogeneous gas cloud produced a weather system that produces phenomena such as tornadoes, hurricanes, complex clouds like none other, so complex and complicated that there is no way to predict it more than a few days ahead? An intelligent creator?

     4) Regarding the plausibility you do it again, Dawkins Miller and Shostak claim there is no plausibility? Are you sure?

     5) The RNA world theory was developed because of the plausibility problem? Are you sure about that too? Maybe it evolved because to this day no protein has been found that creates protein? On the other hand, RNA is the template and the creator of proteins, and is catalytic RNA also found? These are the reasons for developing the theory.

497. Friends:
     Do you really think that arguing with this hyungo will lead anywhere?
     The guy is not looking for the truth. He's just looking for a way to say something complex enough that no one will understand and therefore won't answer him.
     He uses words (like probability) that by refusing to respond to the challenge I put before him he showed that he knows himself that he does not understand their meaning.
     It's easy for him to use words he doesn't understand and build false or meaningless sentences out of them.
     He also has no problem lying with a determined forehead and claiming that the scientists are engaged in probability calculations such as his.
     It's just not true.
     Unlike him - the scientists try to understand the model before running calculations on it. He, on the other hand, ignores the model completely and all the wonderful examples provided to him do not even tickle the edge of the bored nerve in his skull.

     Itzik Beloy:
     It seems to me that the site "in ultra-Orthodox" would suit you better.
     There really is no conflict between religion and science.
     In reality, however, the collision is head-on.

     Some of the strange claims of science are:
     The rabbit does not rummage.
     Euphrates and Tigris do not come from a common source.
     The world is much older than 6000 years.
     There was no flood that flooded the whole world.
     There was no creation of animals - they developed in evolution.
     The woman was not created from the rib of the man - they both evolved from a type of monkey that also already had male and female characteristics. In general - the females actually preceded the males in evolution.
     The trachea of ​​the cow does not divide into three parts that together reach the liver.

     Want more?
     Just say!

498. Hoinya listen,

     The question of plausibility has meaning, your stupid calculations have no meaning, that's what Kamila claimed, and don't twist her words like you do with Shostak. For the avoidance of doubt, the calculations that must be performed to begin to tackle the question are so complicated that you have no chance of beginning to understand them, so if I were you, I would turn to an occupation that is more in line with your skills. How about ballet? Or artistic swimming?

499. It is jarring to "hear" every time the (stupid, in my opinion) debate between faith and science, and the great confusion that exists on the subject.
     The number of years of the world or whether the book of books was written by a person or a god are matters of faith that have nothing to do with science and science will never be able to prove them, the "facts" that "scientists" repeat even though they are not related to science, will never change them to science, only after they are proven.

     The Torah nowhere denies evolution and the opposite is true (see Hillel the Elder).

     And "science" still hasn't proven and doesn't know what exactly Noah's Ark looked like. Maybe science at that time was more well-known and developed than it is known today and the ark had DNA boxes and not actual animals? The claims are that even in the days of Moses they wrote in this script and it was forgotten and returned in later generations)

500. Hillel the Elder preceded Darwin and knew these two things, according to the commentary here (Talmud Babili Shabbat page XNUMX, page XNUMX, end of the page)

     OT For ever, let a man be humble as a praise, and let him not be strict as he does not deal with two people
     When they bet each other they said whoever goes and teases Hillel will take XNUMX hundred moves one of them said I will tease him today because he was and Hallel touched his head he went and passed the door of his house he said who is here Hallel who is here Hallel we wrapped ourselves and went out to meet him my son said to him what You ask G-d a question I have to ask G-d my son asked why the heads of the Babylonians are oval G-d my son a big question you asked because they don't have open animals He went and waited one hour He came back and said who is here Hallel Who is here Hallel We wrapped ourselves and went out to meet him He said to him My son, what are you asking G-d, I have a question to ask G-d, my son asked, he asked why are the eyes of Thermodyne Tarutot, my son said to him, "A big question, you asked because Darin walked among the sands and waited for one hour. He came back and said, "Who is here, Hallel, who is here, Hallel?" My son, what are you asking God? I have a question to ask God. God all the questions you have to ask, ask God you are the praise that shines on you the president of Israel God they are God if you are he will not multiply like you in Israel God my son because of what God because I was lost by you D of hundreds move G-d be careful in your spirit so that he will be praised that you will lose by him four hundred moves and four hundred moves and Hillel will not be careful:

     Rashi
     Those who were deceived - intervened like the doves are deceived by the Dessanhedrin (page XNUMX::):

     Who is the praise here - there is no praise here and insulting language for the President of Israel:

     Why are the heads of Babylonians oval - Bilona (Bishlonkash: excessively elongated) in Leaz, which is not round.

     Tarots - soft:

     Shaderam among the sands - and the wind blows and enters inside their eyes and in another place it interprets the round tongues of their seat and even here I say yes and from Shadaram among the sands the place changed them so that there would not be a crack in their eyes as long as ours and the sand would enter it, as well as the feet of Africans are wide so that they do not drown in the treads of the water and many of us Shedar sails between the feet of the water and they walk barefoot and spread their legs according to the way the shoe pushes the foot and put it on its pattern:

     So that he is glorified - he deserves it:

501. RH, the world is funny so we laugh. I deliberately rely on Shostak so that they don't claim that I am citing studies by creationists. You are welcome to refute my claim to Camila. And in the process, you are welcome to reply to the rebuttal I presented regarding the silicona fish. What you claimed was impossible.

     Camila, you continue to ignore my clarifications about proteins. You are welcome to continue calling it nonsense, while the evolutionary scientists themselves (Dawkins, Shostak, Miller and others) deal with the question of plausibility. If your claim was true and the question of plausibility had no meaning, they would not have invented the hypothesis of the world of the Rana and would have claimed that the Shoton could have been created in Mecca. After all, according to you, everything is possible. So it turns out not.

502. Xinghua,

     What you claim does not appear from that article and certainly does not appear from the quotes you brought. At most it can be said that you did not understand the things and jumped to the wrong conclusion (whether on purpose or from a lack of understanding). The combinatorial calculation you are doing ignores the biochemical reality in which that protein segment is built. A similar combinatorial calculation on the sodium and chlorine ions would "prove" to you that the chance that a solution with sodium ions and chlorine ions will crystallize to form a table salt crystal (of about 60 grams) is zero, much, much smaller than the low chances that result from your combinatorial calculations. As in the case of the stars, here too you do where and where, in the case of cooking salt you suddenly know how to say that there are constraints that actually make simple combinatorial calculations irrelevant, but you still treat amino acids as if they were colored balls that you find out of a bag independently, as if the properties are unimportant of those amino acids, as if the biochemical environment in which the amino acids are found, which critically influences who will connect to whom and when, is unimportant, and also as if the phylogeny of that protein segment is unimportant. The calculations you, and others like you, present are completely wrong and irrelevant to the assessment of the probability of the appearance of a given protein. In your opinion, the fact that 300 magnets stick together in a row should present a real miracle because what is the probability that some pieces of material will arrange themselves in such a certain way when any idiot can calculate and show that the space of possible configurations is enormous (provided that you take care to ignore of course the rules of the game that apply to those pieces of material).

     I don't think I'll change your mind in any way for the simple reason that I don't believe that you don't understand the problem of ignoring the context in which biochemical processes such as building proteins take place, I also don't believe that it's an innocent lack of understanding when you ignore the context only when it suits you but know how to draw out the importance of the context in other cases . I hope that what I present here will give food for thought to those whose stupid calculations in the style you gave and which are given by others who lack understanding of biology, create the impression in him as if these really are such small chances that create some difficulty.

     In light of the many examples that show how subunits of protein structures, peptides (short chains of amino acids) and even individual amino acids have functional activity, and in light of the homologous similarity in most cases between different organisms in the genetic code which codes for similar proteins (usually with a similar function but not always ) There is no reason to assume that if we do not yet know how a certain structure was created, this means that the same structure could not have been created. This is a false logical leap. There are many biochemical processes that in a simple energetic calculation should not exist as a rule and yet they exist and in abundance when appropriate conditions are met (for example in the presence of an enzyme). As mentioned, when you neglect the biochemical context and calculate probabilities, you will inevitably come to the wrong conclusion that these processes are not possible (even though they happen every day and hourly around you and even right in front of your eyes). The requirement for an understanding of what the correct statistical model is that M.R. Always insisting on it is not just a whim, it is the difference between a night of pseudo-scientific nonsense and a faithful description of reality.

503. xianghua,

     Isn't it a little funny that you rely on an article by one of the leaders in abiogenesis research today, the Nobel laureate Jack Shostak? It seems to me that if he was aware that you were taking his words out of context with such bravado, he would protest vigorously.

504. This is indeed the article Camila,

     And as you can see below:

     A NetBLAST7 search of the
     NCBI protein sequence databases show that the most closely
     related known protein sequence to the 45 amino acids of the
     minimal functional sequence of this protein has only a 33% identity.”

     And light: core domain of 45 amino acids sufficient for ATP-binding"

     Surely they are talking about a minimum that is sufficient to bind the ATP.

     Regarding the "stupid calculation". Since there are about 20 types of kha, this is a combination space of 45^20.

     Regarding the example of the chlorine and sodium atoms. Since they have physical constraints, this does not belong to the subject of proteins. I'll go ahead and say that even in a protein, not every X will appear as often as another X. But if a certain HA frequency is rarer than another, and there are proteins that use a rarer type of HA, then the chances of forming that protein will be lower. So it doesn't really matter.

     Another thing, even if you reduce the genetic language to only two X's (let's say the rest of the 18 will not be used at all) it is still a huge space of 300^2 possible sequences. So you reduced the problem but did not solve it.

     As for the stars, I have no idea.

505. Xinghua,

     Is this the article you are referring to?
     http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Keefe_Szostak_Nature_01.pdf

     From a quick reading of the main points, there is no "evidence" to support your claim. At most one can say, as the researchers wrote themselves:

     "This analysis defines a core domain of 45 amino acids sufficient for ATP-binding."

     This does not mean at all that the researchers found a lower threshold, I did not find such a statement nor did I find a test or test that this conclusion derives from. As a rule, in the life sciences we are careful to say what is impossible and usually concentrate on what they have found to be possible. Those who do try to limit what nature can do are often forced to eat their hat and learn that the main limitations are of our creative thought, while nature often finds (in a way that there is no reason to assume intelligence behind it) beautiful solutions that do not deviate from the known laws of physics/chemistry/biology. I also found no trace of the stupid calculation you presented in that article, could you direct me to the exact location where it appears?
     I repeat, in order to understand why the calculation you presented is so stupid, I gave a not particularly difficult example that will clarify the issue. It would be good if you did not evade and present a calculation as required in section A of my previous comments.

     It's a shame that the way stars are formed doesn't interest you, they demonstrate exactly the error in separating micro and macro processes. The basic laws are not the same as the simple laws underlying evolution, but the principle of a gradual process that goes through a huge number of small changes which ultimately leads to big changes not only quantitative but also qualitative (first a hydrogen cloud for example and then a star like our sun). Both in star formation and in evolution there are many facts about the "micro" processes, big changes as a result of the accumulation of small changes are not surprising but required. It is implied from your words that stars were formed (and are still being formed?) unnaturally. Do you have an explanation of how they were created? And why does it seem as if they continue to be created even today? Do you believe that they exist without any change from the moment of their creation?

506. What is = what is

507. withering,

     I did not claim that stars can form naturally. I claimed that for me it didn't matter.

     Regarding the "stupid" calculations as you say. I gave a nice proof why they are not stupid at all, and you didn't respond. Here again:

     "The lower threshold was demonstrated in the study I brought. If we assume that about 45 ha are required to create a minimal binding site (as demonstrated in a 2001 study published in Nature), then this is a jump of 45^20"

     What exactly is stupid here? Are you claiming that the researcher from nature does not understand what a tester is at all?

508. Xinghua,

     The "calculations" you present are very wrong, wrong to the point of absurdity. If you answer my first question I will show you how stupid the "calculations" you presented are. Understanding this point is also essential regarding your non-answer to the second question.

     a) What do you think are the chances that opposite chlorine atoms and opposite sodium atoms will arrange themselves in the form of an ionic lattice so that around each ion of one type there will always be exactly 6 ions of the other type? It is a slightly more complicated calculation, but not too much. (There are 6x10^23 atoms in a mole).

     Regarding the stars, this is very important because they demonstrate how the gradual accumulation of natural processes under a relatively simple regime of laws lead to significant qualitative changes including the appearance of properties that did not exist before in the early stages of the system. It is a fact that there are many and varied phenomena that present exactly the same principles, and in all of them there is no need for any intelligent entity to accompany the unfolding of events (at most one can suggest an intelligent entity that organized the laws by which the system operates (and this is also very unnecessary although less important for this point at the moment). In view of these phenomena, which can also be observed and tested through observation and experiment, there is no reason to assume that other processes that we see in nature also behave differently. There is certainly no reason to prefer over the natural processes an "explanation" that explains nothing and only further complicates what we wanted to explain in the first place. If that "explanation" was at least productive, if the understanding derived from it could be used to create something real that benefits humanity but even in this matter it is a serious failure. Why do you need an intelligent designer when it comes to a virus but you don't need it when it comes to a star?

509. niacinas,

     I'm sorry if you don't understand but what I wrote is based on your own words. I guess you also don't understand what the problem is with you throwing mud in all directions and complaining about a negative attitude while you are the one whose first response in this thread expressed exactly such an attitude. I wouldn't be surprised if you don't understand the problem in that when I drew your attention to the matter you wrote that you were sorry that you were dragged into this style, you were dragged! after whom? After the same people you went against earlier unjustifiably? You still don't know how to even take responsibility for your words, so no wonder you don't understand other more complicated things.

510. Xianghua

     "Regarding stars - from my point of view, all the stars in the universe will be created by a natural process. it does not really matter…" - ?
     Where in this case is the intelligent designer? In a sabbatical year?

511. xianghua:
     I repeat a request that you systematically ignore.
     Since you are making probabilistic arguments, it is only natural that we ask you to demonstrate that you understand something about the subject you are talking about.
     I mean, it's clear to me that you don't understand, but I want to give you a chance to surprise me.

     A quote from one of my previous comments:

     Many of your arguments try to imply a claim about the "improbability" of certain events.
     I already had the absurd arguments based on a misunderstanding of probability.
     One of my references to this nonsense can be found in the following comment:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/far-beyond-reasonable-doubt-1912103/#comment-281844

     I really want to challenge you and see if you are willing to bet on the correctness of your claims from the realm of probability.
     If so - please organize 20 rounds of the game described in my response.
     I will come with 99 other friends and we will try to win - and you (because of the probability considerations you will probably do) will be sure that all you will have to do is sit down and collect the money.
     You will of course be wrong in your assessment, but I promise not to take the money I earn for personal needs - I will dedicate it all to the fight against the deterioration of the planet.

512. Erez and Camilla,

     Erez, I did not claim a random appearance of a complete protein, but rather the development of a new protein from an existing/multiplied protein.

     At the beginning of the thread Erez the second suggested what you suggested. Here is my response to his response again:

     ” If you want to switch from flagellin to another protein with non-homologous activity, you will need a very large change in the genetic code. I'll give you an example - let's say I want to switch from flagellin to a protein whose function is to connect two substrates. I will have to create two new websites at once, because creating a new link website only for substat A will not be beneficial."

     As long as the sequence space is 300^20, we will have to believe that all the proteins are concentrated on an isolated island in the sequence space. And this claim can be easily refuted by looking at the structure and sequence of the proteins. A protein like globin, for example, differs in most of its sequences from myoglobin, despite their similar function.

     Camila, the lower threshold was demonstrated in the study I provided. If we assume that about 45 ha are required to create a minimal binding site (as demonstrated in a 2001 study published in Nature), then this is a jump of 45^20.

     Regarding stars - for my part, all the stars in the universe will be created in a natural process. it does not really matter…

513. K. the last

     1. "Maybe freedom of speech is not that important to you, it is important to me" - I don't understand how you came to this conclusion

     2."By the way, what did you mean when you wrote to one of the commenters above: "There is no debate about evolution -(you are the missing link!!! )"?" - I'm sorry for getting dragged into the style - and I really apologize if anyone was hurt.

     My father - I tend to believe that you were not here with malicious intent - although 2 comments without a shadow of a keyword of a bad nature - were not uploaded and even deleted

514. niacinas,

     I know several religious sites where discussion cannot be possible as is possible here, in terms of freedom of expression. Maybe freedom of speech is not that important to you, it is important to me. Freedom of expression does not mean absolute freedom, sometimes the system defends itself against trolls who have "proved" themselves to be serial harassers. For your information, my comments and those of other "followers" of science are also delayed from time to time for a variety of reasons (to this day they are always justified). No one is looking for you and it is enough to look at the variety of responses here to get an impression of the volume of expression of people who hold other opinions, clearly not scientific and not even rational in the simple sense of the word.

     By the way, what did you mean when you wrote to one of the commenters above: "There is no debate about evolution - (you are the missing link!!! )"?

515. No one has censored you, the system sometimes inhibits comments containing misused keywords. If I'm going to censor these comments that support the anti-vaccination movement, because I don't want to help, even indirectly, in the killing of babies as a result of the irresponsibility of those people. I also censor ads on talkbacks - they don't exist for that.
     Only if someone insults and blasphemes and harasses in his trolls, regardless of his opinions, he is removed.

516. Xinghua,

     A) A bit disappointing but so be it. What do you think are the chances that opposite chlorine atoms and opposite sodium atoms will arrange themselves in the form of an ionic lattice so that around each ion of one type there will always be exactly 6 ions of the other type? It is a slightly more complicated calculation, but not too much. (There are 6x10^23 atoms in a mole).

     b) I will refine the question using an analogy: an airplane is able to fly (carry its weight in the air), a bird is also able to do the same thing. Both an airplane and a bird are very, very, very complex and complicated things, but there are many things that can fly in the air that are not so complex. Can you say what is the lower threshold of complexity below which the functions found in organisms cannot be obtained at some level?

     c) It's okay, I'm not an astrophysicist either, yet there is enough information that provides a reasonable explanation for this question. Something on the tip of the fork can be found here for example:
     http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%91
     . Do you believe that a star (our sun for example) was created by an intelligent creator or by the process described in the link?

517. To all the team of light:

     I visited the site for several days, read a lot of sayings and comments and learned how "science" beats "religion" in these debates and how most of the "diggers" on the site only represent almost the same homogenous opinion - and why the hell am I in the minority of the minority

     Simply, if someone says things that "sound like heresy" - even though they are spoken only in a cultural way, first they address him with rudeness and disdain and mock and curse - and they also make sure to censor his opinions and not approve them
     So that there will always be one dominant facet

     I know that the site is private and its owner has the right to do whatever he wants - but this aspect must also be presented to the innocent visitor,

     Then they say that the clergy are dark, unprogressive and have "0" tolerance for the other's opinion. - Truly hypocrisy at its best - I hope that Big Brother approves these "heretical" words

     Even if not - I did receive a lesson in faith...

518. xianghua
     Why do you keep going back to the things you were answered about? Evolution does not deal with the random appearance of proteins, but with changes of functional proteins, or duplicates. There are exceptions such as the frame shift you mentioned or chromosomal aberrations, but most of the work of evolution is done in the changes of existing material and not the creation of new material.

519. Hi Camila,

     At the basic level, the chance of a specific sequence forming will be one in 300^20. Of course, some considerations must be introduced here, such as how many sequences can lead to the same function and how many functions exist at all and must be multiplied together. But there is no biologist who would disagree that a jump of 300 or even 50 as we have seen is reasonable enough.

     Regarding B - although there are relatively simple ribozymes that can perform catalytic activity. However, certain reactions require a very complex protein. Depends on the type of reaction.

     As for G. - Since I'm not an astrophysicist, I have no idea.

520. So many nonsense and errors and so little time...

     Xinghua,
     There are some basic themes in the things you write that I do not understand the logic behind them. I would appreciate it if you could help me understand you better by answering some questions:

     a) Can you present a calculation of the probability of the formation of a protein of 300 amino acids?

     b) Can you say what are the simplest nucleic acid and protein that can in principle exist that have catalytic activity and can perform simple actions on organic substrates?

     c) How do you think a star is formed?

521. to R.H.,

     So my summary:

     I showed scientific studies taken from leading journals that there are no small steps in the formation of proteins. In other words, these studies negate the central claim in the theory of evolution. On the other hand, they tried to show here that there are superior steps in the Morovac systems, but they did not show it.

     ” and steadfastly ignores millions of laboratory experiments showing evolution in vitro under the false pretense that nothing new has been created. After all, with every frame shift, protein fusion and translocation, new things are created" - even a mutation that confers resistance to bacteria is a new thing. But there is a difference between a "new thing" and a new complex system.

     "In my opinion, in light of everything we see, the likelihood of an intelligent creator of abiogenesis is low" - where did you get that from. In light of all the studies that have tried and brought up clay in their hands, the opposite is true. Want to have a discussion about abiogenesis? Just ask…

     Orange day continues...

522. Erez Livna September 11, 2011 at 20:56 pm #

     You will not be able to answer a serious scientist just as you will not be able to answer a religious fanatic with a question.
     It won't bother anyone if you believe in Batman and light up the sky with a spotlight every time you feel danger and want Batman to save you. Even your attempts to convince the world that Batman exists and that he is the Messiah who will save everyone - will not be a real danger. The problem will start when you want to go to a real war against the infidels in Batman, after you find out that the infidels want to make you stop using the searchlight, because you are interfering with the regular flight of planes.

523. To Dos the believer: Whether you believe or not is your personal problem. I recommend you try to find out. why do you care. Try. You will know and you will have to believe less.
     By the way, the style of writing, the content of your words, the section where it's clear that you copied from some website such as Hidravot, all these remind me of the name "Itzik Klein" on Facebook. I notice the signs of obsession-compulsion that are clearly evident in his writing. By the way did you know? Did you know that this disorder is more common in the religious population that is forced to perform various actions and rituals over and over again every day and to be very careful about it.... Are you the same person or just belong to the same organization??? wonder
     You often praise the wisdom of the Torah and, like any Madalat (degenerate into religion) who learned the profession of selling religion to the secular, ignores the mistakes, the nonsense, the contradictions and a host of problems in our Torah. The saint (to you). What about the verses about the purity of the baach who make the mistake of claiming that a rabbit and a rabbit rummage????? And don't make excuses of your elders as if chewing their dung looks like they are ruminating - it only puts your god in a ridiculous light as if he doesn't know or has difficulty expressing himself....
     Niceneites - does it matter how the Ramban arrived at his explanations? After all, there is no sense anyway in thinking that everything written in the Torah is complete, complete and absolute truth.

524. R.H.:
     Such debates are few but they exist.
     I have already given several examples of this here.
     You just have to distinguish when it makes sense to devote effort to persuasion and when there is no chance.
     Besides - because of the passive viewers - it is useful to answer when someone raises new questions, but there is no point in going back and doing it again and again when the claims are repeated without addressing your answers.

525. In addition to that, Birch Cedar - you can be sure that my logic serves me in life no less than your logic serves you.
     In fact - it probably serves me better because beyond the achievements I achieved in many areas through it - it also allowed me to understand where I live.
     You will probably have to experience life in a country like Iran to understand where you let things go.

526. white cedar:
     There is no gratuitous hatred in my words.
     Can you point out an incorrect claim I made?
     The phrase gratuitous hatred is part of religious propaganda as it is also part of religious specialization.
     In the meantime, those who live (and hate) for free are the ultra-Orthodox.
     Me and my peers pay a lot for it.

527. xianghua,

     fine got it. Erez Birvena is probably right and we convince the convinced and those who initially disagree will never agree. The truth is, when you think about it, arguments in which one of the parties says "You know what? are rare if not non-existent. Well, you've convinced me, you're right" and this is all the more true in debates between faith and science. So really what's the point.

     But xianghua you wanted a summary so here is my summary:
     1) You have not disproved evolution in my opinion. You pointed out minor problems, a gene here or a gene there that are a problem in the phylogenetic trees, but these are null and void in the face of the many evidences (and we are talking about thousands of genomes and millions of genes) that testify to the correctness of evolution. Ditto fossil evidence.
     2) You continue to adhere to the nonsense of micro vs. macro evolution and steadfastly ignore millions of lab experiments showing in vitro evolution under the false pretense that nothing new is created. After all, with each frame shift, protein fusion and translocations, new things are created.
     3) On the other hand, you did not give any rebuttal test for your theory. On the contrary, the rebuttal tests failed (but this really already relates to another discussion about Nesher evil and good for him....)
     4) In my opinion, you tried to negate the evolutionary refutation tests with clearly unscientific claims "isn't it obvious that morphological similarity shows genetic similarity"? Who is it clear to? If you accept the criminal paternity tests why not evolutionary paternity tests?
     5) You avoided giving any details about your theory except "if you see a clock, it was created". As mentioned, from a watch you can learn a lot about its creator (timekeeping, dimensions, technological ability, even the structure of the limbs and their size, the type of tools it has and even about its desires), what can you learn about your intelligence?
     6) I have no argument with you about abiogenesis. It is not part of evolution and there are currently no established theories. Would you like to believe in intelligent creation or ancient soup or panspermia? They all have about the same amount of evidence - 0. The only difference is probability. In my opinion, in light of everything we see, the probability of an intelligent creator of abiogenesis is low. As mentioned, this is not what the debate is about.

     There is much more to say but I think this is enough. The test of the result of the development of the drugs, the bio-agricultural means, modern medicine and molecular biology, all of which are based on evolution, show that it is true. And with this I will conclude.

528. Avi,
     As far as making information accessible to those who don't know and are interested in it, this website does a wonderful service and I respect it and everyone who contributes to it (and you are among them).
     The wide circulation of the nonsense sometimes makes me sick as well (I am mainly sickened by the audacity to lie like that), but it is impossible (and it is good that way) to prevent anyone from writing them and from reading them.
     The assumption that the existence of this site negates the evil impact of vanity sites is a logical leap that I'm not sure stands up to scrutiny, just as a drop doesn't negate a slap and having a baby never negates a murder. Actions are not necessarily a 'zero sum game'.

     Michael,
     I do not agree with your approach.
     My choice of logic is not a flag that I wave when going into battle but a tool that helps me live in a world full of disappearances.
     There is a lot of gratuitous hatred in your words and it's a shame.

529. Misspelled alias name:
     You asked why you didn't respond.
     The answer to that is easy.
     You didn't address anything.
     Here and there you recited some password but you didn't give anything a thought.
     It's because of the cats, of course.

     The volume of our skull is limited and therefore there is a limit to the size of our brain (who like you knows that?).
     Once upon a time there were calculating machines that knew how to add, subtract and multiply exceptionally well.
     Today they are no longer used and in their place we have (powerless) computers that need to be programmed in order for them to do anything at all.
     what? are we stupid
     No! Only you are stupid!
     Other people understand that a programmable multipurpose computer is better than an automaton.
     This is also roughly the difference between the members of my species - the humans - and the members of your species - the cats.

     What allows a person to adapt to any environment is mainly the mind.
     You said that a blind person cannot perceive what red is and I agree with you.
     That's why I also know that you cannot perceive what a brain is that is not washed out of the skull by crazy and stupid slogans.

     Birch cedar:
     Not every idiot is given attention, but you have to understand that the debate is not only with the idiots because there is also a passive audience that is just trying to form its own opinion.
     Besides - you are making a bitter mistake in thinking that it is only a matter of faith.
     All the idiots come from the direction of religion and their whole goal (and if they don't know this it's because they are zombies but in this case it is the goal of their rabbis) is to create a Halacha state here.
     The fight against scientific theories that are in conflict with the vain beliefs of religion is only one facet of this campaign.
     Another facet is the religious coercion that forces us to support parasites, serve in their place in the army and pay to be born, to marry (if they even allow us to) and to die.
     Another aspect is expressed in the fact that the Jewish state cannot fulfill its role because there are hundreds of thousands of people that the Nazis would have murdered because of their Jewishness, but we do not give them citizenship because they are not Jewish enough for the parasites who occupied the country.

530. to R.H.,

     Who can I say about the planner? Maybe his technology is at a high level? (checked in several studies regarding several systems). Not much really. But even if you find a watch without any accompanying material next to it, you will not know who made it, only that it is smart.

     "1) You will not find human bones under the dinosaurs" - well, then it turns out that they found them as I showed. The theory of evolution did not move. We can always argue that this is infiltration of a fossil into another layer. But let's assume for a moment that it is indeed so. How does this contradict the design claim? The designer simply created different creatures at different times. Just like humans.

     "2) Take an organism whose genome has not yet been determined (for example, a bacterium), determine its genome sequence and you will find that it fits the phylogenetic tree determined based on other criteria such as morphology." - And how exactly does this prove the development of one from the other?

     This only proves that morphological similarity is evidence of genetic similarity, which is almost self-evident (if the structure is similar, the genes are probably also similar). How does this relate to development at all?

     You also said:

     "If you find a significant deviation, and not a gene here or a gene there, you have rejected evolution from the tree" - are you sure of your words?

     did you know The silica fish is much closer genetically to humans than to its fish brothers. That is, morphologically you would associate it as close to fish and not to humans, and you would be wrong. That is, your claim is unfounded. what will you say now

     "Clarification: What do you mean, "It is certainly possible that new species arose at different times. But they were created at once and not gradually"? Were they created out of nothing?" - Absolutely.

     If so, why don't you see the creation of new species out of nowhere, but only gradually from something before?" - When was the last time you saw a new creature that evolved from another creature?

     "When was the last time anyone saw a non-gradual creation? Do you have any evidence for that?" - Yes. I rely on the same studies that show that it is not possible to grade from garden to garden, and from creation to creation. Look again at the studies I gave in the beginning for Erez.

531. Erez, on every scientific site, there are thousands of religious and pseudo-scientific sites of all kinds, of all the things in the world they bother to deny precisely evolution, doesn't at least one come to defend the truth?

532. Heresy question from a guest for a moment:

     It seems that for religious reasons, evolution is something that must be taken into account, and science seekers have entered a similar spiral and are obsessed with showing those religious people the light.
     Why go back to teaching those who in no way want to accept the theory of evolution?
     What is so important about evolution compared to all the other concepts that it should be given such a status?
     I mean, I see great value in learning what you want to know, but why should you make an effort with someone who is comfortable with his beliefs (wrong in my opinion)?

     I would appreciate explanations from my brothers at the science camp.

533. Dear Michael, - I'm actually contacting you because I was told that you understand..

     Perhaps you have an answer to why man, who is apparently the most developed from an evolutionary point of view - developed into the most deficient and dependent production with the fewest characteristics suitable for the environment - you will claim that during evolution the brain replaced and compensated for the other features - and thus survived, but how exactly did this development occur - when was the transition between body Hairless - for the ability to produce a coat? (There are many other features that are lacking compared to the monkey) - How is it that the Eskimos are smoother in the body than many warm countries -
     Why does a feature like male pattern baldness - the environment adopt? And this is a phenomenon that is only increasing, why is there obesity and a feature such as efficient metabolism only degenerates?

     There is no debate about evolution - (you are the missing link!!! ) - I would just love to hear what science says - because I don't really understand evolution (although I really do understand that it exists

     And by the way, I agree with the cat...

     Yoel: - the absurdity in the Torah is either accepted until the end or not - what is the difference between the tearing of the Red Sea and the amount of animals that entered the ark??? - Why did you stick to it?
     And the Ramban did not justify the contradiction after thousands of years - but did the trick (if you can accept the creation of the world - what is the problem with accepting the other absurdities??)

534. What do you want from Doss?
     He is a student of people like Rabbi Kirschenbaum who warn their students that it is better to be a cat (a creature that does not think - according to their interpretation) than to face the facts.
     You are invited to listen to the hidden recording at the following link:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p48Moif7ep8

     My neighbors have several cats and for years I have been trying to convince them (the cats) that there is evolution and I am not succeeding.

535. Ledos believes, there is no need to believe in evolution as well as gravity or relativity. They are the closest thing to fact in science. But try, for example, to freeze in gravity and take one step forward when you are in front of an abyss.

536. To dos
     Evolution is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of knowledge - a matter that for you is Terra Incognita.

537. Doss "and explained that it was a miracle." indeed an excuse. And from whom did we find that the Torah knew this? Was this said or even implied? not like that. Except that the Ramban came thousands of years later, and here is the problem - and the excuse was that it was a miracle.

     Unclean birds did not enter. And do animals like R.L. come in?" And how did the unclean birds survive all that time of the flood? Indeed, a problem is veterans.

     Here is one small example. The text is problematic from here to the new message, and to deal with it they invent things that don't even appear in the original text.

     And in the spirit of the blowing anachronism: and why didn't the Ramban and Rashi find it appropriate to discuss the matter of copyright infringement regarding the story of the flood? After all, Aut Nefshetim and Galgamesh also preceded the giving of our Holy Torah, they and Enlil - and here is the story of the flood already there in the Galgamesh plots. And not to mention the story of Atharsis.

     Indeed, wonderful are the ways of God who planted a beta version of the flood among the ignorant Gentiles that the version in our Torah may be complete (it is not, but not everything is possible).

     As for what is said below, it is all wrong from start to finish, God forbid we mess up the keyboard.

538. Erez Garti I don't believe in evolution, regarding the claim that Noah's ark did not have enough room for 1.6 million animals, the Ramban already asked in Parshat Noah, and yes it is difficult how there was room for food for a year and the reason was that it was a miracle and held a little more than that and there is an animal named Ram that was large I will agree with that It is written in my writing that there are impure branches that did not enter
     B. The Torah must have known what the number of animals in the ark was as no other pure animal has ever been found apart from what the Torah wrote and also by the accounts in the Torah such as word combinations in watching Deuteronomy C. Why are there no humans today who are born from monkeys and even if we suppose there was some radioactive bomb it is written that E. He created the animals and why say no D. Why didn't they find another type of pure animal or beast as a result of the process of evolution that raises a living and spreads a hoof apart from what is specified in the Torah by the way as I understand it you claim that E. He gave an opening kick to a world folded in the laws of nature With the mechanism, you will find me one empirical evidence for macro development for the conclusion of a law that indicates a legislator, a clock, a watchmaker, a creation, a creator of order, an order, with respect - find me one new species that did not exist in nature before - I tell you that you will win the Nobel Prize...
     And, mutations are known, which lead to the development of resistance to antibiotics in bacteria, they are based on a limited chemical change in the cell envelope of the bacteria, which affects the ability of antibiotic toxins to penetrate into it. But under no circumstances are the mutations able to lead to the creation of a new feature or lead to the creation of new organs. At most, they are responsible for a subtle change in the existing features, when in most cases the change has a negative effect."

539. The untitled comment is mine

540. xianghua,

     you dodge I didn't ask you to determine anything about the planner, just expand the theory. It is not possible for a theory to be solely "there is a planner", I told you even if you find a clock in a star you can say a lot about its planner. Please enlighten us. What insights do you have about the planner? See for example how many insights we get from archeology about ancient peoples.

     Second point, please show predictions for your theory. Evolution has many predictions. Just a small example (and don't shy away, arguing about them shouldn't prevent you from presenting predictions for your theory):
     1) You will not find human bones under dinosaurs
     2) Take a creature whose genome has not yet been determined (for example a bacterium), determine its genome sequence and you will get that it fits the phylogenetic tree determined based on other criteria such as morphology. If you find a significant deviation, and not a gene here or a gene there, you have rejected evolution from the tree.

     Meanwhile, in the entire long discussion you avoided a real confrontation with your theory and only concentrated on attacks on evolution and claimed that there is a planner and that's it.

     Clarification: What do you mean, “It is certainly possible that new species arose at different times. But they were created at once and not gradually"? Were they created out of nothing? If so, why don't we see the creation of new species out of nowhere, but only gradually from something before? When was the last time anyone saw a non-gradual creation? Do you have any evidence for this? "Maybe" is not enough.

541. In general: it is not a scientific theory, because the basic claim that it is a clock - an intelligent and planned creation - is wrong on its face, full of problems and has no scientifically based support.

     Above all: it is certainly not a scientific theory because it does not have a built-in component that refers to the possibility of refutation and requirements for prediction/observation/investigation.

     In private: I, not to mention others, raised quite a few concrete problems regarding the intellectual matter. - And you? Nada, nothing, Zil, zero substantive response.

     In principle: the claim that it is possible to talk about a theory of intelligent planning without referring to the intelligent content, the time, the manner, and the questions in relation to the past and now, declares in a loud voice that you and those who think like you simply have no idea what you are talking about. On the other hand, you refrain because any answer, even according to your method, may challenge the concept of God and his work as written in Genesis. And then, Anna, are you coming?

542. Erez, thanks for the recommendation. It seems to me that R.H. and I will squeeze a little more out of the squeezed lemon.

     R. H.,

     It seems to me that we are back to the beginning. I have already explained why the designer's theory cannot determine anything about the designer, and it will still remain a scientific theory, because in my opinion it explains the observed reality better - a clock requires a watchmaker, until proven otherwise.

     It is certainly possible that new species were created at different times. But they were created all at once and not gradually. And regarding the fossils I have already answered you. It's not really accurate.

     Regarding the three criteria you set - I agree with all of them. But agreeing with everyone has nothing to do with the claim that biological systems can be created gradually.

     Do you want to summarize? Because I don't think we are progressing anywhere...

543. xianghua,

     You go back and chew on the clock thing as proof of a planner. However, a theory cannot be based only on "there is a planner".
     Let's say you don't know who the planner is and what his goals are, I won't argue with you about that. But what is your answer to the following questions, the answers to which must involve your theory (and evolution has clear answers):
     1) When did the designer create life?
     2) Were all species created at once? If so then:

     A. Why are there new species?
     B. Why are the fossils arranged in layers that match the morphological and genetic similarities?

     If not then:
     A. Does it produce new species even today? If so where is he?
     3) How is it that species like the panda were created which looks like a natural accident, a bear that eats rare bamboo and if it wasn't so beautiful and therefore carefully protected it would have become extinct a long time ago like many other species.
     4) Why are there genetic diseases according to the designer theory?
     5) How is it that small children get cancer according to the planner theory?

     The ending has something that is really unclear to me. Evolution consists of three components:
     A. Replicating systems
     B. The replication was done imperfectly with certain statistical errors that lead to changes
     B. Due to limited resources there is competition where the fittest reproduce and survive.

     What kind of these components do you think are wrong when you dismiss the theory of evolution?

544. Birch cedar

     You can understand evolution, and you can not understand evolution.
     Those who understand the theory of evolution will also be able to understand various evolutionary processes that happen in this world.

     Those who do not understand the theory of evolution, will not be able to understand evolutionary processes, and will look for other ways to plug the holes in their understanding.

545. Hello R.H. and xianghua
     (Are the normal nicks over? :) )

     I see you are in the middle of a discussion about evolution versus intelligent design.
     A similar discussion was held between me and a rather intelligent interlocutor known as "Tel Avivi" over the pages of the popular science website of the Weizmann Institute "Davidson Online".
     Actually there are two discussions, one in which the Tel Avivite attacks the theory of evolution and I reply, and one in which I attack the theory of intelligent design and he replies:
     https://www.weizmann.ac.il/zemed/net_activities.php?article_id=2838&act=forumPrint&cat=2292&incat=2292&str=&page=2
     You are both invited to review the arguments and counter-arguments, they may help you in the current discussion.

     All the best,
     cedar

546. Hi R.H.,

     It is almost self-evident that if there is a morphological/anatomical similarity, there will probably also be a genetic/molecular similarity. You don't need the theory of evolution for that, you just need logic. No evidence for evolution has yet been presented here and you are welcome to show me one. Evidence that proves beyond any doubt that system B developed from system A, and that it cannot be explained by the design theory.

     "People and monkey bones are found in the layers above those where dog bones first appear" - not sure. After all, the depth of the layers can also indicate the habitat of that creature (for example, in a low layer there will be marine creatures because the sea is a low place, and that is indeed what you find). And not to mention cases where the age of the layer is determined according to the fossil found in it.

     By the way, what will happen to the theory of evolution if a gene is found that exists in chimpanzees and gorillas but not in humans? Wouldn't such a case also disprove the theory?

     What evidence do I have for a planner? I'll give you another well-known example - a replicating organic clock. That is, a clock that sustains processes of natural selection and mutations. Isn't such a watch evidence of a designer?

     have a nice weekend…

547. It turns out that skeptical persistence has achievements - see the end of the article https://www.hayadan.org.il/911-conspiracy-1009119/ – The quote from SKEPTIC.COM
     that appear in the first section here http://www.debunking911.com/
     To some extent they did what you say, went into the details and refuted them.

548. my friends,
     We must take stock of what we are trying to do here.
     Should we convince our brothers whom we think are wrong. or whether to condemn them for their mistake.

     I'll start with an example from my find.
     I meet quite a few people whose minds are washed by Rabbi Zamir Cohen's books and lectures and I can't believe how many times their arguments start with "the scientific world already admits that", "senior scientists at the Weizmann Institute have proven that" or "NASA already knows that".
     Last week for example, it was "NASA proved that our sun is in a special case and is not like the other suns in the sky". to explode from the audacity of the lies, and perhaps more about the lack of independent thinking of the quoters..
     I try my way to confront them with reality. First by the statement that this is not true and that NASA did not say such a thing.
     This approach has little effect. They may lose a little confidence, because they expect the name of NASA to work magic on me as it did on them, but in the end it is my word against the word of Rabbi Zamir, or another "wise man".
     In the next step I try to bring them closer to the truth not by attracting them to me but by leaving their starting point.
     "You know what, okay, let's assume that a vagina is to be used. What is it made of? can i see him Is it heat resistant? Is it transparent? If not, how do we see sunlight?"
     It is the flood of probing questions that creates the real embarrassment. They admit they don't know and apologize for not being able to answer more in depth. They were shaken by the need for Rabbi Zamir to stand by their side and defend what, until a moment ago, seemed to them to be conclusive proof. This is where the willingness to listen to the alternative begins.

     And this is also the point I wanted to convey here. We can be right by tomorrow. It doesn't have much impact.
     If we want to speak to the understanding of erring people with respect, we must take a lot of air and dive into their vanity, and get them out of it out of their own way.
     This is exactly what Dawkins is tired of doing. He refuses to return again and again to vanities and find the paradoxes in them. He divides the world into wise men and fools and calls fools an insult to them. This is not a way to treat them well. This is verbal violence.
     The possible benefit of Dawkins' method is not for those who choose faith over reason, but for those from the logic camp, whom he asks to direct their time and energy to other things and to stop legitimizing their reactions to the talkers of vanity.
     Those who want to convince others cannot come from a Dawkinsian approach.
     These are two opposing strategies and in my opinion it is important to distinguish between them and not to ignore the two sections.

549. xianghua,

     "After all, even if we were to find that the dog is closer to man than the chimpanzee, we would claim that man recently evolved from a dog-like creature."

     Very true, that's what we would claim. Is this what you find? No! We find a greater anatomical/physiological/behavioral/morphological similarity between man and monkey than man and dog + similarity in individual gene sequences + overall similarity in the genome sequence + human and monkey bones are found in the layers above those where dog bones first appear.
     These are all independent observations that show the same thing. What evidence would you have for an intelligent designer?
     The fact that there is one gene (if there is one...) in the transposon (which is the most unreliable thing there is due to the big changes it goes through) as in the article you probably haven't read, which doesn't fit 100% doesn't disprove it yet and certainly doesn't prove planning.

     Please honestly apply your scathing criticism of evolution to the designer theory and see what is left of it.

     Shabbat Shalom

550. xianghua:
     Let me improve your answer with something.
     You should have written "Since I didn't answer any of your words, I guess my answer won't be enough for you".

551. cedar,

     If you present a process in which a new segment of 50 ha appears, all of which is required for a biological reaction and is created gradually, when each step is useful in itself, and changes the reaction of its predecessor (the scaffolding method), you will indeed disprove the claim of the absurdity of the intellectual structure, and in such a case I will withdraw from the claim (and maybe I will present other claims).

     R. H.,

     After all, I specifically asked: "If we take a group of proteins from several creatures, and compare their sequences, will we know who evolved from whom based on those sequences?"

     And your answer was "of course".

     That is, you did not consider in your claim that this is not valid only for a certain group of proteins, but in general. But let's leave it at this moment because there is an assumption here anyway. After all, even if we found that the dog is closer to man than the chimpanzee, we would claim that man recently evolved from a dog-like creature. That is, any genetic result would have been considered.

     Regarding the example you gave with the cars: in the transition from a car without a radio, to a transition with a car with a radio, you will not find intermediate stages in the ground. Because there is no use with a car that has half a radio. This is exactly the design claim. And as I said earlier, there really is no such thing as "simple" creatures so this just reinforces my point.

     Michael,

     If what's most important to you is the gambling game, I bet my answer won't be enough for you.

     Regarding the Dan lizards, it turns out that there are species close to Ah lizards with the same cecal valves. So apparently this is an activated pseudogene, and not a major genetic change. The size of the head and the strength of the bite are modifications of an existing feature, not the formation of a new feature.

552. Indeed, Michael, there is another one who identifies himself as an ultra-Orthodox, and I am glad that it is possible to distinguish who it is

553. Xianghua,

     By the way, I looked at the article you linked. Did you read it or just look at picture 2?
     There is no contradiction to evolution in it. For example, read the 2nd paragraph in the discussion and see how the researchers give three simple explanations for their findings. Is this your contradiction to evolution??

     Today, the phylogenetic trees are built based on the analysis of entire genomes and not just a gene here, a gene there, and wonder and wonder, even these trees, which are more accurate than all the analyzes done before, are suitable for trees built according to individual genes and also for trees built based on morphological and anatomical observations.

     I suggest you leave the phylogenetic trees because that is not where your salvation will come from.

554. Xinghua,
     You don't have to bother looking in the literature
     Here is the view:
     The lizards of Pod Marcaro and Pod Kopista, 2 small islands located near Croatia.
     In 1971, 5 pairs of the Podrakis sicula lizard, which feeds mainly on insects, were transferred from the Copista pod to the Marzaro pod (where it had never existed).
     In 2008, they checked the results: in Pod Marcaro they found a thriving population of lizards, by DNA tests they indeed verified that it was the same type of lizard.
     All the changes were made in 38 years when the duration of a generation is about two years.
     The population of Marzaro bipedal lizards developed much larger heads than the original population that allow for a stronger bite due to the transition to a vegetarian diet, also for the same reason they developed seal valves characteristic of herbivores, they stopped being territorial and the population density increased.

555. orthodox (https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-305018):

     I assume you are not the same Haredi who wrote this comment:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-304978

     Right?

556. Xianghua:
     I read the beginning of the thread and still refer you to the same site and still expect you to address the fact that many of the stages of evolution proposed in relation to the eye also have living examples.
     Besides - I also told you many other things.
     Was my guess that you would ignore them correct?

     Of all the things you ignored - the gambling game I offered is the most important to me - there is a lot of money in it that I could invest in a holy cause.

557. xianghua,

     Phylogenetic trees: Salad garlic. You take a tiny number of examples that don't line up and ignore hundreds of thousands if not millions of genes that line up like soldiers in the trees. Of course there are distortions. There is virus transmission, there are gene fusions, there are transposons, there is convergent evolution. But look at the rule.
     And again I ask, is a paternity test showing that X is the son of Y acceptable to you? (Because it is acceptable to the court).
     If so, what is the difference between it and testing the "paternity" of nations? And of species? Exactly the same principles. Similarity in genetic markers.

     In your example of cars and planes you are right. But again this is not what we see. If we go by your analogy, what we see in the earth is fossils of simpler and simpler cars and those that do not contain windows and those that do not contain wheels down to the level of individual screws in the deepest layers. So you want to say that the designer built replicating screws and they eventually became cars? So you accept evolution because, as Erez and I have already argued, evolution does not have much to say about abiogenesis except for the fact that what was created then was simply infinitely different from what we see today, creatures that developed in a long evolutionary process. You, if I understand correctly, are claiming that the designer built the bolts, buried them deep, and then spread out progressively more advanced models of cars throughout the stages?

558. I asked you what differentiates between micro and macro and you answered me a 50-step process. Before I invest the best of my time in a literature review on the subject, I want to make sure that there won't be all kinds of excuses in the style of "that's not what I meant". Give me a clear definition of what kind of vision you want to see and I will do my best to find one.

559. Erez, give a specific example and we'll wonder about a jar...

560. xianghua
     My intention was if, according to your method, I would find an evolutionary process of fifty stages which distinguishes one from the other by a single change (mutation). Is 50 a final number after which the discussion is over and evolution is crowned the winner?

561. RH, so what do you say about the following study:

     http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2675975/figure/F2/

     As you can see, different genes were found, the comparisons of which yielded several different results-

     a) Humans are closer to the elephant than to the armadillo
     b) Humans are closer to the armadillo than to the elephant
     c) The elephant is closer to the armadillo than to humans

     In short - not a phylogenetic tree but a phylogenetic salad. Just add some lemon and salt. And this is not an isolated case.

     you said:

     We will now examine the similarity between two people and between one of them and a chimpanzee. The similarity between the two people is greater, what does that mean? True. A common origin that happened after the split from the monkey." - Not really. By this logic, let's take two cars that we assume for that matter are capable of replicating. We will compare them to a replicating plane. Of course the two cars will be more similar. Hence, according to you, they evolved from each other.

     Moreover, it turns out that certain genes in the chicken are closer to chimpanzees than to humans (HAR1F for example).

     Regarding your question Erez, I didn't really understand what you meant by 50 interdependent steps. If you can expand or give a specific example, great. Indeed, if you prove that a complex system whose components depend on each other can be created gradually, the claim of intelligent design will be disproved. Of course, there are other arguments in favor of planning. But the above specific theory will be disproved.

562. R.H.
     I liked the analogy, and bookmarked it for future discussions.

     Michael Rothschild
     The definition of evolution can be refined with the creation of new alleles, chromosomal aberrations and more. In order to simplify matters, I chose to give the basic definition. In the end, those alleles whose distribution in the population is changing must have been created at some point.

     Xianghua
     Regarding PON1 from the beginning I said that there was an ineffective basic activity that improved (this is the point I wanted to convey). Different proteins have different activities with low efficiency that are not manifested except when the conditions are suitable or when they accumulate suitable mutations. And as for Lansky's experiment there were a lot more than two mutations (give the bacteria multiplying over a few years some credit). Now I ask a question. If I take on a task and find an evolutionary process of 50 interdependent stages, will you give up on intelligent design and accept the theory of evolution? Or just raise the bar to 100?

563. Xianghua,

     "If we take a group of proteins from several creatures, and compare their sequences, will we know who evolved from whom based on those sequences?"

     Certainly, here is an example that might clarify for you exactly what the phylogenetic trees are (although it is clear to me that you know..)

     Do you believe in the correctness of genetic tests for paternity?
     Take a child and a parent and check the similarity between them. As you know, there will never be an identity, but you can still see a greater similarity between the father and his son than between the father and the neighbor's son (assuming there was no soap opera here). Here the son's claim of origin cannot be challenged.
     This principle is extended to population tests. It is possible to show that between English and English, for example, there is more similarity than between English and Chinese, why? Because the English have a common origin and the Chinese have a common origin. This too cannot be refuted.

     Next, we will now examine the similarity between two people and between one of them and a chimpanzee. The similarity between the two people is greater, what does that mean? True. A common origin that happened after the split from the monkey.
     From here we will continue and build such a tree for each organism.

     If you don't disprove paternity tests (and you can't because they are obviously true) you can't disprove phylogenetic trees that are based on the same principles.

564. Xianghua,

     "If we take a group of proteins from several creatures, and compare their sequences, will we know who evolved from whom based on those sequences?"

     Certainly, here is an example that might clarify for you exactly what the phylogenetic trees are (although it is clear to me that you know..)

     Do you believe in the correctness of genetic tests for paternity?
     Take a child and a parent and check the similarity between them. As you know, there will never be an identity, but you can still see a greater similarity between the father and his son than between the father and the neighbor's son (assuming there was no soap opera here). Here the son's claim of origin cannot be challenged.
     This principle is extended to population tests. It is possible to show that between English and English, for example, there is more similarity than between English and Chinese, why? Because the English have a common origin and the Chinese have a common origin. This too cannot be refuted.

     Next, we will now examine the similarity between two people and between one of them and a chimpanzee. The similarity between the two people is greater, what does that mean? True. A common origin that happened after the split from the monkey.
     From here we will continue and build such a tree for each organism.

     If you don't disprove paternity tests (and you can't because they are obviously true) you can't disprove phylogenetic trees that are based on the same principles.

565. Xinghua
     You are confusing the ingredients and the principle. The argument about Mount Rushmore is wrong: you know very well that statues of men can make men; The claim that life can only be created by an intelligent creator is another story. Given the origin of the story, it's not who knows what. In addition, there is a theory that works and offers an explanation as above. You don't have a theory that works, and all you're trying to do is build one based on analogies that don't hold water.

     And again: I would appreciate a principled reference to the fact that there is an intelligent planner - and there are so many problems.

566. You can study the Torah for 50 years and think it's wrong, and you can study it for a hundred years and think it's right, and so on.

567. Haredi, if my intelligence was like the one, I would ask about him,

568. Larez, R.H. and all the guys,

     If I see Mount Rushmore for the first time, I can know nothing about the planner except that he is intelligent. that's it.

     Regarding phylogenetic trees I have already shown why this does not prove evolution, more than design. And of course the fact that contradictions were found for the same tree. By the way, RH, according to evolution, if we take a group of proteins from several creatures, and compare their sequences, will we know who evolved from whom based on those sequences?

     Regarding your question RH, yes, if I saw a system of pipes capable of repairing itself, being duplicated by another complex system, and transporting a special fluid through pipes by a pump, I would argue that aliens created it.

     cedar,

     Here are some well-known examples-http://www.colinandrews.net/ForbiddenArcheology.html

     Regarding Lenski's experiment, it turns out that these are two simple mutations, and not a complex system.

     Regarding Prof. Dan Toufik's research, it is about the pon1 enzyme, an enzyme that also breaks down nerve gas, albeit with low efficiency. That is, they did not start an enzyme devoid of this activity.

     And for the central idea between macro and micro, the point is that it is required that all 50 kha are interdependent. For me, this is the limit of evolution. As you have insisted on it yourself:

     "Major changes of 50 HA are certainly possible, but the chance that a new or upgraded functional protein will be created from them is extremely low"

     It is indeed a hopeless evil. That's why evolutionary scientists are also opposed to such changes. But the studies show otherwise. For example, a study carried out by Jack Shostak in 2001 showed that a minimum of 45 ha is required to bind ATP. That is, there are no advantageous small steps in creating such a binding site. That's all my argument.

     Michael, before you refer me to Tokarijens or the evolution of the eye, I suggest you look again at the beginning of the thread.

     And a final word to my father, a scientific theory is determined by the evidence, not in courts.

569. Everyone:
     I am entering the discussion after a long absence and it will be difficult to refer to everything that was said in it, so I will try, at least in the first step, to refer only to some of the things that came up here.

     cedar:
     Evolution is more than "a change in the distribution of alleles". It also includes the formation of new alleles.
     In principle, evolution does not even require the existence of alleles.
     The power of the principle of evolution derives, among other things, from being a mathematical principle based on very few assumptions, the existence of alleles not being one of them.
     This is also why evolutionary algorithms work.
     Even in nature, evolution is based on a number of things that go beyond the field of alleles (their distribution or formation).
     Since in a reckless move the scientists gave the nickname "gene" (which was originally described as a means of carrying traits) to a nucleotide sequence that defines a protein, we now need the term "epigenetics" to describe the set of principles that govern biological evolution.

     Xianghua:
     Your words about the baton are a lie.
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella
     In general, since you are not original and your questions seem like customers from the beginner's guide, I recommend that you go to the following website
     http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
     You can get answers there to many of the nonsense you are trying to sell here.
     An inextricable system has never been found in nature.
     The eye is not like that either, and not only did they find how to present its development as a sequence of small developments, but they also found many examples of creatures spread over a large part of this sequence of developments.

     everyone (especially xianghua):
     Of course, those who are willing to agree to microevolution but do not accept "macroevolution" are talking nonsense by choice.
     After all, to claim that microevolution takes place and macroevolution does not take place is like claiming that by connecting "ones" you can reach a thousand but you cannot reach a million.
     Nature also provides us with ample evidence of the fact that macroevolution is simply microevolution in commercial quantities.
     A striking example of this is the so-called Ring Species
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

     Regarding the formation of the first living cell there is less information and currently there is no dominant theory.
     Some of the speculations on the subject can be seen here:
     http://sciam.co.il/archives/1833
     And here:
     http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
     And here:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/rna-the-immortal-molecule-1801092/
     And here:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/rna-the-immortal-molecule-1801092/
     And here:
     http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3675264,00.htm

     Xianghua:
     Many of your arguments try to imply a claim about the "improbability" of certain events.
     I already had the absurd arguments based on a misunderstanding of probability.
     One of my references to this nonsense can be found in the following comment:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/far-beyond-reasonable-doubt-1912103/#comment-281844

     I really want to challenge you and see if you are willing to bet on the correctness of your claims from the realm of probability.
     If so - please organize 20 rounds of the game described in my response.
     I will come with 99 other friends and we will try to win - and you (because of the probability considerations you will probably do) will be sure that all you will have to do is sit down and collect the money.
     You will of course be wrong in your assessment, but I promise not to take the money I earn for personal needs - I will dedicate it all to the fight against the deterioration of the planet.

     Xianghua:
     The theory of evolution is designed to explain the situation we encounter.
     In fact this is the role of all theories in science.
     When can a sequence of arguments be considered an explanation?
     Only when its basis is simple assumptions and its continuation is logical inferences.
     When is a discount simple?
     A discount is simple when one of the two is true:
     1. The assumption is nothing but a description of a fact that we perceive with our senses.
     2. The assumption is something that can be defined in a simple way and the reality we encounter follows logically from it.
     Neither of these two exists in the "theory" of the intelligent planner and therefore has no explanatory value and therefore has no value at all.
     If in order to "explain" the existence of something I need the assumption of the existence of something more complex than it that I don't know how to explain, then really thank you very much - I have more serious things to spend my time on.

     In general, it would be interesting to see what your twists and turns would be in the face of the following facts:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMj_45epINM&feature=player_embedded
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/far-beyond-reasonable-doubt-1912103/

570. R.H
     Large changes of 50 HA are certainly possible, but the chance that a new or upgraded functional protein will be created from them is extremely low. Even if there is such a case in the literature, it is an exception, it is not the main mechanism on which the theory of evolution is based. Even a case of mutation in the repair gene, in most cases will result in cancer. Nevertheless, what can happen and does happen sometimes is damage of the type you described in a protein that has an extra copy, so that a non-functional protein is created that has no selection pressure on it, and can over the generations acquire a certain function.

     In any case, I agree with you that the separation between micro and macro is ridiculous, just as one does not separate the gravitational force between two grains of sand from the gravitational force between galaxies. Gravity is gravity and evolution is evolution.

     R.H. Rafai.M
     There is no need to lower the level of discussion to the floor. No one here is stupid.

571. Shigeon-na or Mishigeona or whatever your name is:

     Suppose you have eggs - a right egg and a left egg, how many eggs do you have?
     According to your logic, it can be understood that you were born on Mars as a result of God's thought fart and therefore you have no balls at all.

     I base my response on this logic of yours based on the things you wrote such as: "Wouldn't such a case be unequivocal proof of the existence of aliens?" Or "according to evolutionary scientists, if the car replicated just like living things, it could eventually become an airplane or any other complex system." or all your other comments.
     If you didn't understand, I'll put it in a question: Suppose you were born on the planet "Floot" and that planet is ruled by God, would it be correct to say that God exists? (According to logic I assume yes, the problem - which you ignore - is that there is no such planet and you were not born there but on XNUMX and XNUMX has its own laws - which you clearly do not understand).
     Do yourself a favor and learn, or just stop confusing people who don't know you're lying.

572. R.H

     Do you find any point in arguing with the moron? Do you think you will convince the fool of the truth of your words? Have you convinced him yet? Because you continue to argue with the idiot who is not convinced by the facts presented to him, you present yourself as an idiot. With all due respect. (Leave the job to Erez Gerti, he shows more impressive abilities than you)

573. cedar and xianghua,

     It is not accurate that "a change of 50 HA at once that works does not exist even according to evolution"

     A small frame shift mutation and you get a change of hundreds and thousands of amino acids (depending on the size of the protein) and sometimes a protein can be created from this that will do things that were not done before.

     Another example is fusions by homologous recombination that can lead to major changes and the creation of new proteins. That is, if a plasmid carrying a gene from one creature enters a creature and non-homologous recombination occurs, the change that will be created can be tremendous and certainly something new will be created.

     As for major incremental changes? A mutation in a repair gene, for example mutS, will lead to the accumulation of hundreds to thousands of mutations in a bacterial genome within a few generations. Same as exposure to mutagens or radiation. Above the LD50 they will cause a huge accumulation of mutants.

     So this story of micro and macro evolution common in creationists' mouths is fundamentally wrong.

574. A car is a product of intelligent planning, there is development in its systems - and it does not replicate (the part with amino acids and proteins, therefore it has no mutations, because there is no replication that breaks down). By the way, there are cars that know how to fly and some that know how to dive.

     On the other hand, as a product of intelligent planning, it has no inherent fragility, and unlike a world that "works wonderfully" it has no inherent eruptions (volcanoes, for example).

     I did not receive any attention to my claims. And these, in my opinion, are basic claims: since the product does not indicate overall intelligence and also often exhibits failures in execution, the argument that it originates from someone's intelligence does not hold water.

     When you prove that the product is intelligent and focused on performance, then we can talk about watches and clocks.

     At this point, from the point of view of quite a few Swiss, it is an insult.

575. xianghua
     You intrigued me. Give me a link to the studies in question about fossils in layers that don't belong.

     Regarding the macro evolution, if I understand you correctly, a cumulative change of 50 HA or more is defined as a macro evolution regardless of the product? A change of 50 HA at once that works does not exist even according to evolution, 50 changes in a sequence do exist. According to Richard Lansky's ingenious experiment from about twenty years ago. You probably know what I mean, and if not I'll gladly give you a link.

     And I owe you an earlier answer about Prof. Dan Toufik's research, it is about point mutations.

576. You meant Shigoa to evolutionary scientists and intelligent design believers. No court has accepted your claim that this is science, and on the contrary, in a trial in Pennsylvania it was even determined unequivocally that this is a politically correct form of religious belief.

577. Where is the border? This might be the stack paradox. But when the scientists of evolution and intelligent design argue among themselves, the answer is quite clear, and the border passes somewhere between a jump of 50-60 ka, with a deviation here or there. That is, evolution cannot allow itself a bigger jump than this. It just doesn't add up with evolutionary models.

     The car example is very relevant. Because, according to evolution scientists, if the car replicated just like living things, it could eventually become an airplane or any other complex system. Whoever claims that this is possible, the proof is on him.

     Regarding the refutation criterion - you might be surprised to hear Erez, but it turns out that such evidence was actually found. And the evolutionary answer to this evidence is that it is probably a fossil that infiltrated an earlier layer, or it is a fake or something else. That is, findings that are supposed to disprove the theory have been found. The scientists simply do not accept them and claim that such exceptions cannot be trusted. Which brings me back to what I already said before - evolution is a theory that absorbs everything.

     Regarding the rest of your words - as I said - the planning theory only claims that a creator is required. His purpose or way of his actions are unknown and does not deal with them. Just as evolution does not deal with every detail of evolutionary history (see the entry abiogenesis or the origin of viruses).

578. If this is the case, then according to the article I wrote above there is evolution 🙂

579. Erez
     It depends. The planner from chapter XNUMX (God) did everything by instruction, but did not do everything (water was first, and so was the abyss), and the order was not something either. The planner from chapter XNUMX (Jehovah God) went by trial and error and did not really agree with what the figure from chapter XNUMX said regarding man. The opposite: you don't send the tiara of creation that is supposed to descend on everything, but here it is loved (it is before the tree of knowledge) to keep a garden and work it. And he wanted it to stay that way, love it.

     The man he created had evil in him, and then he punished, but later regretted it (and also reconciled; after all, the smell of flesh is good for master planners).

     And whoever wants to claim that the master planner he is talking about is not the same entity (in fact, the same entities) that stars in chapters XNUMX and XNUMX - Shikom.

     It would be interesting.

580. xianghua
     Another question, according to the theory of intelligent planning, is the intelligent planner flawless or is his entire creation perfect? Was there a single planning event? when was that?
     These are questions that this theory that defines itself as scientific must answer. Otherwise it is like saying that evolution assumes that there was a development of species without investigating the mechanism and the sequence of events. You can't eat the ouda and leave it whole. If you define intelligent design as a scientific theory, you must also investigate questions beyond the general principle behind the mechanism.

581. to Xingua
     Mistake. There are changes within subsystems, also in cars. Half and full no, a basic seat belt (like in an airplane) and like it was in cars 40 years ago compared to what is there today, yes - here is a development (including other systems that didn't exist then, like pyrotechnic thrillers).

     Unlike the human body, a safety belt programmed for one purpose does not include a dog leash and a flashlight. Even in the more complex and complete structure - the car - sandwiches are not put together on purpose and as part of the planning. Here is the difference between something planned and countless bugs.

     As soon as you come to terms with the fact that the planned body is far from perfect, it also has built-in flaws, also a lack of ability in important areas and also many things that are not needed, you will be able to see the matter of the planner and the planned from a different angle.

     And this is an unflattering angle for the omnipotent and omniscient planner.

582. xianghua,

     You misunderstood my car example. My intention in adding an air conditioner was to indicate a small change. It is equivalent to a point mutation that changes the entire phenotype of the organism. Perhaps a more correct analogy would be a computer program. If you change one command you can make the program do something completely different from what it was doing before. Just change + ==> – or or to and and you will get a completely different story.

583. xianghua
     I'm not a mechanic and I don't understand cars. What is the scientific definition according to the theory of intelligent design for micro and macro evolution. Not examples but a definition. For example: micro - point mutations that lead to a property change, macro - a change that cannot be caused by a point mutation. I'm trying to understand where the line is (if there is one).

     Regarding the rebuttal, I would appreciate it if you could give an example of such a change. For example, how do you disprove the theory of evolution? They bring evidence of the existence of a biological system in a period where there is no chance for it to exist, for example: a rabbit in the Precambrian period.

584. cedar,

     See the example of the car that RH brought up. If you changed the color of the car, you changed an existing feature but did not add a new system. Adding air conditioning or airbags or electric windows, these are new systems. According to evolution, adding such systems can be done gradually. But there is no degree, because there is no benefit in half an air conditioning system or half an air bag system. So the claim that many small changes = big changes is wrong.

     How do you disprove the claim of intelligent design? First, they prove that such systems will be developed gradually, because intelligent design claims that this is impossible.

585. Xinghua
     Here is a fundamental mistake. If you were a super-designer with abilities as attributed to that intelligent designer, would you build - in the first place - a body that required such an engine? Are the built-in failures in this engine, including what it causes at such and other moments, an expression of superior planning? Haven't you heard of heart problems?
     Again: a super planner does not issue a poorly executed faulty design. The fact that you accept as normal the ease with which you can be paralyzed due to an incorrect fall on a tailbone that has nothing to do here in the first place, is one thing - and still: if it's intentional, it's a screwed up design and particularly bad execution.
     Anyone who designs a body that has a huge amount of junk DNA, something is defective in their ability. And you know that if we continue with all the failures - only in the living world - we will shut down the server. So if there is a planner and this is the produce, he is not who knows what.
     Now decide what you are going for.

586. Xinghua
     You do not address the gap between being a planner and the level of planning, execution and failures in both. The section with the watch is one example of a failure in the argument: designing a watch is an efficient and focused matter and all its components should be at the same level; The animal body really does not.
     But if you have a hard time with it, I certainly understand.

587. Yoel, I'm afraid you are very wrong. Most of the systems in nature work with incredible efficiency, which amazed even the scientists who discovered them. Did you know, for example, that in your body there is an engine that rotates 100 times per second and is considered by the scientists who tested it to be the most efficient engine known to man? They found that it works four times more efficiently than a car's combustion engine and far higher than anything man has ever made. Think about the technology required to create a robot that will serve you coffee and also wipe up in case the coffee is spilled, and also obtain its energy source on its own. There are no such things even if all the world's scientists gather and try. So to claim that man, who does all of the above and much more, was created by bad design?

588. xianghua
     If I am correct, small evolutionary changes you accept and large ones no, or in creationist jargon "microevolution" yes and "macroevolution" no. Where is the line between micro and macro? I would appreciate it if you could enlighten us and give the definition of these two concepts according to the theory of the intelligent planner.
     As a "scientific" theory, your theory must also stand the test of refutation. What kind of evidence would disprove your theory?

589. xianghua,

     1) This is not accurate. If you find a clock you can learn a lot about its planner. What is the size of his hand, the fact that he needs time measurement. What materials does he use, what is his metal processing ability. 12 hours on a clock will tell you a lot about the star it comes from and so on and so forth. What do you know about your planner?

     2) Extinction - you claim that he exterminates what he wants, but we see a lot of extinctions caused by human actions, predation (for example the dodo in Mauritius), diseases and just bad luck. How did the perfect planner not prevent or prepare his creatures for all these? Obviously he has the ability, many others did survive.

     3) Phylogenetic trees - you claim that a scientific theory has predictions, of course. When they built the first phylogenetic trees they did it like Darwin based on anatomical observation. Then, with the development of molecular biology, trees began to be built according to DNA and protein sequences and, wonder and wonder, they completely matched the trees built before! Isn't this a prediction that has come true?

     4) You are again returning to Paley's old argument and I have already answered you about it. The correct analogy to what you see in biology is not a single tube system as you describe, but billions of systems that multiply by division or pairing and in the process undergo changes and then selection as a result of competition for resources. Moreover, we see less and less complex systems and in the soil we find that the less complex are buried deeper. In addition, even the newest and most complex systems are imperfect and contain many flaws. Except that you don't see any sign of a planner in the area, not a spaceship, not a tent, not a house and not footprints. So if you saw what I described on another planet would you still be so sure it was planned?

590. R. H.,

     The planner theory claims only one thing - complex biological systems require planning. This is the theory and nothing else. If I find a clock on Mars I can explain why that clock is evidence of design. I'm not sure I'll know who made it, how old he was, or what his favorite food was. But I will know that it had some creator, even if his identity is unknown.

     How would I define something new? Good question. In my opinion, when it comes to a new HA sequence, which creates a complex and specific structure for a certain function. You gave a nice analogy with a car. If you add an air conditioner or a radio to your car, you have added a new complex system. If you changed the color of the car, you changed an existing feature but its purpose is the same, and so is its level of complexity.

     Regarding extinctions - I did not claim that these were defective tools. I argued that it was possible for a planner to exterminate whatever he wanted, for whatever reason. Also in human engineering you can find many products that have been taken off the shelves, either for economic reasons or changing fashion or just a desire to change technology. And this also applies to the example of the phylogenetic tree of the cars: it is not quite accurate to say that there were simple and undeveloped creatures on Earth first. In fact, even in a low layer, you can find an abundance of super-complex AHs. So the claim about simplicity that has turned into complexity is quite wrong. In fact, some studies have even shown the opposite.

     Regarding anomalies in the phylogenetic tree - it doesn't work like that. A scientific theory has predictions, and if and when they are denied the theory is disproved. Otherwise it's an all-absorbing theory. And an all-encompassing theory is not scientific. And as I showed you, phylogenetic trees can also be found in cars, which are clearly designed.

     Regarding positive evidence, here is the example I gave earlier-

     Let's say I'm a scientist who lands on another planet. Suppose I find on a star a system of pipes, inside which a special liquid is transported, and that liquid is transported by the action of a special pump that pushes it up the pipes. I even find a special mechanism in the pipes, which when there is a crack makes sure to quickly seal it, so that the liquid does not leak out. In addition, I find another and special mechanism, which is capable of duplicating the entire above-mentioned system. And this entire branched system is made of organic materials.

     Wouldn't such a case be unequivocal proof of the existence of aliens?

591. Xinghua
     very simple. Planning, in the accepted sense of planning - the end of an act with first thought - given the products that characterize life, is either very bad planning or non-existent. As mentioned above, the execution, which is supposed to be the fruit of an intelligent planner, is also quite flawed.
     So there are two possibilities: either there is a planner but in the light of the product he does not surpass his abilities (and is defeated by every contemporary engineer), or in the light of the product it is likely to be the result of organizing over many years.

592. Xianghua,

     First of all, I ask that you ignore the childish and hurtful reaction of that ghost who fails to learn what a cultural discussion is and deserves to be silent.

     To your claims:

     1) How can you say that "planning theory has nothing to do with the planner himself." Planning theory (unlike creationism) does not deal with the identity of the planner, his age, origin, etc., only with the identification of his products." ?
     After all, the planner is the very thing, he is the mechanism so that his identity cannot be ignored in any theory. How can you begin to build theories about planning without reference to its location, its way of working and the time when the planner created the things?

     2) Is a virus like Sars that suddenly emerged "nothing new"? So how would you define something new? After all, evolution claims that everything comes from something else while undergoing cumulative changes. So if you have a car and you replaced the mirror, is it new? No. Now change the wheels too, now paint, is it new? Add GPS to it, is it new? Replace engine for more, is it new? In this way it can always be argued that there is nothing new. The fact that there are changes all the time and when they accumulate over time and there is a change that does not allow pairing, we define it as a new species.

     3) Extinctions are closely related to the likelihood of a designer. Why does a designer produce "damaged tools that become extinct"? The explanation in the evolutionary model is very simple as you know.

     4) Regarding the cars, so you claim that the designer is developing like we develop cars? He started with simple models and slowly learned to create elaborate models? So why do the latest models have so many problems? After all, if you compare a 2011 car to a 1900 car, the new one will be better than the previous one in every detail. On the other hand, in evolution we see that pandas or gorillas that were created "recently" are on the verge of extinction, why?

     5) Because of some anomalies apparently resulting from the horizontal transfer of genes, you dismiss the entire phylogenetic tree based on the analysis of millions of genes ???? Please go to the NCBI website for the phylogenetic trees and see how they were built and how much genetic evidence there is.

     In addition, you still avoid positing a theory based on positive evidence and not on "problems" in evolution. Please try once to produce a theory that explains life on Earth and answers the questions presented and presents predictions. Just saying there is/was a planner is not an acceptable theory.

593. Shagana

     I just wanted to point out to you the fact that you are stupid (some people here also explain to you why you are stupid).

     Say, when you were little and they taught you in school that 1+1=2, and they also explained to you why it is like that - even then did you argue with the teachers that they were wrong instead of understanding what they were explaining to you? Or have you not yet learned that 1+1=2?

594. Father, the claim of the research is that identical genes were found in different creatures, which evolutionary scientists always claim is impossible. So it turns out that it is absolutely possible. Therefore, in the current situation there is really no tree. but a complicated structure like a bush. And they stand for it themselves:

     "Until the nineties, they tended to think that even if there were lateral transfers of genes here and there, they were at the beginning of the formation of life, but in principle most of the evolution of bacteria and microorganisms in general is vertical - tree-like"

     And later:

     "The perception changed a lot when they realized that DNA segments can pass from one bacterium to another even if they are from distant species. It's like the giraffe's long neck turns into a duck."

     and also:

     "The lateral gene exchange complicates the reconstruction of the ancestor. Genes or the entire genome can belong to different evolutionary histories, and even infrequent transfers of genes will cause different molecular lineages to merge after their molecular ancestors existed in different living lineages at different times."

     In other words, from the point of view of evolution, there may not even be a tree at all. Everything is taken into account. If there is a tree it's fine and if there isn't, it's also fine. And that, my friend, is wrong.

595. Xinghua:
     I myself interviewed Dr. Gofna and Prof. Gograten, and they specifically talked about expanding the tree of life model and not replacing it
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/horizontal-gene-transfer-1304201/
     And here is another quote from the words of "I am more of a historian, who is interested in understanding how evolution created the life we ​​see around us."
     Evolution, not the intelligent designer, takes place before your eyes.

596. to R.H.-

     Your claims are known and have answers. First, planning theory has nothing to do with the planner himself. Planning theory (unlike creationism) does not deal with the identity of the planner, his age, origin, etc., only with the identification of his products.

     Regarding new strains resistant to antibiotics - bacteria have many built-in patents: a plasmid exchange mechanism, which can include genes for enzymes that break down antibiotics (the beta-lactamase enzyme for example), or a point mutation occurs on the attacked site and as a result the antibiotic is not adapted to the site and the bacterium becomes resistant. But no new biological patent was created here. or complex system.

     Animals did become extinct, either because of a climatic catastrophe or because the planner chose to exterminate them. This has nothing to do with the planning question. The same goes for genetic diseases, which can certainly be caused by a natural process.

     Regarding the legs of the leviathan or the snake: they don't really have degenerate legs. These are apparently bones related to the reproductive system. This is again an argument from lack of knowledge (see my previous response)

     Regarding phylogenetic trees - I can find the same match in planned objects like cars. After all, in the past cars were simpler than now.

     More than that, contradictions in phylogenetic trees were found several times and no one blinked. Not long ago, a study was published by Dr. Uri Gofna and Prof. Peter Gograten, who dispute the claim of the existing tree. It turns out that they found identical genes in distant species. Their explanation is that it is a gene-stealing mechanism. Another paper showed that a snail with genes for photosynthesis had been found. That is, there is really no tree.

     Now compare these claims to the design claim I made, and see which claim holds more water.

597. xianghua and that which happens to a balanced discourse,

     I agree with the skeptic's call, be respectful and put forward the counter theory that will please answer the following questions (partial list):
     Who is the planner? Is he planning and creating now? If not, where do the new strains that appear in the mornings come from (E. coli from Germany, Sars, AIDS are just a few examples). If he does create now, where is he?
     Why are animals extinct? Why are there genetic diseases? Let's say he created a faulty model and a genetic disease was created, how come the diseases keep coming back? After all, a defective model would simply be disposed of, wouldn't it? How is it that whales and snakes have degenerate limbs and we have tailbones? Wouldn't it be simpler to create without?
     Why are there predators at all? After all, it would be possible for all of us to do photosynthesis and there would be a much more just world.
     How is it that there is complete agreement between phylogenetic trees made based on fossils and those made based on anatomy and those made based on the genome sequence? What, the creator arranged the fossils in an order that proves evolution on earth? Why?

     This is just the beginning of the list of questions that I assume you will avoid trying to answer because you don't have good answers
     And a lot of twisting and waving will be required. On the other hand, the theory of evolution has amazingly simple answers to these questions and everything works out. So which theory has more holes?

598. For those who missed it - my response above.

599. "The difference between the scientific conversation and the theological conversation"
     Two things, first of all your nickname looks like a title, you need to take care of a uniform nickname as we told Xingua.
     Second, a skeptic should constantly question but there are degrees of truth, and something that is 99.9999% true should not be given the same weight as a fact that is true with zero percent certainty.
     And besides, I'm the editor of the site, and the pseudo New Age attempts to show that there is more than one truth just won't pass my barrier. I still occasionally receive pseudo-scientific articles and people who send them are convinced that they are writing something scientific. We need a strainer, otherwise we will be NRG NEW AGE. This is not what I worked hard for for 14 years.

600. Thank you Avi

601. There is no problem with the responses, there is simply a limit on the number of links in the response, because the system fears that it is spam. But if it's a legitimate response we approve it.

602. What is your alternative theory? "Intelligent planner" is too airy. How did the planning manifest itself?, when did it happen?, how did it create life? Did he create only the first cell or did he create complete series of cells? How long did the execution take? Was there one "planning event" or were there several?

603. Is there a problem with the comments system, or so I think?

604. ?

605. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is?
     I challenge you to present us with a serious review of an alternative scientific theory to the theory of evolution (something from the web is also possible). A theory that meets scientific parameters with real evidence and not just "it can't be random" or "it contradicts evolution" I want to see evidence of design.

606. I will try to touch on the points raised.

     Regarding the eye - the fact that we do not know what each and every detail does in the eye, and why it is built this way, does not mean that its design is defective. It is possible that if the design was reversed (like the cuttlefish) we would go blind because there would be less protection from direct radiation (the cuttlefish lives in water after all). For many diverse functions in nature, we will discover their function only after a thorough examination. I will give some examples:

     The coccyx - in fact it is connected to and holds several important muscles in the pelvic area. See someone who goes without her.

     Junk dna - many studies show that dna has an important function in gene control and expression -

     http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/1,7340,L-3245601,00.html

     Addendum - In an article published on this website, it turns out that there is a role after all -

     https://www.hayadan.org.il/apendix-have-a-role-1310079/

     In short - this is an argument that stems from a lack of knowledge.

     The fact that the hawk sees further is irrelevant. Because who determined that a person's hawk vision is superior to his normal vision? In addition, the very fact that there is a sight system capable of seeing at a greater distance, shows that the designer could have created it, he just *chose* not to do so.

     Yoel - You can ask why the designer didn't make us supermen and that's it. Man is also sensitive to an atomic explosion. so?

     Regarding cedar flagellin, if you want to switch from flagellin to another protein with non-homologous activity, you will need a very large change in the genetic code. I'll give you an example - let's say I want to switch from flagellin to a protein whose function is to connect two substrates. I will have to create two new sites at once, because creating a new link site only for substat A will not be useful.

     Regarding Dan Tofik's research, many proteins break down many substances. What is the genetic change required to break down the nerve gas in Prof. Toufik's research?

     If the change is small, there is no problem. But many functions depend on a considerable part of the protein. And it is necessary to explain them gradually, see above.

     You also said: "The evidence that exists thanks to evolution and the defenses of planning paint a clear picture" - in my opinion, the opposite is true.

     I will give you an example that also relates to R.H.'s words:

     Let's say I'm a scientist who lands on another planet. Suppose I find on a star a system of pipes, inside which a special liquid is transported, and that liquid is transported by the action of a special pump that pushes it up the pipes. I even find a special mechanism in the pipes, which when there is a crack makes sure to quickly seal it, so that the liquid does not leak out. In addition, I find another and special mechanism, which is capable of duplicating the entire above-mentioned system. And this entire branched system is made of organic materials.

     Wouldn't such a case be unequivocal proof of the existence of aliens?

607. In a previous comment (why aren't the comments here numbered) - I pointed out the one-dimensionality of the site in expressing skeptical publicist opinions (although I agree with them).

     In the answer above, it is claimed, among other things, that even religious and other websites - do not adhere to balance, and therefore this website also should not provide a multitude of opinions.

     In my eyes, the answer misses the essence of the values ​​that this site believes in and among: skepticism, scientific discourse and constant examination of every existing theory. These are, of course, values ​​that are not the basis of most religions, and therefore what religious sites do is not relevant at all.

     In order to allow the reader to form an opinion (and not in the name of the holy balance) more interesting and more effective, to (also) give a taste of the opposite positions (as opposed to a trending quote and a refutation of their positions).

     I also argued that the very definition of "skeptic" stems from the need to question every theory - even the theory that currently seems the most likely to us.

     In other words, whoever is confident in himself and speaks passionately in the righteousness of the absolute truth he holds, without having a real conversation - his place is on the religious sites and not on the skeptic site (at least in my opinion.

608. xianghua
     As you said, flagellin, according to the article, can function in its minimal version as a protein of 310 HA. But from here you jumped to inextricable complexity, and this is a wrong conclusion. And what if the same protein, with slight changes, knows how to do other things? Each protein has its main function and other things it knows how to do inefficiently, a kind of by-products. In general, the "by-products" do not give an advantage to the organism, but what will happen if the environment changes to one that favors those by-products? Or did a mutation occur that improved the efficiency of creating those "by-products" and now they give him an advantage? At the Weizmann Institute there is a laboratory headed by Prof. Dan Toufik. Prof. Tofik took a protein with a certain function, and found that the same protein knows how to break down a synthetic substance that does not exist in nature (nerve gas). He made random mutations for several generations (in the laboratory) and in each generation made a selection for the activity of breaking down the nerve gas. After a short time he received a protein that knows how to break down nerve gas effectively (so effectively that the US Department of Defense allocated funds for development). Maybe this is what happened to flagellin? Perhaps in the past it had another main role and the ability to move was a secondary feature with low efficiency, and when certain mutations occurred or occurred, the bacterium began to move and actually gained an abnormal advantage over its fellows? That's how things work in evolution.

     I think I understand your point. No matter what evidence or hypotheses I present to you, you will continue to "zoom in" and say "here, the cornerstone of the mechanism you presented is the inextricable complexity". This is a pointless circular discussion. In my opinion, in the end there is a certain inextricable complexity that underlies the first living cell. As of today, the scientific explanation for its formation is abiogenesis, maybe this theory is true, maybe not, but talk about it with evolution. Evolution deals with living systems.

     Science does not have answers to everything and you can always find "holes in the plot" - not contradictions but simply mechanisms of development that science does not yet know how to explain. The evidence that exists thanks to evolution and design defenses paints a clear picture. Maybe the puzzle is not complete but there are enough pieces to understand the full picture.

609. xianghua
     We see excellently, but not perfectly, certainly less well than other animals (still, it is not clear why there is a dead spot, and why there is appendicitis, a tail bone and junk DNA [and this is by the way]). The wavelength we perceive is not a big story either. We smell not bad, but very poor compared to dogs; The hearing is really fine, but here too no records are recorded and here too the matter is partial.

     To take something that exists, to say that it is fundamentally miraculous, miraculously made and a few other things - just because it is what it is - without comparing it to others (in the field) or areas that are even beyond the existing ability (you don't see subred), this is an arrangement that is not Demonstrates elementary criticism by comparing what is there against the concept of "intelligent planning".

     The example regarding the optic nerve aims to show a simple matter: it is not planning and it is not intelligent; This is what came out. If the Creator of the world arranged things as "what came out", then let's go. But today's engineer, certainly script writer in science fiction movies, plan things much more successfully. If a moderate hit but in a place like the spine makes you disabled - I would fire this planner. and without compensation.
     Therefore there is no point in making an inventory of all the structural failures in the human body, then adding those in other animals and ending up with fundamental failures in the design and execution of the still life. If we do that, the numbers will be very high.

     Even the sun as an annual time cannot be built upon. And this is what a Jew says to a Jew, those with whom God is in a special relationship - and use the moon, which is even less valuable in this regard.

     Again: planning and intelligence are not here. What is there is what came out.

     Regarding the evidence that there is a planner - it doesn't really hold water (yes, the probability that Z will happen, etc., etc. as if the fact that this is the case now is the proof that this was the intention at the beginning).

     And in general, why do we need evidence for something that, according to the narrator, walked around and even visited one Philistine king in matters of cheating the father of the nation? The figure that was discovered and written about in your book - and this is the source of your knowledge and there is no end to it - is this planner? The one who did a magic contest with the Khartoums? Who knocked down the statue of Dagon? wow

     The original myth is a broken vessel, so are you trying to make it "scientific"?

610. A person,
     The theological answer to such questions is very simple - God's ways are hidden and we do not have to investigate miraculously from us.

     xianghua,
     Please present the evidence for intelligent design and let's discuss the guys in this theory. After all, it is clear to everyone, including you, that there are many more problems here and much more fundamental than the ones you present regarding evolution in the "it seems that the eye is inextricable" style. What's more, the evidence is much less well-founded and is mainly based on attempts to disprove evolution and not on positive evidence. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

611. So let's take a theological approach, as you do:
     If we see perfectly, then why is there a blind spot in the eye in the first place? Why would there be a part there that has no ability to absorb light waves? What is it good for?

612. Yoel, the very fact that we see perfectly (of course, except for those with acquired vision problems), indicates that there is no problem with the blind spot. In general, the structure of the eye is super complex and super sophisticated. Recently they even discovered that the structure of the grunt is incredibly optimal.

     The problems with evolution do not prove that there is a designer. The argument from design rests on other evidence. But about that, in another story.

613. I, for example, would not base claims about creation, intelligent planning and other vegetables on the eye, an organ that has both a dead spot and an absurd "transmission line" that goes from it to the brain through the neck. If it is intelligent, if it is the fruit of absolute cosmic knowledge - this entity has fundamental problems in planning and execution, that is: a blow to the neck can cause blindness. Is it smart? Is this planning?

     The claim that the theory of evolution has problems - and this is not only what proves its failure but also proves intelligent design, is a fundamental failure in itself.

     When you put into this failure all the planning and execution failures of intelligent planning, and rely for this purpose on a text full of contradictions, devoid of factual coherence and contradicting too many things, you get something that can only work for those who have suspended the most basic criticism of their relationship with a written text and deny the facts stuck in front of their nose Also because of a dead spot.

614. And maybe the universe was created five minutes ago with all our memories? Are there no religions that make contradictory claims? Is there no contradiction between chapter XNUMX and chapter XNUMX in Genesis (two different stories of creation)? Isn't Noah's story made up of several stories (oops in the middle the raven turned into a dove)
     Being a skeptic does not mean accepting any explanation - no matter how fanciful and unsubstantiated it may be, being open-minded does not mean that reason should fall out.
     In other words, for every scientific site there are a million religious sites, the science site, as I have already mentioned, is not obligated to balance like the Broadcasting Authority or the BBC, and as you saw, even the BBC realizes that they were wrong, so we will leave the balance to the Internet as a whole and not to a specific site . post Scriptum. The ultra-Orthodox websites are not committed to balance either, they try to present science in a false way (scarecrow or straw man) and then balance it with religion so that religion wins. I don't exactly call it balance.

     https://www.hayadan.org.il/bbc-reort-part-a-0008111/

615. In my opinion, the readers of the "Ydan" are skeptical by their natural inclination, and receive in the "Ydan" mainly a "skeptical" program.

     It would be much more interesting - if it would be possible to receive opposite contents - and skeptical responses to them - in a way that would leave the formation of the opinion in the hands of the reader (or at least give him better tools for forming his opinion).

     For example, one can find many articles about the failure of the theory of evolution from the religious point of view.

     I would also suggest, especially to the skeptics among us, to be less sure of themselves. The positivist view, common today among scientists, recognizes that we have no ability to describe with "certainty" through theory the reality as it really is. There are various theories, which change from time to time, and are tested mainly based on their ability to help us and make reliable predictions. In the evolutionary context, Darwin's theory of the origin of species has been proven to be a description with a lot of supporting evidence and endowed with predictions whose truth has been proven, but none of us know for sure if it is true (or that the entire universe, including the evidence supporting evolution, was not created 5000 years ago by an almighty creator).

     In other words, being a skeptic means being less sure of yourself, even about the things you think are true.

616. A simple eyespot probably consists of 200 different proteins. So it is not a trivial matter to start with a "photosensitive cell". How can this be called evolution of the eye, if we start with which half of an eye? :)

     Once such and such new components have been added, it is necessary to change the mechanism that translates them as well. And of course link sites for those new proteins. And all of the above require a considerable genetic change. The crystallin was added to their calculation, and they claim it evolved from a similar protein. It's just that it's not clear how similar it is and what the genetic change is required for that, and what are the chances of the jump of that gene to jump exactly the required length and along a genome of 9^10 bases. What's more, crystalline alone is probably not enough to create a lens. All the above problems and many more, were not taken into account at all.

     Regarding Nick Metzka's article and the development of the rod - it starts with a membrane transition through which any proteins pass. What he did not take into account, is that it is necessary to create a membrane passage and to create the same protein at the same time (otherwise it is useless), and this is of course a big change.

     Regarding the flagellin protein - this is not about abiogenesis, but a protein that developed during evolution, and is an essential component of the bat's tail.

617. I did mean Nielsen and Felger's article (I just missed it by a few years), and I don't see anything wrong with starting the disassembly from light-sensitive cells attached to a nerve cell, unless you want to start getting into the "non-disassembly complexity" of rhodopsin. It is not clear to me what the problem is with the crystalline and with the input-output, could you elaborate?

     I haven't read the article you gave yet, but keep in mind that evolution is not about the development of the first cell but everything that happened since then, so I'm not sure how relevant this article is to the discussion. Anyway, I'll read it and then we'll talk.

     On another matter, here is an article about the dismantling of the Shoton:
     http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

618. Erez, you must be referring to the model of the pair of scientists Nielsen and Felger from 94, in which they presented the development of a complex eye from a simple eye, in 1829 steps. Only they forgot to take into account some critical elements: they start with a given eyespot. And a given eyespot is incredibly complex. That is, they do not start from nothing. Second, they did not take into account the genetic difference required regarding the eye proteins that were added to it (the crystalline protein, for example, which makes up about 90% of the structure of the lens). Thirdly - they forgot that new changes are also required in the differentiation mechanism, which makes sure that the same lens is expressed precisely in the desired position in the eye. Fourth, they forget that a new change in the input-output of the eye is probably also required, which they did not take into account.

     Now, regarding studies that disprove mathematical models of evolution. Take for example the following study-

     http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC211289/

     The above study examined what is the most minimal version that can function as the flagellin protein (the name mentions the flagellum not by chance). He came to the conclusion that about 310 kha are required for its minimal function, meaning that all 310 kha had to be created in Mecca. And these, of course, are not the small steps on which evolution builds.

619. xianghua,

     The eye is not discharged? Did not develop during evolution?
     On what basis do you make this strange assertion?

     There are hundreds of articles and review articles on the subject that show the evolution of the eye.

     For example the following article:

     http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030399208002454

     And if you can't download it I can send it to you.

     The same goes for the shotton and please don't start with the kinazine that you always treat as if it has something special.

620. xianghua
     In 1997 an article was published that "deconstructs" the visual system, if you want I will send you a link. Regarding the other topics, I remember reading about them a long time ago (somewhere in my undergraduate degree), but it will take me a little longer to find.
     Regarding the studies - yes! I really want you to expand, if possible do not copy paste from other websites (explain in your own words and to the point) and most importantly - a reference.

621. Hi Erez. The visual system is indeed inexhaustible, and has never been disintegrated. The same goes for the Shotton - the fact that there are several homologous components (or rather analogs) in another system cannot indicate that they evolved from each other. Otherwise we could argue that the very fact that protein A and protein B have about 3 HAs in common is proof that they evolved from each other. Of course, no serious scientist would claim this. In the injection system there are proteins that are not found in the shotton at all. Therefore, the missing parts of the shaft will not give an injection system.

     Regarding catalytic activity of RNA - RNA that carries out catalytic activity is too complex in itself. In addition, it cannot replace the effectiveness of proteins. The most normal autocatalytic RNA they found is very complex. 3.5 billion years is zero time.

     The open circulatory system still requires at least 2-3 parts: heart, blood fluid and blood vessels.

     Regarding studies that do not support the evolutionary theory - there are quite a few that have also been published in reputable journals. If you want, I will expand…

622. xianghua,

     Once upon a time there was the issue of vision which was said to be an inextricable complexity and wonder and wonder it was dismantled. The rod is also disassembled into components with homology to active proteins, regarding the first proteins, there are also active peptides and RNA segments with catalytic activity. The first protein was not something as big and complex as the shoton, in any case 3.5 billion years is a long time, you will be surprised to find out what can be done in such a period of time.

     The blood system was also not fully formed, and evidence of this can be found in insects with an open blood system (insects).

     As for the evidence you know, challenge us, show it. Not a video on YouTube, not a blog by "Hados", but details about the research - an article or at least the name of the researcher and the year of publication that we can examine critically as is customary in science. Keep in mind that something that would really undermine evolution would have to be dramatic and not a change in the order of development of subspecies but something more like rabbits from the Precambrian period. I'm even willing to help translate that article so we can all discuss it.

623. xianghua2,

     "There are some holes in the theory that cannot be ignored"

     Remind you how many holes that cannot be ignored are in the theory of intelligent design? The above theory is similar to a bagel, much more hollow than substance.

624. Great idea, I will use it for an event I am organizing on November 2nd in Hamada, which will deal with the threats facing science (and sanity).
     You are of course welcome. All readers too.

625. According to this website, it feels like Asimov's Encyclopedia Galactica: everything is deteriorating all around, and only here is intellectual sanity maintained.

626. There are some holes in the theory that cannot be ignored. Among other things, an explanation for the formation of complex systems such as Shoton or the blood system. Creationists claim that mathematical models disprove the claim that there was enough time for evolution. Their models show that it takes an order of magnitude several times the wave of the universe to create a small protein.

     Regarding fossils and dna - I do not sell evidence that cannot also be interpreted as evidence of a planner. For example, the claim that the creatures share a common genetic code can also indicate a common creator. So is genetic similarity, which also exists in designed objects such as cars (car models of the same company are very similar to each other)

627. Here is a link to download the book
     http://seri-levi.com/2008/11/13/mito/

     Indeed, many disagreed with him, but no one considered him a heretic, and even more than that he was revered for his holiness and his teachings, he is the one who said there is no connection between creationism and the Jewish religion.

628. Here is a link to download the book

629. Hello Erez

     Thank you very much, for the wonderful article, well written and understandable, focused and accurate.
     Thank you very much for the link to the site you edit, I will spend a lot of time there, I hope there is room for comments and discussions.

     The definition, the way you explain what evolution is, takes all the sting out of the theory, this is a definition that even creationists would agree with, the definition only talks about a mechanism that exists, and not about the theory of the creation of all life and its development on earth, there is no definition here that says that there was one cell from which the development of all Life, it could be that God created animals and man separately together with an evolutionary mechanism from which other things developed.

     I liked the definition because it is focused, and focused nicely on the proven thing, and leaves all the other discussions and evolutionary theory out, because they are not proven and have many holes in them.

     I am personally a believer and observant of the Torah and a devout mitzvot, and I have no problem with evolution in the broad sense as well. They tell me on the site that I am different and unusual, so I tell you that there are many like me and the Jewish faith and religion is not necessarily connected with the subject of evolution, I will bring you a link to one of my rabbis

     http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%92%D7%93%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%A0%D7%93%D7%9C

630. Good ,
     If he lived 100 years later and was Darwin's "definite student" then time travel is probably possible
     And science has not yet discovered this, but in your book it is already written and the way to do it is even explained!

     And maybe someone can explain how the plants got to the ark, apparently each species was ordered to carry a plant in its mouth.

     What really happened is that only one plant managed to arrive and it is of course the cannabis and then the whole story suddenly became understandable.

631. You should search NUBEMET's videos, he had an excellent rebuttal there about that Huxley who lived 100 years after Darwin - the grandson of that famous Huxley, and who of course was a supporter of evolution, and his words were taken out of context in a blatant way by Christian preachers and that one of our pans - I think Zamir Cohen, Translated and added translation errors.

632. Ofer,
     I have read books by Aldous Huxley and learned about Thomas (Henry) Huxley but I have never heard of William Huxley and I could not find any hint of that unknown person on the net so I would appreciate it if you could give some kind of link
     To count that right now I treat him like a sucker.
     What do you want to say in this story? That he who does not believe in the Creator gives free rein to his creatures?????

     Well, my wife wakes up soon, so I have a few minutes left to rape the neighbor...

633. Allow me to explain Noah's Ark -
     First of all, during Noah's time there were far fewer species of beech, and certainly not 1.5 million like today (since new species are created all the time). I would say that the real number corresponds exactly to the number of species found in fossils from that period. Besides, God performed a miracle for Noah and caused the time-space distortion inside the ark, so that the space inside was much larger than the dimensions of the ark itself and all the animals entered comfortably and even comfortably. In fact, if it hadn't been for the shaking of the waves, they wouldn't have felt at all that they had left home. Regarding a kangaroo skeleton in Turkey - this is simply a stupid statement. We do not know at all that the Ararat Mountains are in Turkey, it is not written in the Torah, and in general, it is clear that the kangaroo returned to Australia (God made the miracle of the road jump live) and did not remain to languish in Turkey. The Torah simply does not bother to mention all these small details because they are self-evident. It is enough that the story begins with "Once upon a time God said to rest".

634. An intelligent higher power that created the world (let's call him "God" for short) may solve human beings' existential anxieties, or free them from the need to think, but it is certainly not a scientific solution to anything for the simple reason that it has no scientific effect. Suppose we believe that God created the world, what does that actually mean? That we have found the answer and it is possible to stop investing in scientific research on the formation of the universe, the origin of life, the evolution of species, etc. because the answer to everything will be "because that's how God wanted it"? This is not science, it is exactly the opposite - the cessation of the search for answers and explanations for phenomena in nature. And if in all this we don't stop researching (a bit unnecessary because we have the ultimate answer to every question), what does God's existence give us? Is it possible to question God? Formulate a theory that God is a part of? Is there a point where we can say, up to here it is the laws of nature and from here on it is God and there is no point in investigating? Because this is exactly what the creationists do when they say that microevolution is acceptable to them but the creation of new species is something only God does, so leave us with scientific theories that explain *how* it happened.

635. You don't understand what a solution is. There is a solution in mathematics, but it is not science. What you call a "solution" has nothing to do with either mathematics or science. The fact that there are others as wrong as you does not add any weight or strength to your claim, not even when you repeat it (even when you put it with an exclamation mark). What do you do about it? "Creator" is a completely screwed up "explanation" for the phenomena we experience around us, it does not explain anything and it is not surprising that the doomsday weapon of the religious is "Do not inquire into the miraculous from you". Sometimes there is a feeling... in science it is called intuition. A scientist wakes up one morning and has a feeling that something explains something else. With Chazal this was enough and today yeshiva priests are forced to waste their best years studying this collection of nonsense. In science this is not enough, now the scientist has to define the problem, formulate the research question, propose a way to check if his intuition is relevant or if it is nonsense. My feeling is that your faith in God is so weak that you must have as many believers as possible around you who will be a support group for you. Unlike you, I have no problem starting to believe in the God of the Jews if there is good evidence for his existence. As of this moment, there is no evidence that even comes close to the evidence that exists, for example, in favor of evolution. So until there is such evidence, and it is so easy to provide such evidence, I see no point in believing in fairies. By the way, equally if Thor or Zeus or the Spaghetti Monster or the Holy Omicron provided such evidence then I would be ready to believe them immediately. You, on the other hand, will already find some poor excuse why the mace that Thor brought down on your house is actually the same God of the Jews, the same good and benevolent father of yours, who is just trying to test you... that's the trick, isn't it? If it's for your good then what a cool God is for your good and if it's against you then what a good father he is that he takes care of educating you and it's only you who don't have enough sense to understand him (or any other similar excuse of someone who was a victim of violence and brainwashing).
     In my immediate environment, there are dozens of secular people that I know well. The vast majority of them are honest people, help others without recompense, do not steal, do not act violently, do not strive to discriminate against other people because they are of the "wrong sex", do not exclude other people because of their sexual orientation, do not exclude basic human rights from "heathens" ", are loyal to their families and as a rule are committed to clear social moral rules, headed by the rule "Do not do to your friend what is hateful to you" and "Love your neighbor as yourself". Of course, since they are also not Christians, they do not usually turn the other cheek, for example, in the face of religious aggression, coercion, and parasitism, but as long as the latter live by their faith and do not add any of these to it (which are of course the exact opposite of the same moral rules that the secularists I know advocate) then There is no problem treating them with respect as equal human beings. Unfortunately, I cannot say this about the religious people I know, far from it, some of them are strictly ultra-Orthodox, some of them even belong to the same family tree from which I come. From a comparison between these and these, your proposal regarding the possible motives for rejecting a "Creator" is not anchored in reality and indicates mainly your weakness and those of your kind who need some supernatural threat to be present everywhere and at every moment in your life in order for you to be a little moral, something that many of the secularists miraculously know how to do as well without the supervision of the secret police. And it has already been said: the wrongdoer - in Momo wrongs... Maybe it is you who clings to this children's story so that you can always shoulder the responsibility for that imaginary friend and his "rules". How long will you be afraid to leave these crutches and take responsibility for your life, you yourself, and not someone else?

636. Ofer: First, like the preachers who turn people away from religion (some of them are really good people) you also confuse trust with faith. They tried to work on me with this at the "Afikim" seminar in 1998, they didn't succeed....
     A person trusts a doctor who does not believe in him. If you so claim the wisdom of sages of all kinds and that they were wise and therefore, despite the many obvious contradictions in the Jewish religion, the fact that they did not deviate from their faith proves the correctness of the Torah and their faith. Because they were smart. Walla ??? So let's see - Rambam is considered one of the sages. You undertake to stop going to secular doctors, Shabbat desecrators, Shabbat desecrators and nidad healers and to find a balm and cure for you only with "sage medicine" such as those listed here:
     http://www.daatemet.org.il/medicine.cfm.

     Regarding the Jewish past: you are absolutely right about the need to study and get to know the music of our culture. But God forbid we learn in a faith-religious way. God forbid. We must study in an enlightened way with a healthy skepticism, a complete critique of the text. Such a study that does not disable reason and makes it the slave of faith that leads the beguiled believer by the nose.
     We must also learn about the lack of morality in our tradition, about the stupidity and stupidity that our ancestors passed on to us. As well as for the beautiful, smart ideas they conceived, created and passed on to us. Such a study that you aim at is impurity and assigned because of disgust and harm to reason, morality, humanity, humanism and liberalism.
     Indeed, the seculars are divided into two main camps: the first are those who have had enough of religion and have thrown out the "baby with the bath water" and have given up all contact with Jewish culture while abandoning it to dark religious hands ignorant of religious belief. The two are the ones who have also given up on studying and studying, but at the same time they "respect" the religion/the religious and they sneer, rip off and cancel themselves in the face of any Dos Toran who quotes a few words from the sources and they - ignorant as they are - think that there is a quote from the "Words of the Living God".
     There is a small, marginal and tiny camp that maintains that the tradition and written materials of our cultures must be studied and not only the religious-religious ones but also those that the religious have censored, destroyed, distorted and castrated. For example: treasured scrolls and their meaning, the outer books, Spinoza and much more.
     Regarding the "test" you so long for: here is an exhaustive and instructive version of such a test:
     http://www.daatemet.org.il/index.cfm
     If you don't know - recommended.

637. Ofer,
     The essential difference between the giving of the Torah and the French Revolution is that the story of the giving of the Torah involves a supernatural element. Since you have never documented a supernatural event and more on such a scale in front of thousands of people, you can understand the doubt that the story arouses, can't you?

638. Dan Shamir-

     A. You claimed that I was confused and that the example of the French Revolution is full of contradictions - you didn't explain yourself, so I have no way to answer you
     B. At the heart of the whole debate here - I claim (and I'm not the only one) that the invention of an intelligent higher power that created the universe is (at least) one of the scientific solutions (I repeat - the scientific ones!) to many riddles of the universe. If someone wants to choose another solution - please. But why was he able to reject the solution of the presence of the Creator. Sometimes there is a feeling that the reason for this rejection is rooted in ancient emotional motives that may be related to the fact that if we accept this assumption, it could, perhaps, be binding on us (as Darwin's outstanding student - William Huxley - admitted at the end of his days that the reason he accepted the idea of ​​evolution was to give free rein to his creators...

639. to Ofer
     According to your answers, you didn't really understand what I wrote and I'm not sure if I continue to elaborate and comment it will change. For example, the 60% thing; I wasn't referring to percentages, I was referring to a certain principle (a certain kind of faith vs. knowledge like gravity). The French Revolution is a very bad example of your method: there is a lot of information about it from different types and different places. What to do, and the story of the giving of the Torah, although it is an event on a cosmic scale that is not really known, recorded, received attention from every single factor in the environment, and this also includes the event that preceded it, and was supposed to find some kind of expression, the Exodus from Egypt. So that's it, the Bible is a very shaky basis for information. The matter of the sin of the calf was not brought up here for a religious discussion; If according to the method of the Torah, despite this great show, the Israelites, after the ten plagues, plus the Red Sea, plus Haman, plus God on the mountain made a calf out of their own gold, they probably didn't buy the story either. Fact: until after the destruction of the First Temple, the vast majority did not buy this story and similar stories. And see when the first Passover was celebrated.
     Modern science does not refer to belief in God because it is a matter that cannot be refuted (then it is impossible to formulate it as a theory or something) and certainly it cannot be connected to any set relevant to scientific practice such as prediction, observations, etc. Its existence or non-existence is a matter outside of science. And if they connect and it turns out there isn't - then what, stop believing?

     I wouldn't go for Fred Hoyle; He was able, despite his disdainful sophistication about the competing model (Big Bang), to see how what he was fighting for collapses against the other model. And that, everything that was required of him in the first place has been proven.

     Intelligent design cannot be based on the entropic principle; So much Bardak in the foundation - and the enthusiasm that it didn't fall apart? Does this seem like a good plan to you? Or does the structure of the eye and the optic nerve also seem like this to you? The one who takes what is there and rapes it, is acceptable in braggadocio in army navigation. It didn't end well in the end either.
     Regarding Leibovitch, with your permission, I asked him what I asked. Your continuation of the fixed Torah and the fickle science is what gives because you do not understand what science is, how it works, why the matter of God and his existence cannot be part of some scientific discussion and so on. The Torah does not appreciate those who engage in science because it has no idea what it is.
     Hazari's explanations, with all due respect, are a somewhat pathetic attempt to deal with the contradictions, and their inventions are not based on the text but ignore it. Given their amusing freedom to do whatever they want with the texts of the Tanach, they really do not solve the problems in the text. Besides, what did you want, that they say there are two stories? With that they got stuck and that had to be solved. Please note: the text says very clear things, and if you want to say that the Torah is seventy, I tell you that the one who finds the Torah has no part in the world to come.
     No advice needed. I am Jewish, and the same problems exist in all religions that have a text collected from different sources and with different components - then the sacred becomes a binding canon.
     And definitely, good writing and signing and a happy and sweet new year.

640. to Ofer
     I am the same anonymous user and I hope that this time the system will accept my name.
     First of all, if I haven't mentioned it, I'm an atheist and therefore I don't have a mezuzah and I will certainly fast on Yom Kippur and I was also circumcised.
     I think you are a bit confused
     First of all you assume a strange premise that gives equal value to every conceptual thesis as well as equal value to every historical event.
     Comparisons to the French Revolution are ridiculous and full of logical contradictions.
     You are a bit confusing the words faith and knowledge
     Do you believe or know that the speed of light is 300000 km/h per second, I certainly know but you can always say
     which I have never really measured, the fact that no scientist has ever seen an electron.
     The only existing method for verifying knowledge is the scientific method and that is why you can argue whether there is a God or not but you would not think of arguing whether the electron exists, even if both have never been observed then they do not meet the same criteria of empirical verification.
     Your claims are accompanied by many tunes about emotion.
     You don't need to check everything in depth to criticize or rule it out, first of all the basic assumptions are checked and if they fail there is no need to continue.

641. Ofer about d what nonsense. To remind you, the solar system includes not only the Earth, but also seven other planets, thousands of asteroids and comets, and more. It is impossible to explain everyone's orbit (including the Earth) without the fact that they move around the Sun. The belief at the time of Copernicus was not only that the sun revolves around the earth, but that the earth is the center of the universe and that everything moves around it, and this is hidden by science.

642. For two thousand years the Jews did not meet each other, interesting. So how is it that there are Moroccan Jews with names like Weizmann? And how my mother's town in Poland (now Belorussia) was founded in the eighth century by Jews from Spain (then there were no Ashkenazim, they were exiled later). And these are just two examples.

643. Yoel - let's make an order:

     A. 60 percent of the world's population is not relevant enough (in your opinion)? - Why refer to the "half empty glass"
     B. Question - How do you know about the period of the French Revolution - What evidence do you have for this? - The evidence is simple: 1. Books written by people from that period, 2. People who passed the information from generation to generation.
     And that's how every historical event from times when neither you nor I were there - do you agree?
     How is the historical event of the giving of the Torah different from other historical events? - The same method of verifying a historical period is correct here as well. And beyond that:
     third. For 2000 years the Jews were scattered all over the globe without the ability to communicate with each other. 2000 years later the Jews return to their land with exactly the same tradition from where they started as a people. In my opinion, you also sit at the Seder table on the night of Passover and simply read Jewish history - where did we come from and how did it all begin and there is no tradition among any Jew anywhere in the world that contradicts this - think about it!
     d. And in general with regard to science - science, for its part, is constantly developing and changing. What was true in the past is not necessarily true today. I will give you a simple example that I think can challenge you:
     God. According to the Torah, the sun revolves around the earth! (You must be very angry about that...)
     Does science contradict this? Seemingly sure - Cuprincus and his friends, "and yet move and move"... (you probably know)
     But did you know that a few hundred years after Copernicus - Einstein and his theory of general relativity says that it is not possible to determine who revolves around whom - in the same way that one says that the earth revolves around the sun, I can say the opposite that the earth is stationary and the sun revolves around it (principle of equivalence in acceleration - in general relativity ).
     This is an interesting example of how the words of the Torah that were said thousands of years ago were not necessarily hidden by science and many times - the opposite is true!
     and. Regarding the sin of the calf that you mentioned - if you pay attention in the scriptures, the problem of the people of Israel was not the presence of the Creator but the presence of Moses. Moses disappeared to them (the commentators explain that this was a test for the people of Israel for their faith in Moses!! Not faith in the Creator! And this is the most simplistic explanation beyond many verses according to the secret and internalities of the Torah that there is no place to detail them here)
     Z. I do not agree with you that modern science does not refer to the existence of God and I will give you at the moment only two examples:
     1. There is a complete method in science that talks about the entropic principle - the fact that all the basic constants of nature are amazingly calibrated. There is a respected group of scientists all over the world who definitely believe that this indicates the planning of an intelligent higher power (I know there are also other interpretations. So what)
     2. The cosmologist - Fried Hoyle - one of the best cosmologists in our generation - definitely offers the possibility of an intelligent design that created the world based on the amazing design of creation (see his book - The Intelligent Universe)
     Regarding your question to Prof. Leibovitz - the question should be the other way around - why and how are the principles of faith and the Torah contained in science. Faith precedes science and not the other way around. The Torah is divine and does not change following the revelations of science, whose nature, as mentioned, is reversed, dynamic and changing (and this does not detract from the respect of science, whose honor is placed in its place; on the contrary, the Torah appreciates those who engage in science and encourages it)
     H. Regarding the story of creation - the first chapter explains in general that man was created from the beginning consisting of a male and female image. Sages explain that half of the haad was in the form of a male and the other half was in the form of a female. The second chapter describes the actual creation from the earth and wants to emphasize the two ends of man: on the one hand man originates from the earth - the lowest place and on the other hand the word "man" also means "earth to the highest" (a concept from the scriptures) which means that man has the ability to resemble his creator. These two extremes are actually the complexity of a person's life and the ongoing struggle between good and evil (it's really on one foot)
     ninth. Just a piece of advice - on the assumption that you are Jewish, leave you with examples from Christianity. We have enough problems with us…
     J. These days we wish each other good writing and signing. Happy new year (I hope you don't interpret my anti-scientific words...)
     Ofer.

644. A. You don't know about its existence, you believe. If you knew, you would have data, proofs that meet predetermined conditions, and all of this could be acceptable to everyone in the world. For example, the very fact that your God is not even relevant - from the essence and foundation - for 40% of the world's population (unlike gravity, for example) says Darshani. If God had to meet the requirements like a doctor in the sense of proof - so be it. But he didn't.
     B. X people or Y people were not present at the giving of the Torah; You know about the very existence of giving Torah from the Torah, and you do not have any external assistance for this. So? Given the refutations within the Torah, this is not really a good basis for knowledge (Question: Who is responsible for the fact that spies were sent: God? The people? Moses? The answer is according to the place in the Torah). You don't need a finding to contradict it, you need at least one finding to confirm it. What a shame, but there isn't. These numbers (millions) are absolutely unacceptable in the world at that time, certainly impossible without external reference. And external mention - none. By the way: if there was some kind of cosmic event like this, God appears, etc. - the very fact that those who were there did not buy it (the sin of the calf), suggests that it was not as you are told.
     d. Last first: modern science does not refer to the existence of God, because it is a matter that is not within science. If he was within science, he would have to formulate a refutable theory for its existence, and then test its validity in the light of prediction, proofs, etc. You know it wouldn't have worked, beyond the fact that the existence of such an entity is irrelevant to the research itself. Beyond that, the two main teachings that stand in front of the religious message - the big bang and evolution - simply do not need God. just like that. And again: the fact that there are believing scientists means that there is such a thing, believing scientists. This, in itself, lacks any value whatsoever (but it is important for those who live by some authority or another). I asked Yeshayahu Leibovich why he does not include the principles of his science on faith in general and the acceptance of Halacha in particular: "Because that's what I decided." With this, we are not progressing anywhere.
     third. before the last:
     Creation of the world, story one
     XNUMX And God said, Let the earth be grass, grass that sows seed, and a fruit tree that bears fruit of its kind, whose seed is on the earth; And so it was. XNUMX And the earth will grow grass that sows seed, according to its kind, and a tree that bears fruit in which its seed is planted, according to its kind; And God saw that it was good
     story b
     And every bush of the field has not yet been in the land, and every herb of the field has not yet grown
     - and this is without referring to the gap between the act of creation itself in chapter A and that in chapter B, including a timetable

     human creation a
     We will make man in our image after our likeness; And they came down in the fish of the sea and in the fowl of the sky, and in the beast and in all the land, and in all the trampling, the trampling on the earth. XNUMX And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him: male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, and subdue it; And come down in the fish of the sea, and in the fowl of the sky, and in every living thing that moves on the earth. XNUMX And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed: you shall have Yes, to eat

     creation of man b
     Jehovah God created man, dust from the ground, and breathed into his mouth, the breath of life; And man became a living soul. XNUMX And Jehovah God erred, in the Garden of Eden; And he put there, the man he had created. XNUMX And the Lord God grew out of the ground every tree that is pleasant to look at, and good for food - and the tree of life, in the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. XNUMX And Jehovah God took the man; And they rested in Eden, to worship and guard it. XNUMX And Jehovah God commanded the man to say: Of every tree of the garden you may eat. XNUMX And the tree, the knowledge of good and evil - you shall not eat from it: because, on the day you eat from it - you will die. XNUMX And Jehovah God said, It is not good for man to be alone; I will help him, against him. XNUMX And Jehovah God created from the ground, every animal of the field and every bird of the sky, and he came to the man to see what he would call him; And everything that man calls a living soul, that is his name. XNUMX And the man called names, to every beast and to the bird of the sky, and to every beast of the field; And for Adam, he did not find help against him. XNUMX And Jehovah God caused sleep to fall on the man, and he slept; And he took one of his ribs, and closed the flesh, and married. XNUMX And Jehovah God made the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman; And he brought her to the man. XNUMX And he said, Man, this time is bone of my flesh, and flesh of my flesh; That is why it is called a woman, because it is taken from a man. Likewise, a man will leave his father and his mother; And he clung to his wife, and they were of one flesh. So they were both naked, the man and his wife; And no, they will be confused.

     Note that in the first story, God creates a male and a female at the same time, saying, with great power, "in our image, in our likeness," and sends them to rule over the whole world
     In the second story, he creates a man from the earth physically, doesn't really know what to do with him (nowadays they call it trial and error), sends the man to be a gardener and guardian, not at all similar to the initial vocation, and then creates the woman from his body. And yes, this person is an absolute scumbag. The name - God versus Jehovah God - is not the same either. In short: everyone who reads - and does not believe - sees two different stories. The believer is forced to improvise and above all to make excuses. Why? Because he believes that the sanctity of the canon must not be violated. Where did it come from? Go read about different sources for the creation story and about different traditions in your Bible.
     And all this, pay close attention, without going into fundamental problems within each and every story.

     And what did you think, that they would let these problems destroy the source of their faith?
     Do you think that the absurd contradictions in Christianity (which are nothing less than an insult to mediocre intelligence) prevented them from both making excuses, and living with it in peace, and succeeding on any historical scale?
     You may not know, but the Holy Trinity is from the beginning of creation, but Jesus was born only 2000 years ago; Jesus atoned for all sins with the crucifixion, but came to the cross because others hurt him; that the gospels (the four that are accepted) are divine truth, but there are many contradictions in them and more and more.
     And that, after all, is what is beautiful about faith. On the other hand, she has nothing to do in a world that requires a different set of requirements, such as science.

645. to Joel

     A. I also have a complete set of basic elements of knowledge about the meaning of the fact that there is a creator of the world - and you are indeed right, I do not believe in a creator of the world - I know for sure about his existence. Just as you know for sure based on the same set of basic knowledge elements that you should listen to a doctor even though you never studied medicine.
     B. Judaism, too, and on an infinitely larger scale, is proven at least by the same types of proofs that we know about various historical events: at the giving of the Torah, millions of people were present who saw the status of the Ten Commandments. Those millions passed on what they saw and heard to the next generation and so on throughout the generations. There is no evidence to contradict this. And by the way - Judaism is the only one that claims that the divine revelation was not for one individual or with it individuals, but for many millions - a very significant point.
     third. Regarding the various stories of creation - write me what you mean - is it the stories that appear in chapter XNUMX and in Genesis - if so the solution is simple - and all the Torah commentators have insisted on this. (I will write you the solution if you write me what you meant)
     D.. I remind you again that many of the leaders of modern physics and biology are people who accept the idea of ​​a Creator who created the cosmos - their scientific work does not conflict with this but only confirms it

646. to the anonymous user

     A. There is no doubt that no one needs the right or morality to be or to be called a Jew
     There is also no need to argue about it, it is simply an existing fact and I agree with you that there is no point and there is no intention to prove it either
     B. The point is that my father argued why should I do research on the Torah of Israel, since it is equally possible to research the other religions, etc. and I answered him that simple logic requires that someone who goes against his religion, his past and his Judaism should very well research and check what is the religion he is going against and that his religion has the right to go ahead that he tests other religions

     third. What does it have to do with homosexual or heterosexual relationships - you probably didn't understand me. Don't you agree that a person who opposes any ideological thesis must check it carefully before he breaks it down?
     How can you come out against Judaism without having examined it?
     d. Check carefully and you will see that you were indeed right - you never scientifically checked that your mother is your biological mother
     And you simply choose to believe it for very logical reasons. In this way the Jewish faith - its truth comes from many logical reasons that support this faith
     God. After all, your words mean that you did not get to open a book of Jewish thought in depth and there is no problem - that is your full right. But this morally stops you from attacking the same Judaism that I am sure you also maintain its part. (Correct me if I'm wrong - even without knowing you - you have a mezuzah on your door, you fast on Yom Kippur and you were circumcised - completely unscientific acts. Was I right?)

647. Answer to Levin:
     You gave many quotes, some of them inaccurate, but I will try to answer briefly.

     Intermediate stages - due to the rare coincidence that is needed to create fossils there will always be "missing intermediate stages", however we are constantly reading about more and more fossils being found and giving an explanation for different intermediate stages. Besides, when an intermediate stage is found, creationists immediately jump up and say "it's a dinosaur/bird and not an intermediate stage, where is the intermediate stage between them?". The full picture will probably never be revealed, but even if a few pieces of the puzzle are missing, the picture can be seen quite clearly.

     The origin of life - naturally it is not possible to go back in time and see what happened. Today, scientists are trying to reproduce all kinds of processes of creating substances important to life spontaneously with success. To say that there is a perfect explanation - there is not, but there is no connection between it and evolution. As I wrote in the article "From the moment life appeared there is evolution"

     DNA confirmations - I don't understand what you are trying to say. Is there no connection between animals with evolutionary kinship and homology in their genes? nonsense! Long and branching phylogenetic trees can be constructed which give results very similar to information obtained from fossils and many other methods. Regarding the matter of genetic mutations, changes do not have to be specific. One of the differences between us and monkeys is a rather dramatic change in one of the chromosomes. Usually such dramatic changes are tragic (eg Down syndrome), but there are rarely surprises.

     The last quote is too general for me to address.

     Now I have a question for you and I ask you to answer me in your own words without copy paste - what bothers you about evolution? What about this wonderful mechanism disturbs your rest?

648. to Ofer
     Well, what to do and you have a conceptual error. I have a complete set of basic knowledge elements about the meaning of the doctor's professional knowledge and of medicine itself. This is not a belief, this is knowledge that has not been tested individually and ad hoc but is part of a larger set of contemporary human knowledge.
     In the matter of the believing person - exactly the opposite. The medical knowledge and the knowledge imparted to the doctor and the knowledge that the doctor should have are proven matters on a tremendous scale. What is not proven, but works by virtue of other systems, is whether this doctor in making this determination with this medicine did not mess up. That's a completely different matter. It really cannot work in religion, when, for example, there are two different creation stories for the world and two different creation stories for man - and yet the codex of these stories is perceived as truth.
     I read one or two books, in attempts to sort out the problems there (and in hundreds of other places in your book). Beyond everything, including pathetic failures, it seems to me that putting the concept of "research" doesn't really sit well with you.
     Regarding the great men of Israel who did not lose their faith despite the contradictions, this, for example, is as far from argument and research as east from west. So they don't. So? People who believe - in Judaism, Christianity, Communism and much more - arrange for themselves very impressive systems of life with contradiction. In any case, once upon a time the possibility that there was no supreme being at all was not on the agenda. For several hundred years yes.
     Regarding the Rambam, you are wrong here as well. First, I know most intimately people who have studied it, even though they are not religious. Beyond that, if the Rambam had succeeded - and he failed like Descartes, for example - we would not be discussing the issue. We were convinced, weren't we?
     But the very fact that it is a matter of convincing a person by a person about the existence of a being of the order of magnitude like God, shows that something is fundamentally flawed.
     Surely there are such scientists. So?
     One thing they didn't do: they didn't apply the scientific rule set to their faith. Therefore, it is belief, not knowledge.
     Jump to conclusions and I'm not good friends.

649. Ofer
     Your arguments are populist and superficial.
     First of all, since when does someone have a right or morality to be what they were born to be, it sounds like you are not sure of your Jewishness and therefore need to check and prove to yourself again and again, but I am as sure of being Jewish as I am sure of being a man and I am not required to stand naked all day in front of the mirror to prove it to myself.
     The argument that gives immunity from criticism to those who have not opened a page of Gemara, studied Talmud, etc. is particularly lame:
     After all, on the same principle I can ask you (if you are heterosexual) have you tried homosexual relationships,
     Did you take LSD? Why not, how do you know you're not gay if you haven't tried.
     The argument about faith in the doctor and his expertise is already too stupid to consider, you will soon ask how I know that my mother is really my mother because I did not see the birth.
     This is not a "values" seminar, respect the people here a little more.

650. Retarded religious people, if you didn't throw yourselves at the seculars, I promise you wouldn't be "crucified", stop making retarded laws that affect us too, and if you don't, don't be here because you are only doing bad things, no army, no work, and anyone who says there is no such thing as evolution should keep pushing their heads. His in the fiction book was a joke

651. Who told you I didn't check?

     Just if you have time, feel free to see lots of holes in your religious theory,
     http://www.youtube.com/user/NuBemet?feature=chclk

652. I am amused by all the people who lose their faith in evolution
     As an "abstract" scientific topic, but not in the development of antibiotics
     (which of course depends on the laws of evolution) and the laws and forces of nature (which they discovered
     Einstein and Newton and does not believe that God created them) and in the end,
     Everything discovered and created by scientists is used by these people
     They accept - and all the rest will be kept away. In my opinion, these are crooks they found
     Hordes of fools to rule over them through a dubious "religion".

653. A response to Joel

     A. The assumptions you make about the doctor are beliefs. You didn't go check them out yourself
     B. In your opinion - check and see that the assumptions that a person who believes that the Torah is true are at least as correct and solid as the assumptions you make about the "doctor"
     Regarding the contradictions in the Torah - check yourself - when did you do real research about these contradictions - when did you last open Jewish research books on these contradictions. Doesn't it amaze you that all the talk about real, rational research that you advocate regarding some scientific thesis, doesn't apply to you when you encounter contradictions from the Torah?
     Why are you exempting yourself from a thorough examination of these contradictions - you may find that these contradictions can be reconciled.
     After all, with all due respect to you, the great men of Israel for hundreds of years and more encountered these contradictions and it did not cause them to lose faith - there are answers to these contradictions - just start looking, don't be so shallow
     third. Regarding Rambam - once again you suffer from a lack of in-depth tests. Maimonides faced many heretical claims to such an extent that he was forced to compose his book - "Teacher of Confusion" - a wonderful logical book according to the method of Torah Israel
     A book in which Maimonides confronts alleged claims of lack of faith on various subjects
     d. You must be aware of the fact that even in our time there are many scientific people who believe in the most important fields of science - modern physics, molecular biology and more. If you want, I will tell you later

     God. The most important thing - Yoel - check things carefully before you come to hasty conclusions - this is not the way of serious scientists...

654. -Avi-

     To your question why do an in-depth study of Torah Israel-
     Two simple answers

     A. Allow me to assume that you are Jewish and if so you have a glorious Jewish culture and past when most religions admit that they will purge their Torah from Judaism. Are you not interested in checking what it means to be "Jewish"?
     Every serious scientist bases his discoveries and theories on the work of past scientists
     Why do you choose to deny your Jewish past?
     It is true that there are many religions, but you are Jewish and logic says that the right of way for your research is Judaism?
     If you examine Judaism in depth and find that it is all nonsense - Ahl'n and Sahl'n - you will have a moral right to claim that you do not accept the Torah of Israel - but without checking? My father is neither serious nor scientific.
     It can't be that something from your past makes you hate Judaism so much? - otherwise it's simply inexplicable
     Your so irrational opposition to the Torah that laid the foundation stones of all human morality and belief in one God.

     Good luck, father.

655. Ofer "When you go to the doctor and he gives you medicine
     do you take Why? Because you believe him
     You didn't test the medicine scientifically, you just trust and believe the doctor
     Your life is based on faith - check yourself!
     How is your belief in a doctor different from the belief of a person who believes in the scriptures and the sages of the scriptures
     (All the great men of Israel, including famous scientists such as Maimonides)"

     Here is an error (one)
     You don't believe the doctor, you are starting from a series of assumptions that connect his own studies to medical knowledge. And, in principle and very widely, it works. Fact.

     Another one: the scriptures have essential contradictions within them and essential contradictions with proven bodies of knowledge outside of them.

     And more: the Rambam's knowledge, with all due respect, does not really meet contemporary standards. At the time, there was no cognitive option, certainly not a body of knowledge, that allowed us to imagine that there is no higher power.

656. Why do an in-depth study of the Torah of Israel and not Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Proslav Christianity, Shiite Islam? There are hundreds if not thousands of religions, science on the other hand has only one.

657. For age

     When you go to the doctor and he gives you medicine
     do you take Why? Because you believe him
     You didn't test the medicine scientifically, you just trust and believe the doctor
     Your life is based on faith - check yourself!
     How is your belief in a doctor different from the belief of a person who believes in the scriptures and the sages of the scriptures
     (All the great men of Israel, including famous scientists such as Maimonides, etc.)
     Someone here checked the truths of the religion - someone here read deep reference books on the Torah of Israel
     Is anyone here able to decipher a Gemara page or page number of any Kabbalah?
     You didn't even bother to check!
     Is this how scientists who seek the truth behave?
     Do a deep scientific study on the Torah of Israel and then we will be happy to hear your religious Torah opinion
     Accept it as a challenge not to fight back
     Successfully

658. In my opinion, there is no need to find a path that will allow both camps to exist peacefully.

     Should we apologize for the fact that evolution is true and faith is an imaginary invention?

     The belief is not scientific at all and therefore for me it is an insult to intelligence, (the little I have).

     Science marches us forward, religion is a stop, a step forward.

659. To score: -0

660. Apparently, "Vanuch found favor in God's eyes" so he performed a miracle for him and put all the animals in the ark 🙂
     It is useless to prove to a religious person about evolution.
     Fact vs. legend is not just a rhyme.

     The Catholic Church wanted to thwart Galileo for saying the Earth was not the center of the universe.

     And then she changed her version.

     Apparently history repeats itself and religion will change its version over the generations...

661. Finally someone writes clearly.. and mainly concentrates.. and can therefore explain and convince.
     There is a "mathematical" evolution that describes a picture of the world if certain axioms which of course do not need to be repeated:
     1) A world where there is inheritance of traits
     2) A world where there are errors in inheritance from time to time.
     3) A world where there are pressures from the environment due to which only a part of life survives enough to create another generation.

     It is.. in such a world there is evolution... it can be a computer or biological world or a work of imagination, when these features exist there is evolution. I don't know a world that doesn't have these qualities.

     All the rest of the debate about evolution, about measurements - i.e. how much and how and when... here too there is clear evidence for the scientific theory of describing the sequence of events - dinosaurs, monkeys and the like... but the essence still does not change..
     There is evolution and it cannot be contradicted...!

     Let's agree on this point.. the stupid deaf discourse (and there is criticism mainly of the creationists for their share - because they out of fear do not understand the point .. but not only them) will stop and it will be possible to talk about the measurements...

662. Yair,

     The definition given by the writer is the precise and dry definition. Indeed, hereditary traits are expressed in alleles. On the other hand, it is sometimes not convenient to look at the resolution of alleles, largely because genetics is still a young field (!) and it is preferable to look at the size of bones, height, and other physical characteristics that have a hereditary element.

663. Isn't the author's definition of evolution - "the scientific definition of evolution is "a change in the distribution of alleles in a given genetic pool over the generations" - jarring?
     I looked at the Hebrew Wikipedia and it does give the same definition, but the English one gives a different definition - is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of individuals.
     That sounds much better to me.

664. I really liked the calculation of the volume of the box and I intend to use it in future (futile) debates.
     There is of course room to improve the calculation. For example, to check the volume of the food consumed by each pair, the minimum volume of passages, the living volume of each species compared to its theoretical volume, and more.
     In the past I mentioned here that I always use the argument of Noah's ark like this: if pairs came out of the ark on Mount Ararat, and spread over the earth, how is it that you will not find a single skeleton of a kangaroo in Turkey?
     In short, I really liked it. Thanks.

665. The discussion as usual is absurd. Evolution is a scientific theory, which means: there are assumptions that must be disproved, there are studies, there are findings, there is a body of knowledge that corrects itself, adds, omits, etc. Bad). Regarding the evidence: what to do and there is a lot, including matters of replication, DNA, RNA and other basic elements including known encounters with natural selection right in front of our eyes (and the white and black moth in Britain in the XNUMXs is one photogenic example out of thousands).

     What is opposed is a story, or rather stories, which both contradict themselves, are also hidden in other cases by known facts and above all - in the face of the great body of evidence that accompanies evolution - without a single proof.

     And if there are stories, then why not others? Why is Genesis more valid than the Hindu proposition?

666. Dear Levin,

     I love fanatics like you. They do "copy-paste" without understanding anything in an overflow of foam and enthusiasm. I didn't have the time or desire to read all this nonsense out of context, but your reasonable quote caught my eye. It happens to be one of the most famous evolutionary scientists, Steven Gold. By the way - Dr. Michael Avraham also distorted his quotes in the past on YNET. As an introduction to the character and the subject of evolution, I decided to do what people think they do (you should take an example) and... I searched for the quote on Google (genius move, indisputable!)

     http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Stephen_Jay_Gould_say_that_fossil_evidence_completely_contradicts_natural_selection

     What Gold actually said is this - in my opinion species remain relatively constant for a long time and then undergo relatively rapid changes. This is not a contradiction to evolution, but it is a statement regarding the distribution of its rates - that is, it is not fixed in time but sometimes, in certain dynasties, there are periods when it is very fast, slow, and God forbid. This is an old and interesting debate among evolutionists. Why would there be differences in rates? Because the rates are largely dictated by the environmental factors and the other players in the system. For example, after a mass extinction there will be many empty niches and rapid evolution of the surviving lineages (and few fossils to tell us about it).

     Also, Gold is a seasoned writer. In the last twenty years there have been many discoveries of intermediate stages in many dynasties. I will only mention the Goi microraptor (a member of the Archeopteryx), the tictaalic, and more or less all the intermediate stages from the terrestrial mammals to the leviathans (I think about 6-7 defined intermediate stages).

     And in conclusion - you should use what is above the neck.

667. Levin,

     How much nonsense in one message? For every quote you brought here, you can bring 1000 that contradict them.
     Besides, how many times can it be said that evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life? Evolution began after the creation of the first replicating molecule and has little to say about its creation. This is what the theories of abiogenesis talk about and indeed there is not yet one that is accepted by all researchers. On the other hand, evolution is accepted because it is based on millions of experiments and observations. From bacteria to breeding, from medicine through molecular biology, genetic engineering to agriculture, all biological development is based on evolution.

     Secondly, there is no confirmation in DNA for evolution? You made me laugh. Instead of looking for so many bizarre quotes you will learn a little, not a lot, a little, about taxonomy and phylogenetic trees and then we will talk about whether or not there is confirmation in DNA.

668. There was a nice discussion here until you couldn't hold back again and decided to enter religiously, so get out of your sight and stop driving people away from this site with all your anti

669. Is there no science in evolution?
     Say, are you on antibiotics? Why not take an antibiotic from fifty years ago, if there is no evolution, how exactly do the bacteria develop resistance against it? It's about the inventor of penicillin that you quote out of context.
     And next time, every messenger of a different truth, a site that sends people here to sabotage discussions about evolution, global warming, vaccines, will be blocked. I already know your pattern (via Ron)

670. Evidence for evolution in fossils? Gornish

     "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution."
     (Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University.)

     "Darwin's evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of scientific and social progress....The secular myths of evolution have had a damaging effect on scientific research, leading to distortion, to unnecessary controversy, and to gross misuse of science... I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling.”
     (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

     Evidence for evolution in the origin of life? Gornish

     "There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

     George Wald, prominent Evolutionist (a Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate

     DNA confirmation? Gornish

     Richard C. Strohman, professor emeritus of molecular and cell biology at Berkeley, and an evolutionist, wrote in the March 1997 edition of Nature Biotechnology:

     "There is a striking lack of correspondence between genetic and evolutionary change. Neo-Darwinian theory predicts a steady, slow continuous, accumulation of mutations (microevolution) that produces a progressive change in morphology leading to new species, genera, and so on (macroevolution). But macroevolution now appears to be full of discontinuities (punctuated evolution), so we have a mismatch of some importance. That is, the fossil record shows mostly stasis, or lack of change, in a species for many millions of years; there is no evidence there for gradual change even though, in theory, there must be a gradual accumulation of mutations at the micro level.”

     "We currently have no adequate explanation for stasis or for punctuated equilibrium in evolution, or for higher order regulation in cells."

     "We seem to lack any scientific basis with which to explain, for example, evolution."

     "Not necessarily so. It does suggest, however, that our evolutionary theory is incomplete.”

     "The theory is in trouble because it insists on locating the driving force solely in random mutations."

     "It is becoming clear that sequence information in DNA, by itself, contains insufficient information for determining how gene products (proteins) interact to produce a mechanism of any kind. The reason is that the multicomponent complexes constructed from many proteins are themselves machines with rules of their own; rules not written in DNA.”

     "The rules... of brain formation are not reducible to genetic maps and to the rules of genetic theory. Each higher level of organization has its own rules, and there is no continuous gradual transition from one level or hierarchy to the other.”

     "We have been lulled into reasoning that if the gene theory works at one level - from DNA to protein - it must work at all higher levels as well. We have thus extended the theory of the gene to the realm of gene management. But gene management is an entirely different process, involving interactive cellular processes that display a complexity that may only be described as transcalculational, a mathematical term for mind boggling."

     "Understanding of complex function may in fact be impossible without recourse to influences outside of the genome.

     In evolution, everything is the hand of the imagination, where is the science? Gournicht mit nicht

     "Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts.... These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.”
     (Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)

671. No one has proven that there is gravity (in the sense of waves, rays
     or any other form of influence of a body on its environment - any
     What we see are only bodies that for some reason fall on top of each other)
     That's why believers can jump out of a plane in the middle of the night
     And God will surely save them...

672. I so hate religious people or anyone who believes in the nonsense that bored people from 2000 years ago wrote. When they dictate a way of life for people in the modern era. Annie understands what can make a person believe in such nonsense, just nonsense!

673. Since the pantheists use false generalizations to convince their listeners, the false generalization "Creationists are Christians" can do a good job against them.

674. It doesn't matter what the source of creationism is, at the moment it advocates a fairly literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, and therefore it is protected by all the believers, from John Dembsky through Amnon Yitzchak to Haron Rashid.

675. Creationism is something invented by Christian entities. And there is something in Christianity that many people have forgotten. The Holy Scriptures are not only the Holy Bible and the New Testament but other books. One of them is Aristotle's philosophy books. I haven't really delved into those books, but I know they have all kinds of scientific theories that were later found to be wrong. For example that the earth is in the center and the sun revolves around it or that a large body falls faster than a small body. Just for comparison, in Genesis it is written that there is a small and a large light, but it is not written who revolves around whom. That is why Galileo is a heretic, because he is against Aristotle and not against the Book of Genesis.
     Apparently this is also the source of creationism.

676. I still prefer Dawkins - there is no need at all to reconcile contradictions, because the Tanakh is a book of legends written by people in their time, and especially when the Jews were not known for their advanced science compared to the Greeks and Babylonians and even the Egyptians.
     And all this certainly and certainly against the background of the shaky scientific knowledge when you look at it in today's perspective, it is not fundamentally different from the folk tales of the Maya, of the Lectan tribes in Africa or any other mythological book.

677. "There is no contradiction between evolution and the Torah" quote from Rabbi Shlomo Aviner

     Attached is a link to his words which are an answer to the question that was asked.

     http://www.kipa.co.il/jew/%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94/45737.html

     Using this link I convinced a co-worker (religious of course) that evolution does not contradict God or the Torah.

     First time in my life that I encountered a religious person who changed his mind on something so fundamental for the religious community, (this says more about my colleague than about me, she is one of the best people I know)

678. The article is good. It is better than Dawkins's approach, which forces those who agree with the choice of the theory of evolution to recognize their atheistic belief. Some even observe evolution and come to the conclusion that there is one.

     The situation today is that in modern countries the belief in the theory of evolution is 50:50. And in such a situation
     Elitist behavior like Dawkins is similar to the adherence of a part of the left to the issue of deprivation of the Palestinians while ignoring the need of Jewish and Arab Israelis for a social left combined with a security right.

     The transition to the new website format - many veteran participants have disappeared - not all of the new is better than the old. Where are Sabradmish Yehuda and others?

679. Well done...excellent article...finally there is no anti-religion and a true explanation of the theory of evolution is always welcome..

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.