The book, by Jerry A. Kevin, was recently published by the Attic Books and Yediot Books
The science site reluctantly serves as a source of basic science information for the population that does not happen to have anything to do with biology studies - Ridiculous, i.e. the lucky biology students who study five units in high school and whose school management happened to decide to choose the authority point that deals with evolution.
The phenomenon of denying evolution and replacing it with some religious belief in the form of creationism or its politically correct descent - intelligent planning, which began in the United States, is spreading throughout the world, even in enlightened countries such as Britain, not to mention religiously oriented countries such as Turkey, and also in Israel, in recent years, even if they teach Some of the basics of evolution in schools (the variety of species, for example) do not mention the explicit word evolution in order not to upset the ultra-Orthodox. And so also the students of the state schools, whose numbers are getting smaller anyway, receive censored science.
The book "Why Evolution is Right" by Jerry A. was recently published in the translation of Adi Marcuse-Hess. Kevin, translated by Adi Marcuse-Hess. Kevin is a professor of biology at the University of Chicago. It focuses on evolutionary genetics and the origin of new species.
First and foremost, the writer noticed a great lack of knowledge of what evolution is, not through the filter of the opponents of evolution (and by the way, also in Israel, Amnon Yitzchak and Zamir Cohen have had a 'success' in studying their description of evolution A.B.). As a result the opponents adopt such illogical arguments, but they don't realize it.
This failure has several layers, firstly, the inability to understand the dimension of time, meaning that not everything you see today is the situation that has always been, and in this evidence, species have always changed between them. Another layer is the inability to understand how a fairly simple process - natural selection - can lead to such a large variety of living creatures with all the wealth of features such as the camouflage of the octopus or the beauty of the peacock's tail. In fact, it is a fairly simple algorithm that is also implemented in computers - the ability to make small random changes in each generation, with a mechanism that preserves most of the genes, gives amazing results after a small number of generations.
Why Evolution Is True is a concise, accessible and fascinating summary of the facts supporting Darwin's theory of evolution. These days scientists are finding species branching off from previous species, watching natural selection changing animals and plants right before our eyes and discovering more and more fossils that testify to changes that took place in the distant past: dinosaurs that grew feathers, fish that grew limbs and more.
The trigger that prompted Quinn to write the book was a trial dubbed the '21st Century Monkey Trial' in Dover, Pennsylvania, in 2005, when parents and scientists challenged the local high school's requirement that students read a message stating that evolution is not certain to be true, and that there are also theories Alternatives. In the announcement that the biology teachers were asked to read (and refused), it was suggested that the students read the book "On the Pandas and People", which promotes the theory of intelligent design.
Judge John Jones, from the federal court in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, appointed to his position by President Bush Sr., and considered a religious believer, surprised when he unequivocally stated that intelligent design is a religion in disguise or recycled creationism (an attempt to call creationism by another name to avoid from a religious connotation AB), and it should not be taught due to the provision for the separation of religion from the state in the American Constitution.
In this book, Kevin gathers evidence from a variety of different scientific fields, to show the complete picture, which, according to him, is also not available to some scientists who each specialize in their field.
As someone who has been dealing with the issue for many years, I feel that the creationists are not even playing on the same playing field as the scientists but demand to change the playing field completely and recognize their nonsense as science. It doesn't matter how much they explain to them that they built a scarecrow of evolution and that they are collapsing and not the real science, it will go in one ear and out the other without even going through the brain. They always come up with arguments for evolution, but if you push them against the wall, they will say that they have no alternative explanation, but only an uncomfortable feeling from the evolutionary explanation. Although skepticism is a good thing, but that's not how you build science, because you can't be skeptical in the face of such a huge abundance of evidence, even in this book only some of it appears.
By the way, Kevin is wrong about one thing, in the introduction he states several times that there is no other science that receives so much distrust. It is not true that there is no other science that is condemned to be denied and precisely by the same people and bodies that deny evolution - climate science.
We will soon publish a chapter from the book.
96 תגובות
That's exactly the point. You wrote the usual nonsense of dogs will remain dogs and after all, a few million years ago there were no dogs.
You are not in a position to determine this, where did you get the courage to make such a firm statement, you have the solutions.
Apart from evolution elegantly explaining their existence from some mammalian ancestor, how did they come to be?
I return to my original question? How exactly does an intelligent builder work?
http://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%91%D7%99%D7%95%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94#section_1
Mathematical Biology
I didn't understand - do you accept the development of new species??
abc Where did I claim that I do not accept the development of new species? I was specifically talking about a new type of creature, not changes within the species itself (such as dogs, certain plants, etc.).
Eric, what is the connection between bioinformatics and the claim of common descent?
Mathematical Biology
You write "What makes you think that billions of generations of cats won't remain cats?"
1. The evidence supports the belief that 100 million years ago there were no cats, dogs or any known species of mammal or bird at all.
2. Today we see a high rate of extinction - a species of mammal goes extinct every 200 years. There are about 5000 species of mammals. That is - (to a first approximation) there is no reason to think that even one species of mammal will survive in another million years.
1:0 for science 🙂
Want another round??
"Regarding the phylogeny of the ttss. As far as I remember what they found is that ttss is more common and appeared later than the shuton in terms of the molecular clock.
Not all parts of the rod have homologues. The bat shares only 10 of them with the ttss. It should be noted that a transition between two very similar (homologous) proteins may be impossible in terms of geological time. According to my calculation (especially in "developed" fortifications), a change requiring only 2-3 mutations could take hundreds of millions of years."
Mr. Biology, I do not come from the field of biology, everything I wrote referred to something you wrote:
You wrote that the ttss is 'placed high on the phylogenetic scale' and I told you that it is certainly placed high because it is at the end of the evolutionary tree (it is modern) and there is still homology between it and phleglum, even though *functionally* they are different. This is Dr. Miller's claim,
Keep arguing with him.
" Definitely. But it has no practical meaning. And those who claim that it is, can bring creationism into the matter as well. which in my opinion is even more practical than evolution. If we were to follow the creationist line, we would not claim that so many organs are useless (something that has been proven wrong nearly 100 times), and we would not have received scientific scandals like the man from Nebraska and the man from Piltdown and the fetus of Hekel and the like."
A. In Galileo Galilei's time, was there any significance to the fact that the sun revolves around the earth or vice versa? Does it scientifically matter? 'And yet, move, move.' This is the meaning of science. Maybe according to the church it was not 'practical' enough?
When you refer to the question of whether it is 'practical' or not, you introduce the human factor, and then you also do not investigate objectively, the objective reality is not related to one set of values or another, it simply exists.
B. If it is still 'practical' in your eyes: (Fieldtown, Nebraska, Hakel) then study bioinformatics, because there are tools there that use evolutionary models, take these tools and build a predication that will verify your hypotheses, to be honest I'm not sure there are any because in light of your words I'm afraid that it's not 'practical' enough in your eyes (maybe it's 'practical' theologically, mainly for the purposes of polemics and that's why you're here..)
"It is certainly possible that dogs and wolves have a common ancestor, sharing the same genes. I don't know if mapping the wolf genome found different genes that don't exist in dogs"
So why do you claim that one species of animal cannot evolve into another species?
Here is just an example of one of the dangers, see response number 3:
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4359241,00.html
It is certainly possible that dogs and wolves have a common ancestor, sharing the same genes. I don't know if mapping the wolf genome found different genes that don't exist in dogs.
Regarding the phylogeny of the ttss. As far as I remember what they found is that ttss is more common and appeared later than the shuton in terms of the molecular clock.
Not all parts of the rod have homologues. The bat shares only 10 of them with the ttss. It should be noted that a transition between two very similar (homologous) proteins may be impossible in terms of geological time. According to my calculation (mainly in "developed" fortifications), a change requiring only 2-3 mutations may take hundreds of millions of years.
Regarding the watch and the computer. So is it possible to switch from a watch to a computer in gradual steps or not?
"The question of whether it is a code engineered as is or whether the parts in it have evolutionary connections is not a biological scientific question? "- Definitely. But it has no practical meaning. And those who claim that it is, can bring creationism into the matter as well. which in my opinion is even more practical than evolution. If we were to follow the creationist line, we would not claim that so many organs are useless (something that has been proven wrong nearly 100 times), and we would not have received scientific scandals like the man from Nebraska and the man from Philtdown and the fetus of Hekel and the like.
B- Who claimed that a bacterium is a cat? And Shmulik - even according to evolutionary science, there are only two possibilities
But even if mathematical biology (is the name mathematical biology Shinoga's evolution?) is right and evolution as we understand it today is wrong, how exactly does an intelligent construct work and operate? Is it responsible for moving each and every atom in every living cell?
"Bugs remain germs and cats remain cats."
Mathematical Biology:
You make claims that none of the biologists make. Then you argue your claims instead of actually trying to understand what the biologists are saying.
No biologist claims that a bacterium is a cat.
Nor do they claim that a cat is a tiger.
The claim is that the cat and the tiger have a common origin.
Creationists as usual distort the claims of biologists.
The creationists declare that the biologists' claim is that man was born from the ape.
This is not the claim of the biologists!
Biologists claim that man and the universe have a common origin.
This is a completely different claim.
Those who want to understand research.
Whoever wants to be right argues, twists arguments, twists proofs, provided that he comes out "right".
Regarding what you wrote that 'the claim of common descent has nothing to do with biology' are you serious? The question whether it is a code that was engineered as is or the parts in it have evolutionary connections is not a biological scientific question? Let's say that the question of whether or not the theory of relativity is true has no practical implications yet is fundamental in terms of understanding how things work. And this is a physical question
Biology, you're just breaking down the things I said into meaningless sentences
You wrote that the ttss is 'placed high on the phylogenetic scale' and I answered you that it is certainly placed high because it is at the end of the evolutionary tree (it is modern) and there is still homology between it and phleglum even though *functionally* they are different. Regarding your analogy of a watch and a computer, you wrote that they have components with a similar function, if they really are functionally different, the analogy should compare it to a watch and a computer that have a common code (if there could be such a thing) even though they are functionally different.
Are you aware that all dogs of their various types evolved from wolves?
Do you think they are considered animals of the same species?
Mathematical Biology
Just endless fossils, genetic records, etc.
What exactly do you think the intelligent builder does and how?
Miracles, bacteria remain bacteria and cats remain cats. No matter how many times they reproduce. Think about it this way: the number of species on Earth is at least a few million, multiply that by the recorded number of generations, multiply that by the population size of each species, and you get billions of real-time trials. And we've never seen a creature that slowly evolves into a new kind of creature. In fact, bacteria have existed on Earth for hundreds of millions of years. That means billions of generations of bacteria, and they still remain bacteria. What makes you think that billions of generations of cats won't remain cats?
Eric, the claim of common descent has nothing to do with biology. Just as there is no connection between the big bang and biology. A biologist will continue to be a biologist and will continue to explore the wonders of nature regardless of the belief that the origin of the creatures on earth is from a common ancestor.
"Miller's claim is not that the ttss is the 'ancestor' of some of the Shotton, this is simply nonsense due to the fact that the ttss is modern, but that both are of a common origin" - if you follow the evolutionary models you will see that this is indeed the claim by and large. Otherwise, it is not clear in the first place why Miller chose the ttss.
,” just as the chimpanzee is not the ancestor of man but both of them have a common origin.. Miller says according to what a simpleton like me understands that the ttss and the flagellum are similar in terms of their code even though functionally they are different “- true.
"The analogy between a computer and a watch is simply wrong because functionally there is no connection between the ttss and the shoton and both have completely different functions," - the clock and the computer also have completely different functions. So I don't understand your argument.
Mathematical Biology
There is no point in arguing with someone who is not honest
Keep believing in Christian preachers. good luck with that.
Oops, I forgot a nice link:
http://clickit3.ort.org.il/Apps/WW/page.aspx?ws=11935986-d4ee-4601-8d87-21edadd5674c&page=d843abe5-6bfd-4649-9bf4-d12ecc64f4e3&fol=650645d8-6b7f-4255-8a51-79b4a4445408
"You can be an excellent geneticist and biologist without any need for evolution"
Nonsense, evolution is the basis of all the different fields of biology, without evolution you don't really have a deep and true understanding of the body structure and the various organs of animals and humans.
Studying biology without evolution is roughly like learning about the shape of the continents on Earth, mountain ranges, earthquakes, and volcanoes - without learning about plate tectonics which is the factor that led to all these phenomena.
"No plane or food was developed by evolution but by programmed and directed selection by intelligence (referring to intelligent planning). "
According to what I understand, the claim is about a deliberate selection (which imitates natural selection without any 'building' of something from nothing) of less useful plants, according to your words, why would something useful suddenly emerge from something less useful? Can a pile of scrap metal be 'insulated' so that a car suddenly appears in it?
"You can be an excellent geneticist and biologist without any need for evolution."
Bioinformatics is based on evolutionary considerations, and there is no such thing as a 'need for evolution' The question of what processes take place in nature is a scientific question due to the very fact that it is a question that does not include the human factor, there is no question here of 'what is practical' there is a question of 'what happens in reality', Newton did not know That time is relative, and even if we had no benefit from the answer that time is indeed relative, this is first of all an objective fact that does not depend on us.
"Amir, even the great evolutionary scientists have not solved these problems yet. The link you linked to Prof. Miller proves this well. Miller claims that the shotton evolved from the ttss. However, phylogenetic studies indicate that it is precisely the simple system-ttss that ranks high on the phylogenetic scale. Which means that according to evolution we are supposed to believe that the simple system evolved from the complex one, contrary to Miller's claim. His second claim is also unfounded. Because common components can be found in both the watch and the computer. How come there are no gradual steps from a clock to a computer, and hence there are no gradual steps from ttss to shoton, and hence the argument falls apart. In short - a replicating engine (atp synthase) is proof of a designer, just as a replicating clock is proof of a designer."
Miller's claim is not that the ttss is the 'ancestor' of some of the Shotton, this is simply nonsense due to the very fact that the ttss is modern, but that both are of a common origin, just as the chimpanzee is not the ancestor of man but both of them are of a common origin... Miller says according to what a simpleton like me understands that the ttss and the flagellum are similar in terms of their code even though functionally they are different, the analogy to a computer and a watch is simply wrong since functionally there is no connection between the ttss and the shoton they both have completely different functions, the analogy should be: a can of coke and a screwdriver with a similar 'code' even though they apparently belong to the 'axis' Values' (your expression) is different.
Enough biology, you're embarrassing yourself!
Mathematical Biology
..."But because a simple mutation changed the spatial structure of the attacked site." - This is exactly evolution because in the next generation, the bacterium inherited the feature that allows it to be protected.
You didn't answer me: what exactly do you claim that the intelligent builder does and how. He himself moves, at every point in the universe, the atoms of each and every creature so that the species will change over the generations?
Mathematical Biology. Namas that every time the watchful creature sees the light and refuses to understand that I am talking nonsense
Mutations are the building block of evolution because they provide an opportunity for natural selection. In the case of bacteria, it is clear that the bacteria that were resistant to the antibiotic died and those that changed one on the site survived and multiplied.
This is exactly how natural selection works. And Darwin's book is called on the origin of species by means of natural selection.
Miracles, you are welcome to try changing each system to another in gradual steps. If you succeed, you will prove that evolution is possible.
No plane or food was developed by evolution but by programmed and directed selection by intelligence (referring to intelligent planning). The same is true of bacterial resistance, which become resistant not because they developed a new system but because a simple mutation changed the spatial structure of the attacked site. Again - nothing to do with evolution. Genetics works out fine without the claim of common descent. You can be an excellent geneticist and biologist without any need for evolution.
Amir, even the great evolutionary scientists have not solved these problems yet. The link you linked to Prof. Miller proves this well. Miller claims that the shotton evolved from the ttss. However, phylogenetic studies indicate that it is precisely the simple system-ttss that ranks high on the phylogenetic scale. Which means that according to evolution we are supposed to believe that the simple system evolved from the complex one, contrary to Miller's claim. His second claim is also unfounded. Because common components can be found in both the watch and the computer. How come there are no gradual steps from a clock to a computer, and hence there are no gradual steps from ttss to shoton, and hence the argument falls apart. In short - a replicating engine (atp synthase) is proof of a designer, just as a replicating clock is proof of a designer.
Ken Miller, a devout Catholic biologist, who repeatedly refutes the claims of intelligent design. See and enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk0JbHyApQw
Mathematical biology - it doesn't make sense that light bends due to the effect of gravity - but it happens. It doesn't make sense that time lengthens or shrinks under the influence of speed - but it is a fact. Logic served science in the first stages of liberation from the ignorance and power of religions, in the 16th, 17th, 18th centuries, but gradually the value of observation rose at the expense of logical deduction. Today, logic should adapt itself to observations and experiments, and not the other way around. If there is an observation whose results do not make sense, but is found to be legal, consistent and repeatable, the logic does not apply to it.
Logic is not only a function of common sense but also of education and prejudice. According to the logic of one and a half billion people in the world, there was a human being who was born to a woman who did not become pregnant from a man, walked on water, died, resurrected after three days and then ascended to heaven. Logic is a relative thing, sometimes. Scientists are trying to overcome such biases. Some succeed. There are even such religious scientists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMj_45epINM
Parenthetically, I understand how anti-scientific reactions appear on sites like Ynet and the like, but it is upsetting to see that creationists and opponents of science also come to the holy of holies of popular science in Hebrew, sites like "Hidan", and spread their nonsense here as well.
Once again the boring debate about the correctness of the "neo-Darwinist evolution" theory or not, about the question of God's existence or not, about the enormous importance (so to speak) of the "neo-Darwinist evolution" theory.
How much can you grind the issue? Why does this topic come back on the site every month? Is it just to ignite pointless arguments again and again.
Mathematical Biology.
Evolution is a fact because things evolve and we see this in the laboratory every day that passes. The science of genetics does not do well without evolution. The reason there is evolution is because of genetics.
What does creationism have to do with it? If you mean a deist who created everything and let things unfold according to the laws of physics, I have no problem in principle with that or the ability to refute such an argument, but if you mean a creator, who stuck us at the edge of the galaxy, one out of billions and ordered us to cut the male genital organ to a specific and precise length, Worries about the exact diet of mammals that we are allowed to eat, hates gays and still finds time to blow on each and every quark in order to have a process that looks like naturalistic evolution to us, I don't understand that. I don't understand what you think the intelligent builder does exactly and I would love for one time, someone to explain what exactly this intelligent builder does, and how?
Mathematical Biology
The conclusion you draw from photosensitive cells is incorrect. I have already explained many times why but I would like to explain again. You are actually starting from the assumption you are trying to disprove!!! You imagine in your head the process of creating a biological system that has a certain goal - sensitivity to light - and you try to show that the chance of such a mechanism forming in a random process is zero.
First of all - it is not possible to talk about the probability of an event that has already happened. What can be done is to take two hypotheses and see which one is a more likely explanation for what we see. Have you done such a process?
Second thing - it is quite possible that the light-sensitive mechanism was used for another purpose in the past. Therefore, your argument for "inextricable confusion" is invalid.
Third thing - you wrote "Did the man who invented the MRI use creativity in the process of invention?" "-I have no idea. Do scientists use the theory of evolution for technological inventions? Not as far as I know."
Have you ever eaten cabbage? Or broccoli? Or Brussels sprouts? All of these are the exact same species, developed by evolution. Almost everything we eat was developed with the help of evolution. Next - have you ever received a vaccine?? Were you treated with antibiotics?
And another example - have you ever flown on a commercial flight?? There are aircraft systems, such as propulsion system controllers, that are developed with the help of genetic algorithms.
And the last thing - even on a theoretical level, evolution must be correct. If you assume that it is not true - you simply come to a contradiction.
I would love to hear a reference
To your question Shmulik, of course. Although I'm not a biologist, I know that the answer is positive, for example, the famous inventor Ray Kurzweil describes in his new book how he and his development team developed a speech recognition system based on a process of evolution, they created a population of neural networks on a computer and put them through a process of evolution for several weeks, during which they were selected again And again the networks that provided the best result and these went through a process of "reproduction" similar to what happens in nature (including mutations).
In the end, neural networks were obtained that provided much better results than those with which the process started:
"For speech recognition, the combination of genetic algorithms and hidden
Markov models worked extremely well. Simulating evolution with a GA
was able to substantially improve the performance of the HHMM networks.
What evolution came up with was far superior to our original design, which
was based on our intuition"
Now he says you can download the final result to your computer and use it immediately, without having to go through the whole process again.
Ehud, there is no use in the light-sensitive component, just as there is no use in the site that binds to ATP without an additional site that will utilize the energy generated from ATP hydrolysis, and just as there is no use in the domain that binds to substrate A in the protein that connects two substrates and hundreds of other examples. These things can be tested simply in the laboratory. And yes, an analogy from the world of technology is definitely good. Because, even in the world of human technology, just like in the natural world, there are very complex systems that require several components for their functioning. And if there are no gradual steps between cell phone and television, there are also no gradual steps from a movement system to a vision system or a coagulation system or any other system.
Regarding Lansky's experiment. In total, it is a combination of 2 simple mutations that caused a certain enzyme to work in the presence of oxygen. Whereas in the example I gave, close to 100 is needed.
Shmulik, regarding the practicality of the theory of evolution. The claim of common descent simply has no meaning for any scientific experiment. You are talking about the principles of genetics. These principles are true even if evolution is disproven and creationism is correct. Nothing to do with the claim of common descent.
mathematical biology,
...makes more sense to you, what an answer. And based on what did you use the logic? What in our daily life can even allow you to assume that your logic can answer such a question and if anything, the multiverse theory (a theory that is slowly taking the form of a scientific theory, and there is also the possibility that the multiverse is eternal) "does" everything that God "does". This is to answer the "problem" of time that you think exists but the vast majority of scientists do not think there is a problem.
Regarding technology and evolution, evolution is the framework of all medical science and biology. There is no sense in these sciences without evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_technology
Every time a bacterium develops resistance to some drug, it undergoes evolution.
Whenever a model is developed to predict the mutation of an epidemic, the science of evolution is used. So you may not accept that the science of evolution does describe reality but it cannot be denied that it is used every day. When the bird flu hit the US, George W. Bush, a staunch evolution denier, didn't say, let's raise our hands, the virus was designed to kill us, but raised $7.1 billion to deal with the virus:
http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/george-w-bush-denies-evolution-warns/
http://www.plospathogens.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.ppat.1000076
http://books.google.co.il/books?id=8l5OImG50EcC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=george+bush+avian+flu+evolution&source=bl&ots=ZMTqIFU4hC&sig=oBrJzrdrv2MZDuLGOHb4Hw70MKU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MotIUfTxFI3DtAb4n4E4&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=george%20bush%20avian%20flu%20evolution&f=false
If there are biologists in the forum who have experience, first hand regarding the question of mathematical biology, whether scientists use the theory of evolution for the purpose of technological inventions, it would be nice to hear.
A beautiful example (albeit in a sad context) of the evolution taking place before our eyes in the wing structure of birds nesting next to a highway.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/03/evolution-via-roadkill.html
And biology, you repeatedly compare human creation to the activity of natural selection. I might as well compare myself to Michael Jordan, but unfortunately, that's an invalid comparison.
"Light-sensitive protein is useless" - A. really? how do you know? and b. When the mutation has no negative effects on the functioning of the organism, it remains in the genome even if it has no contribution to its functioning. It can have a contribution at a later stage, with the formation of another mutation. There is no need for the simultaneous occurrence of two functional mutations. See Richard Lansky's experiment on E. coli.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
"I agree that God should be complex by definition. In such a situation, there are two options: someone planned it too, or it has always existed. In my opinion, the second option is simpler and makes more sense."
Forgive me but this is the most senseless thing imaginable.
I think that the first option is correct, and here is the explanation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwIACXoFtHQ
https://www.hayadan.org.il/ground-problem-of-metaphysics-part-1-0204103/
Biology
Today everything has a computer
"I agree that God should be complex by definition. In such a situation, there are two options: someone planned it too, or it has always existed. In my opinion, the second option is simpler and makes more sense."
Are you serious?
I will try to respond to all the questions raised. First we will make order regarding the eye. A photosensitive protein is useless, just as a sensor in human engineering is useless without additional components with which it works in parallel. By the way, the retinal molecule (a derivative of vitamin A) is also useless without the rhodopsin it works with and without the other proteins involved in the transmission of signals. It is easy to understand this as tempting to think of a human technological equivalent. Suppose scientists wanted to create a sensor for some robot. They will undoubtedly require several components. and not a single component. Regarding the claim that it is possible to switch from one functional system to another. This claim is again refuted by a demonstration from an engineered system. Is it possible to change a wristwatch to a computer or television or cell phone or any one system to another? The simple answer is no because we always get stuck in the middle in a non-functional transition. The reason for this is that these are isolated in the axis of values which gives each system its unique properties. Just like proteins.
“Okay, let's continue with this logic some more. Everything that is complex has a component. The component is more complex than the thing of which it is composed. The world is complex. Therefore God, who put the world together, must be even more complex." - Agree only with the first part. Rebuttal to the second part - a person who designs an animal with a genome larger than his own, will disprove the claim that a complex thing must be simpler than the one they put together. I agree that God should be complex by definition. In such a situation, there are two options: someone planned it too, or it has always existed. In my opinion, the second option is simpler and more logical.
One positive evidence among many is for example rotating motors such as ATP synthase:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjdPTY1wHdQ
are much more complex than a standard watch.
” Did the man who invented the MRI use creativity in the process of invention? "-I have no idea. Do scientists use the theory of evolution for technological inventions? Not as far as I know.
Mathematical Biology -
"Lehud Amir, lizards/dogs/cats remain lizards/dogs/cats. That is, it is a change within the type itself and not the creation of a new system. Also the cecal valves they talked about at the time turns out to be probably a small change in the walls of the intestines, and not the creation of valves out of thin air (to remind you, even according to evolution an organ like the eye is not created out of thin air). "
So you admit that there is change, i.e. evolution. Beautiful. Already progress.
-
"Regarding a minimal eye - first we must define what a minimal eye requires. In my estimation, at least 2 proteins are required - one that is sensitive to light, and the other that uses the signal received from the impact of the photon for a biochemical purpose. And let's say even 2 small proteins. It's just too much."
You are ignoring the fact that sometimes individual proteins have different uses. The photosensitive protein can be functional even without the other protein. The formation of the second protein creates a new function. They don't have to come into being at the same time.
—–
"I'm not talking about Paley's argument. Although not many know Paley's response to the claim that clocks do not replicate and are not subject to natural selection. Paley in response claims that we would have found a replicating clock, after all the complexity argument would have increased even more. And hence a clock reproduces itself as a replicating creature.”
Ok, let's continue with this logic some more. Everything that is complex has a component. The component is more complex than the thing of which it is composed. The world is complex. Therefore God, who composed the world, must be even more complex. If we continue with this logic, God must also have someone who composed him, someone who is even more composed than God. If God is not more complex than the world, logic collapses. Thus the logical argument denies the existence of God. If before we were unscientific, now we are also irrational.
—–
And who is the copycat? there were
"- according to the astronomer Neil de Grasse Tyson - like a pleasure system around which a sewer was built. "- What about astronomy and biology? Whoever thinks that nature is not properly planned, is invited to invent something better. So far I haven't seen anyone taking the test."
Anyone who thinks there is a planner in nature is invited to bring evidence: a drawing board, a planner in action, a blueprint, hearsay or eyewitness testimony (but not from those who reside in mental health hospitals and declare that they are Jesus, please).
—
"Regarding the findings of creationists or supporters of intelligent design. They do bring their own positive findings. I don't see anything wrong with trying to disprove an existing theory, that's how science works. did you know The man who invented the mri was Berathan. So it turns out that creationists do contribute to science."
applause. Did the man who invented the MRI use creativity in the invention process? If so, I think we have the scoop.
Following on from Eric, here are just a few examples 🙂
http://www.hofesh.org.il/articles/halacha/showmywife/showmywife.html?print
"Probably this stems from some kind of fear of undermining their secular faith - not much different from the ultra-Orthodox fear of such discussions."
It is a fact that you write your words here, an ultra-Orthodox will not let his child surf the internet and be exposed to different information, since he is anti-democratic.
"Hundreds of thousands of minds of learners for thousands of years check, make difficult, and discuss it. All the time…"
Enough with this nonsense, 'making it difficult all the time' is never without questioning because it is forbidden, after all sages are an eternal authority among the ultra-Orthodox even though they were primitive and believed in superstitions, who are you working for?
Maybe yes, maybe not - when every second house in the neighborhood has an apartment of hooligans who collect children whose parents work hard late hours and turn them into clones of themselves who believe the earth is flat, decide if it's a threat or not
And meanwhile, while we continue to drown in the unfathomable nonsense of religion, the one that was created before we knew that God is round, before we knew that God revolves around the sun, before we knew that diseases are caused by bacteria/viruses/fungi and not because of sins, before we knew why they occur Earthquakes, before we knew there were dinosaurs, before we knew there were other galaxies, when we thought that God created everything from the most distant galaxy to the smallest atom and in between he managed to explain to us the exact length at which the male genital organ should be amputated and when it is permissible to murder a woman, Rabbi Shay Piron I want to lead a prayer for all the students of Israel:
http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=965598
It's getting harder and harder to live here.
A new one, as I said, the ultra-Orthodox (extremists) are the threat, all the businessmen and the socially involved are not usually extreme, the settlers and the national religious and the relatively "open"/involved ultra-Orthodox are not so threatening, even very nice.
Take for example the Chabadniks or the educated and working ultra-Orthodox outside the ultra-Orthodox cities or the gated neighborhoods, I don't think they are threatening at all.
The cults of Mea Shearim and Beit Shemesh are scary hooligans, you're right, but don't make this generalization about everyone.
In general, I think that the identity cards should be taken from all members of these sects, that they may not be related to us, that they associate with the Palestinians and that their "promises" and the rest of the infidels be together for their own pleasure.
Hello Yona
that religious belief does not allow it to be challenged. The Jewish faith constantly invites the appeal of its basic conventions - hundreds of thousands of minds of learners for thousands of years test, make difficult, and discuss it. All the time…
I'm sure there are tens of thousands of people repeating the question throughout the generations who will tell you what happens when they try to challenge the conventions of the Jewish religion. Take Yaron Yadan for example
Pigeon
First thing - your claim about the accuracy of the clocks is irrelevant. The accuracy is around 1% and I don't know of a scientific paper that claims otherwise.
Second thing - evolution is not a theory. We understand how the mechanism works. We see a lot of evidence. There is not a single piece of evidence that contradicts this explanation. All counterclaims - all of them - are simply irrelevant.
I am ready to hear any "argument" against evolution. My anger, and that of those who understand that this is evolution, is in the combination of lies and nonsense spoken in the name of religion. Don't fall for this trap…..
Mathematical Biology
Your argument that two proteins need to be evolved to detect light is completely wrong. For the sake of simplicity - let's assume that you only need one protein - and it is a rather complex protein. Let's also assume that any change in the protein eliminates its sensitivity to light. Is it not possible that the protein was previously used for another role, and in this role it is possible to see a gradual development?
And if you really want to be precise - light-sensitive biological substances are actually simple and can even be produced in a laboratory (vitamin A for example).
I am sorry to disappoint you…….
Miracles
Regarding 1 to 10 million, read in my first comment at the beginning of the discussion how I arrived at this number
The quote from Wikipedia talks about induction in science and not in mathematics.
Evolution is, in my humble opinion, induction. In total, less than 150 years of evolutionary processes were studied - from the findings, a history of 2 billion years is reconstructed - if this is not induction - please enlighten me as to what it is.
The half-life of carbon is a little more than 5000 years - changes in cosmic radiation - the emission of fast protons for any reason fundamentally changes the frequency of the isotope and hence the results - the carbon 14 test assumes that the composition of the atmosphere during the growth of the plant was similar to its composition today, which is not at all Sure. An attempt to calibrate and reconstruct the composition of the ancient atmosphere. Adds another hump to the level of accuracy in testing
More than that - the dating with potassium 40 is much more sensitive to deviations because the amount of unknown events that caused the isotope concentration to change - over millions of years - is unknown.
The study sees a change over several years in the concentration of carbon 14 and the rate of change concluded about the half-life of the carbon.
In potassium, the rate of change is much smaller, so the margin of error is much larger.
And again - I do not deny the evolutionary process!! He is probably right. It is a beautiful mechanism that explains the adaptation of animals to the environment, ABL!! The reference to evolution by some writers as a sacred thing that cannot be challenged, is no different from any other religious belief that does not allow to challenge it!! Against this I come out!!-
This probably stems from some kind of fear of undermining their secular faith - not much different from the ultra-Orthodox fear of such discussions.
One last thing. I wrote that religious belief does not allow it to be challenged. The Jewish faith constantly invites the appeal of its basic conventions - hundreds of thousands of minds of learners for thousands of years test, make difficult, and discuss it. All the time…
In addition, there are other indicators, such as the movement of the continents, which clearly shows us that the earth is "at least" hundreds of millions of years old, and I think there are other indicators from the field of astronomy and the study of the solar system.
Pigeon,
As they wrote to you, to verify the accuracy of radioactive dating, it can be compared with other dating methods - for example, tree rings. I will give you another example from the book in the article:
A scientist named John Wells studied certain corals and found with the help of radioactive dating that they were about 380 million years old. In addition, he used the fact that the Earth's self-rotation time decreases with time, that is, with time the number of days in a year decreases. He calculated that at the time when the corals lived - 380 million years ago - a year had about 396 days. However, corals produce daily and annual rings, meaning that by looking at the coral you can tell how many days there were in a year when the coral was alive. Counting the rings revealed a year with 400 days. This is only a small deviation from the 396 days we found earlier by another independent method. This is further proof of the reliability of radioactive dating.
This, by the way, is another blow to creationists who believe in a young world. Do they really expect us to believe that in less than 6000 years the number of days in a year is less than 400 to 365?
Maybe yes and maybe not, I'm sure that most citizens in Iran in the early 70's, and most citizens in Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan did not see themselves threatened by the religious people before they controlled the laws of Islam (Sharia) there, today anyone who dares Compensating there against the religion, against Muhammad or anything else finds himself thrown into prison, at best, women are murdered and stoned there right and left because of suspicion of treason, or because they did not walk modestly enough in the opinion of the men there.
Did you know that according to Judaism the penalty for breaking the Sabbath is death by stoning?
Don't say it won't happen here, it happened in other countries and it might happen here too. It is enough to see the ugly wars that are already going on today between the heads of religion in Israel (look for headlines from the last few months about Amnon Yitzchak and Obadiah Yosef) to understand what will happen if, God forbid, a Halacha state is established here. If this is how they behave towards each other today, how will they treat Shabbat-breaking infidels like me?
By the way, just this month I read several quite explicit threats on the subject from ultra-Orthodox talkbackists who only wish for this day.
Ugh…
A. If you insist on sticking to Pesht, then you cannot bridge, but religion/belief is not attached to Pesht and you cannot force the believer to stick to Pesht, and moreover, you should be happy that Judaism is not attached to Pesht.
B. A Halacha state will only be established by ultra-Orthodox, and ultra-Orthodox usually do not try to bridge Torah and science.
Call me optimistic or apathetic, but I don't see myself as threatened by the settlers/religious nationalists/educated believers/Orthodox and any type of believer who is actively involved in the country.
There is a debate between "intelligent planning" and "random change", perhaps you can check which is correct in the following way:
Let's take for example a group of a certain insect species and in laboratory conditions we will change the temperature or type of food step by step
Up to the point where a difference in one or more features will appear in them to help the insect cope better with the change we caused.
If all the insects have the same difference. So it's not random
:.
It is not new or special that those who adapt themselves to the conditions around them have a greater chance of survival.
Also findings show that a change is taking place in the living and inanimate world to one degree or another
That is, it is a dynamic world that is constantly changing, but all the factors that participate in the change are unknown in my opinion
,
.
A. Because it cannot be bridged, there is a complete contradiction between what is written in the Torah and the world of science.
B. Belief in nonsense of any kind is dangerous, the biggest danger is that one day there will be a halachic state like Iran and Saudi Arabia where people who do not keep Shabbat will be persecuted people.
Mathematical biology, could you repeat the argument of statistics in detail so that even ignoramuses like me can know what and why the calculation was made? (mutation rate for example, or "how many of the above sequences can be used for some function?" shame on you)
And also, could you explain and give some more research examples (again, in detail) that contradict evolution (I'm only asking for research, without philosophy or human logic)
Hey guys it's not mine, why doesn't anyone refute the argument of mathematical biology regarding the statistical improbability of evolution?
Is there any interest in his words?
"Ugh", what bothers you so much about Oren finding a way to bridge the Torah and science?
To Ehud Amir, lizards/dogs/cats remain lizards/dogs/cats. That is, it is a change within the type itself and not the creation of a new system. Also the cecal valves they talked about at the time turns out to be probably a small change in the walls of the intestines, and not the creation of valves out of thin air (to remind you, even according to evolution an organ like the eye is not created out of thin air).
Regarding a minimal eye - first we must define what a minimal eye requires. In my estimation, at least 2 proteins are required - one that is sensitive to light, and the other that uses the signal received from the impact of the photon for a biochemical purpose. And let's say even 2 small proteins. It's just too much.
I am not talking about Paley's argument. Although not many know Paley's response to the claim that clocks do not replicate and are not subject to natural selection. Paley in response claims that we would have found a replicating clock, after all the complexity argument would have increased even more. And hence a replicating clock is a replicating creature.
"- according to the astronomer Neil de Grasse Tyson - like a pleasure system around which a sewer was built. "- What about astronomy and biology? Whoever thinks that nature is not properly planned, is invited to invent something better. So far I haven't seen anyone taking the test.
Regarding the findings of creationists or supporters of intelligent design. They do bring their own positive findings. I don't see anything wrong with trying to disprove an existing theory, that's how science works. did you know The man who invented the mri was Berathan. So it turns out that creationists do contribute to science.
Hi Avi, is it possible to number the comments here? Many times you want to refer to a certain response and it is very difficult to do so without numbering.
Another thing is that it would be desirable for the time of sending to appear next to each message, and not just the date.
sweater
Avi,
There is a problem with the comments. Yesterday, when there was only one comment page, they were arranged from old to new. Now they are in reverse order. Very confusing.
Isn't it this book?
https://www.hayadan.org.il/in-the-begning-did-god-create-the-haeven-and-the-earth-010100/
Is there no contradiction between the Torah and between science and evolution?
Come on, I don't understand how you can write such nonsense. According to the Torah, both humans and animals were created individually, there is no trace of evolution, and the world is also 6,000 years old.
And remind you that there is also talk about a talking snake?
No brainwashing…
There are books that show how evolution is consistent with science
and does not contradict the verses of Genesis. such as the book, the bestseller,
"Bereshit Bara" by Prof. Natan Aviezer from Bar-Ilan University - highly recommended to read
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%AA_%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%90
Pine
I recommend checking out the link given earlier "The Evolution of God", a powerful video.
How can it be claimed that evolution is not possible when we created all the breeds of dogs we breed through a process of evolution? Do you really think that the difference between a Nancy Pinscher dog and a Lassie dog or a Bulldog or a Great Dane is greater than the difference between us and chimpanzees?
Or what about the bananas that we domesticated through the process of artificial evolution (which is the same as the process that occurs in nature) and which are not at all similar to the wild banana from which the process began?
Even if you don't understand (or don't want to understand) how the process happens at the molecular level, it's still happening right in front of your eyes and only a blind person would deny it.
"Is it possible to change one complex system to another by small functional steps?" for sure. And it happens all the time, both in laboratories and in nature, in observations. According to the observations of the lizards in the Adriatic islands, the differentiation of Darwin's frigates in the Galapagos, the transformation of the Galapagos deer and more. Any change that created an organism that was more adapted to its environment, had more chances to be passed on to the next generation.
"For example, a radio for a television or a wristwatch for a computer." This sentence is reminiscent of Paley's clock argument, from 200 years ago. If the converts do not find a newer argument, it means they have a problem with the facts. It is actually possible to upgrade a member to another member. Vision does not need to be perfectly sharp to be functional. Fact - the human eye is baffling in its ability to match the hawk's eye, but it is still functional. Even a primitive eye, which imparts a perception of light and shadow only, gives its wearer an advantage in space, relative to the eyeless. An eye that recognizes the direction the predator is coming from gives an advantage over an eye that only recognizes light and shadow. And so on. Second, there are organs that have several possible uses, and any change in them may create new functions for them. A classic example is the transition to walking in the common ancestor of monkeys and humans. The hands, which before were used for walking, became free for holding utensils. Is a radical structural change required? Definately not. Just a change in action. Thirdly, there are organs whose degeneration - removal of a part or weakening of a part - creates a new function. The vestigial organ indicates by its presence the ancestral organ from which the vestigial organ developed. That's why we have an appendix that tends to explode and kill its bearer, tonsils full of pus, an awkward tailbone, a painful back that tends to sprains, and genitals and metabolism that look and function - as astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson said - like a pleasure system around which a sewer is built.
Why is it that all creationists do is try to disprove scientific findings, instead of coming up with their own scientific findings? Has there ever been a creationist study that found an answer to a question that science couldn't answer? A disease that creationism cured and science did not? Discovery of a star or galaxy signed by creationism and not science? A technological development signed by your creator and not a real scientist? (Whoever cites Fred Hoyle as an example should remember that the man was a scientist before he started with the nonsense of intelligent design, and that his discoveries are not related to intelligent design, do not derive from intelligent design, and do not indicate intelligent design.)
my father
I don't think you're right on your last point. There are a huge number of people who deny evolution but a tiny number who deny global warming. I certainly agree that both groups have improper motives, and both suffer from a problematic lack of intellectual integrity.
Pigeon
You have a basic understanding of science wrong. Calibrated carbon 14 dating using dendrochronology - tree rings. Tree dating alone is good for over 11000 years and this without any induction. In this period we find a high agreement with charcoal dating, which is good for 50000 years. Beyond that, there are other watches - a potassium 40 watch, for example, is good for millions of years.
Don't confuse math induction with science induction. Mathematical induction is an axiom and I don't think there is a mathematician in the world who thinks it is invalid….
In the theory of evolution there is no trace of induction!!! 1 in 10 million???? How exactly did you arrive at that number and what do you mean? 10000 times ten million is 100 billion - or did you get it by induction??
Darwin (and others) arrived at the idea of evolution from observations of the animal world. Darwin's genius is in the fact that he discovered (yes - discovered!!) that evolution will necessarily occur if 3 conditions are met - variation, differential reproduction rate and heredity. We know that these conditions exist in our world and even know how they work. Therefore - the theory of evolution is necessarily correct.
Evolution does not explain the formation of life but there are several theories that can explain the formation.
Third and last point - even if someone planned life and created it at some developmental stage (3.5 billion years ago or 6000 years ago) - evolution would inevitably call and change the face of life in a way that cannot be foreseen.
It is interesting that you accept natural selection - that is, the extinction of "unsuitable" species. Doesn't it worry you that the number of species is constantly decreasing and in the end there will be nothing left??? Wouldn't you like new species to be created??
Jonah, hello.
And what about the evolution of a computer algorithm? Isn't that evolution? Or is evolution just natural selection?
And who are you to explain what evolution is?
You are only enjoying the fruits of those who know how to plant trees. As such, it is better that you shut up and learn from people who are smarter than you and who have a little more experience and knowledge of the facts of life than you.
to Shmulik
I would love to know if the atomic theory and determining the half-life of carbon 14 and other isotopes is based on experience of 10000 years or more..
If you didn't understand what I wrote - read it again! Evolution is based on a crazy induction of 1 in ten million! Casting from processes that have been studied into the past of 2 billion years! "Many of the mathematicians today hold the opinion that induction is a dubious and pseudo-scientific method for proving any claim, and many call it "cheating". The animal world works, but the attempt to throw it so far from it is a bit presumptuous in my opinion.
People feel they are being sold stories because that's what the pans tell them. They just brainwash them. The American preachers have innumerable TV stations and with every buzz on the radio in the car you hear complete garbage. In Israel there is not one full-time scientific channel compared to 4 ultra-orthodox/evangelical channels on television (Hidbarot, Kabbalah, Daily Star and the MAZ'at, as well as many programs on the community channel). In the schools they don't teach what evolution is, so the garbage of the returnees in the residence falls on fertile ground.
The nonsense you write is exactly part of this garbage. There is nothing true about them, there were enough examples of protein changes that caused a change in function. The studies may contradict in cases where there is ambiguity about the order of the development of the species.
Each of the above theories has a very significant reinforcement
For evolution - the science of genetics
For creationism - the stories of creation in the book of Genesis and the sermons of the priests, rabbis and Muslim priests
With the help of genetics, medicines are developed, species are improved, genetic diseases are eliminated and crops are multiplied
With the help of sermons, the clerics embark on holy wars and defend the slaughter of the religious establishment
Everyone will make their own choice
A few things for Tzipi and the other commenters. Let's start with the hemoglobin or any other protein. An average protein consists of 300 amino acids in a certain order. Hemoglobin consists of 4 simpler chains - 2 alpha hemoglobin and 2 beta hemoglobin. We will take only one of them which is approximately 150 amino acids long. How many of them are necessary for protein function? 100? The sequence space for 100 acids is 100^20. How many of the above sequences can be used for some function? Like the number of atoms in the universe times the number of grains of sand in the universe? That still leaves him with odds close to 30^10. or one digit followed by 30 zeros. That really doesn't fit the geological times that evolution talks about.
Evolutionists claim that the same protein evolved from a simpler protein with a different function. Refutation of the talk - is it possible to change one complex system to another by small functional steps? (for example, a radio for a television or a wristwatch for a computer) This is impossible even by an intelligent factor, let alone by a natural factor.
About Jerry Coyne. Many of his claims against intelligent design are unfounded. And it is also generally incorrect to see the branching of creatures from ancient creatures. Just the opposite - almost every study from recent years contradicts the other. Lamlash found hundreds of contradictions in micro-rna phylogeny. Evolutionists ignore these studies. No wonder the majority of the public supports the planner, people feel when they are being sold stories.
sounds interesting.
Hello Tzipi, according to your explanations and your understanding of what evolution is, it seems that your instructor was Zamir Cohen or one of his clones.
Your arguments are taken from the Discovery Institute, and they are all claims as to why evolution is wrong without offering any alternative explanation.
You wrote: "Computer simulations proved that even after 400 million billion years (100 billion times the age of the universe) an amoeba will not turn into a peacock or an elephant - simply not! She will be a very, very sophisticated amoeba but nothing more than that." This is a claim by the Discovery Institute - and it is not a problem to confirm it because anything can be inserted in a computer simulation, since my experience with creationists is long, I am of the opinion that they inserted incorrect parameters into the simulation, such as the claim that in each generation all the genes are mixed.
As for the swallow - I didn't want to send to the source in English, there is no problem finding such sources. Swallow is actually reviewed by experts and they don't write nonsense there.
And Shmulik is right, not tens and hundreds, tens of thousands of articles - every article on the search for a cure is an evolutionary article, and there are many such.
You can activate (via the icon below) translation subtitles in Hebrew:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwIACXoFtHQ
All religious people have millions of proofs of evolution and see them with their eyes. For this nation there is not even one proof of God or planned creation, someone has seen him, heard him, except for stories of how it was created, there must be something that he planned and created. These grandmother stories will never end. You believe that there is someone who created everything in a planned way (a moment could be an alien with high intelligence) and I believe that everything was created in a process of millions of years in an evolutionary way.
Dr. Tzipi, here is someone with a PHD in a field a little more relevant to evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW1Lpa23mOw
By the way, hundreds if not thousands of peer-reviewed studies on evolution are published each year
First thing, father - it is not appropriate to bring you the climate wars - these are other things with a completely different background.
Second thing - I agree if what he wrote - for the most part.
Evolution is the most likely explanation for the evidence we have - that is, different fossils from different times -
In order to attack evolution, you have to explain them [the fossils] first - which the creationists of course do -
The basis of the study of evolution is the study of fossils, which determines the time when the fossil was discovered and the similarity it has, if any, to other fossils - this is the main basis for evolution (put aside the science of heredity for a moment) - therefore, if creationists want to find a good argument against evolution, they should aim not at ambiguous questions In evolution, which supposedly the scientists were unable to explain (because a failure in the explanations of scientists even if it really exists (and in many cases it does not) does not indicate that evolution did not happen - but that the scientists do not know to the end how) - in order to "disprove" the theory of evolution - it is necessary to show that the science of Our fossil research is grossly wrong. and show evidence that humans were created together with the dinosaurs (or something ridiculous like that).
If a creationist comes along and explains that the same intelligent planner created humans later and created everything in the same order represented by the fossils - then this is also evolution - - in this case the difference is this: scientists seek and provide a biological explanation for evolution - and creationists provide a theological explanation. - From here it is no longer Far from believers who believe that there is an intelligent director who directs evolution - something that is already much more difficult to argue with in a scientific way because the discussion slides completely into philosophy and theology.
Asaf
Evolution is indeed a theory.
A scientific theory is not a "hypothesis" or a "guess" as so many mistakenly think.
"In science, a theory is a complete and systematic set of ideas that describes and explains a certain phenomenon or a group of related phenomena." (Wikipedia)
Or maybe you are suggesting that due to the misunderstanding of the skeptics we should change all the current scientific terminology?
Tzipi
The fact that you are a research scientist with a post-doctorate for over 20 years in the social sciences and the humanities still does not make you an authority in the natural sciences. Just like a sequencer with 30 years of embossing experience is not qualified to take care of my car's engine. Don't underestimate your skills. I just think they are irrelevant.
"...scientific studies conducted by scientists such as von Däniken and others who proved beyond any reasonable doubt"
Here I am now looking down on you.
"As a research scientist with a post-doctorate for over 20 years in the social sciences and the humanities"
Zifi, how is your degree related to biology in general or to evolution in particular? Why do you think your degree gives you any authority or right to express a professional opinion on the subject?
Evolution is a settled fact that there is no debate about in the world of science, if you want to deny reality that is only your problem.
Father come on - your "scientific source" is a swallow website??? You must be reading news with your "finger"!!
When will you realize that the inheritance process is simply the mechanism they created to maintain all the animals that were created - nothing more than that.
Computer simulations have proven that even after 400 million billion years (100 billion times the age of the universe) an amoeba will not turn into a peacock or an elephant - simply no! She will be a very, very sophisticated amoeba but nothing more than that.
If you want scientific evidence, don't look for it in a swallow but in actual scientific studies that have been published under peer review.
As a research scientist with a post-doctorate for over 20 years in the social sciences and the humanities, I can tell you that there is no perfect scientific basis for the theory of evolution and the problem it points to is the mechanism and not the factors or the system.
If I were to publish a research paper under peer review in fields with the same level of holes and absurdities as evolution (I saw something happening today and I state that it was like this hundreds of millions of years ago) I would be kicked out of the faculty in shame.
If you want proof of the intelligent design (no, not "God" but people just like us who just came and built everything here) you can find it in scientific studies conducted by scientists such as von Däniken and others and who proved beyond a reasonable doubt what really happened here.
Asaf,
Nicely written. Agree with every word.
Amichai
That's not the truth. The truth is people like you can't handle the truth. And that is the real truth. And first and foremost this is your problem.
Religion and evolution are one. Everything is true. Even we are mentally controlled within a million-year-old computerized hologram of advanced technologies that do not yet allow us to perceive. This is the truth.
We prefer ignorant and stupid people to vote for the religious parties
It is much easier to control a flock of sheep
Religions have always been a source of power and control over the inhabitants.
Repeatedly conducting an argument like a deaf bush,
When you treat evolution as a theory, you give the "skeptics" a possibility
To believe in nonsense, evolution is not a theory,
To prevent the continuation of the discourse of the deaf, evolution must be treated correctly,
It may sound like semantics, but evolution is a process,
a factual process that takes place and builds our environment,
There is room for debate about explanations for the process, scientific theories can be developed
differences on the causes or causes of the process,
It is possible (and perhaps correct) to argue and try to conjure up a theory that explains the process,
It is neither true nor logical to have a debate about the existence of the process,
Arguing about "is there or isn't evolution" is equivalent to arguing about whether facts exist
And other processes take place: trees grow, children are born... and die,
Blowing wind and leaking rain are all processes that may need explanations
But it is not possible to conspire, as despite the opposition of the church our ball is spinning
around the sun and not the other way around. So is the process called evolution,
Even among scientists there are different opinions (and even different theories) about the shape
in which the process called evolution takes place or the reasons for its existence,
Therefore it is appropriate that anyone who understands what a process means or what a fact is
Will refer to the possibility of theory/s that explain evolution
And not for evolution as a theory.
A separation should be made between believers in God and opponents of evolution.
There are enough people who believe in both God and evolution, I have come across quite a few such people.
Regarding the deniers, they can be divided into several types,
- Ignorant on the subject who receive distorted or partial information (nothing to do with religious belief or level of education).
- People believe (more or less) that they accept the creation story as it is.
- Educated people (with a religious background or not but usually do not disbelieve in the existence of God) who believe in the intelligent planning approach in its many versions, who avoid focusing on contradictions or mistakes (consciously or not). These are the "danger to the theory of evolution", some are true skeptics, some are true believers, some are conspiracy enthusiasts or a combination of all these.
The problem is of course with the latter who cause most of the damage. I assume that when they manage to remove the existence or non-existence of God from the debate, then it will be much easier to convey the theory of evolution (it is better to leave them with the God of intervals or something similar than to lose the chance that they will accept evolution)
It is simply much easier to convince people that it is not contrary to what they believe in than to convince them to abandon their beliefs (perhaps with the exception of those who believe in the creation story as it is, who are not the main problem anyway).
There may be a few real skeptics or conspiracy theorists who cannot be convinced that the earth is round anyway, but mostly not people with a wide public influence like people of faith.
There are a lot of people who believe that they do not accept the story of creation as it is and a significant part see evolution as a legitimate scientific explanation, the problem is of course that they are not the missionaries who spread their opinion and those who do are in favor of creationism. This gives the impression that there is a connection between believers and creationists.
In my humble opinion, it is better if you focus the intersection of the heart on the non-contradiction between faith and evolution and give a platform to people who believe that they live in peace with evolution to encourage such people.
The fruitless debate about what has been proven and what has not yet is simply pointless, because it is probably not possible to cover all the knowledge on the subject in the framework of a long discussion, the purpose of which is the very debate and the infrastructure that is being debated only to see that it is possible to doubt such a detailed theory (even though at its core there is a fairly basic principle simple).
It is true that it is legitimate to doubt in order to test some theory or doctrine against an alternative theory, but here the only goal is to deny the entire evolution for some religious comfort, so you will always find another way to doubt, there will always be gaps that scientists have not yet discovered, there will always be some exceptional case that does not have Good enough explanation.
The question that needs to be asked is not "How do you explain the fact that we don't know the evolutionary path of the ear of the tufted rock camel?" Rather, "even if we assume for a moment that something was needed to design the ear of that rock camel, do you agree that there was no need for someone to design everything else, that is, everything else was created by evolution as we understand it today?"
After all, we can only prove what we have discovered and that too with a certain probability of certainty, so why insist on explaining something for which we have no better explanation than the flying spaghetti monster did it or Elvis did it.
Well, I wrote too much and maybe I rambled a bit, but I hope I made something clear.
It's interesting to know how many people think I'm wrong and why.
Of course I didn't mention what I believe and it's interesting to know what you think about that too.
And now, back to work.
my father
There are those who do not believe in creation, from this it is inseparable to conclude that they believe in the evolutionary view,
The findings on which it is based are a fact, the main debate is about its conclusions which are not perfect
and leave quite a few question marks, in my opinion it is mandatory to teach the evolutionary concept in schools, no less
from other professions.
Ehud is right and following his words, evolution, which is a fact, must be taught in schools because evolution is the scientific basis for biology and modern medicine.
The claim that we "believe" in evolution is ridiculous. The word faith has nothing to do with the subject. The theory of evolution stands up to every scientific test and issues various predictions and does not rely only on the last 200 years (what stupid nonsense to write)
(And the word Torah, in this sense, stems from the fact that the strength of the knowledge we have about evolution is very great)
There are minimum requirements that a theory must meet in order for it to compete for the students' precious time. The theories of creationism and intelligent design of sorts do not meet these requirements and do not deserve to be heard in schools, just as I am not allowed to appear at the Olympic Games and hope that they will let me compete in the XNUMX-meter breaststroke against Michael Phelps. The problem is that if you include such a theory in the curriculum of any school, the student may conclude that it has some validity. Otherwise why does the teacher bother to discuss it?
Creationism, with its new name "Intelligent Design" (ID), is not a science but a religious belief. First, it is based on the assumption of the existence of a supernatural factor, which cannot be tested scientifically. Second, in a classic circular argument, it assumes what it seeks to prove - that there is a supernatural being that is the source of nature. Science is not.
The holes in evolution are in the heads of the religious believers, it is not just about a verbal theory but about no less than billions of findings.
Moreover, not a single finding contradicting evolution was discovered, so scientific opposition to evolution died at the beginning of the 20th century with the rediscovery of the mechanism of inheritance.
One can be skeptical - when it comes to unequivocal findings. In the case of evolution - it is simply burying one's head in the sand.
Regarding the evolution of hemoglobin,] Please read the following article from the Swallow website https://www.google.co.il/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fc3.ort.org.il%2FAPPS%2FPublic%2FGetFile.aspx%3Finline%3Dyes%26f%3DFiles%2F6202BF2E-DF58-4347-9B32-1ECFD84803A3%2F54B23C9E-526C-4550-B623-D12A250925D8%2FE73AC934-0685-4046-9560-FADA8C625DB1%2FFAD50402-4B47-4988-A84F-0A99806F3462.doc%26n%3Ddam-evo.doc&ei=4HxFUYnnDaLe7Aadj4HgDg&usg=AFQjCNGdd0h69zXXyT5f3iyFdWB2_mDauQ&sig2=Th-JySwLzI7is4GEOlSmNw
Science investigates the ancient history of the earth based on findings and processes that have occurred in the last 200 years. And from that, he throws a history of 4 billion.. a ratio of 1 to 10 million.
If I were to teach geography of the entire planet based on findings and processes that went over 4 square meters that I researched [exactly what he attributed to the circumference of the planet] would I be serious??
And it's not that I'm against evolution, I just don't have a sacred attitude towards this theory..
Well done, father, but science also requires criticism.
Many of those who believe in evolution are not aware that the theory has several holes that cannot be explained (take for example the story with hemoglobin, whose "development" has not yet been explained).
To fixate on one theory that is based on a person who did not go to university properly and who invented it while working on a ship on a long voyage is not serious (again for example the story with the right lobe of the liver that "scientists" were unable to prove).
Of course, we don't have to refer to religious theories either, which are actually history in disguise.
Anyone who looks at nature sees the planning - like we plan computer programs and other programs.
One day we will reach other planets (perhaps starting with Mars) and build living environments there that will suit our needs.
Out of boredom we will design all kinds of animals and plants in biological computers and set rules so that we don't have to maintain them all the time.
The peak of computing would be to put thinking animals there.
No species lives forever and someday we will disappear from there and then the thinking animals we will leave behind will tell us stories (religion) or try to understand what we did but because of the technological gaps they will not understand and invent theories (evolution).
As a scientist myself, I don't understand how it doesn't scream to the sky for every person!!!
In order to teach the religious the dimension of time in evolution, they must first be taught to accept the methods of research and dating in geology and astronomy. Otherwise you will be left with "the world has existed for 6000 years and hence human evolution is not possible". One thing leads to another.
Evolutionists are losing the battle for public opinion big time.
To repeat the mantras: ridiculous, stupid - so in the minority community "Hidan" Roi feels comfortable, but by and large outside the site
he loses Let's count who is against: the Jewish Home 12, Shas 11, C 6?, Arab parties in part 11, part of Likud 10. 44 MKs really do not believe in evolution and the rest will not really fight for it.
Perhaps we should admit that we have failed in the explanation - followers of the theory of evolution. Maybe there is no way to explain to uneducated people., but maybe the slang is stupid, or "is there a god?" of Dawkins do not fit. Why, for example, link belief in the Creator to creationism. A person can be a believer, when he has cleared all his primal fears from the table, and sees the random behavior of life and finally decides to believe in God, and the correctness of evolution, and the correctness of the big bang until a new, more successful and scientific theory. This is Kant's view in the Critique of Pure Reason: Spirit is outside of objects, therefore it is in objects. Both Maimonides' and Aristotle's. It cannot be proven at all, therefore it is a belief. But also respect. We stand for the correctness of evolution and allow people to believe in God or the absence of Him as they choose. It also takes the sting out of the call to camp by the creationists: "Who is God for me?" Because the evolutionists will argue: it seems to us that there is no place for God, and those who believe in him, it is to cover up their fears and helplessness, but we respect the right to believe. Suppose the evolutionists are a "party" in the minority. So why don't they make an alliance with someone who doesn't oppose them?
A chapter from the book was published in Vint:
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4356040,00.html
*ridiculous