On the occasion of the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth in 1809 and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his book "On the Origin of Species" (1859), the Sherin Culture Hall in Frankfurt is presenting the exhibition Darwin - Art and the Search for the Origin of Species, which will close on May 3rd * Register to visit the exhibition on the 7th In March 2009
On the occasion of the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth in 1809 and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his book "On the Origin of Species" (1859), the Sherin Culture Hall in Frankfurt presents the exhibition Darwin - Art and the Search for the Origin of Species.
Charles Darwin is not a person who intuitively associates him with art, but visitors who come to the Schrein Culture Center in Frankfurt until May 3, 2009 will be able to learn all about the influence he had on many artists. The title of the exhibition: Art and the search for the origin of species.
The exhibition brings together a large number of artworks that were directly influenced by Darwin's book On the Origin of Species published in 1859. In addition to direct access to the theory of evolution, the artists were inspired by the emotional responses to Darwin's ideas from his supporters and critics.
This exhibition is the first of its kind that seeks to explore the way visual artists responded to the spread of Darwinism in the US, France, Germany and Great Britain. It covers the period between 1859 and 1959, and thus begins immediately after the publication of Charles Darwin's book - The Origin of Species, and ends in the centenary year of its publication.
During these years a heated debate developed about the origin of the species which took many forms. During the revolution phase - between 1859 and 1930, Darwinism was defined as an explanation of the living world through natural processes. This explanation broke the boundaries of biological science, but also caught and caught the attention of the general public.
One of the radical influences was on Alexander von Humboldt, who perceived the natural world as uniform and harmonious, and the byproduct of natural selection, which is an important component of evolution - meaning competition, struggle and reproductive success. For Darwin, nature is a battle - not a high order principle or an inner force at work.
All the artists presented in the exhibition showed an interest in the natural sciences, but to varying degrees. Some, despite their knowledge of Darwin's theory, remained devout creationists - Frederick Edwin Church in America is the most prominent of them. Others, such as Oledon Radon in France, moved to Darwin's position that different creatures share common ancestors. In Britain artists were more cautious in their response to the phenomenon than in Germany, where Darwinism had become a kind of popular philosophy.
Weekly cartoon columns in newspapers brought the debate about Darwinism to the masses. Prints and graphic descriptions in Brahm's work Animal Life (1864-69) conveyed the main points of Darwin's ideas to adults and children around the world. The search for the origins became popular in Jules Verne's book Journey to the Center of the Earth (1864) and Twenty Thousand Miles Under Water (1869-70). By 1871, the year Darwin published The Descent of Man, debates about the origin of species began to spread throughout Europe and America.
Examples include paintings by the American painter Martin Johnson, who explored Darwin's ideas by depicting nature as a river that looks beautiful, but serves as an arena for a fierce battle for survival. The surrealist Max Ernst was also influenced by Darwin's theory and created paintings and collages that raise questions about the origin of life and wonder about the future of humanity.
Darwin forever changed our sense of the universe: what was previously believed to be static and internal, now appears to continue to evolve. Although the pictures that the painters painted in response to the spread of Darwinism are completely different, one theme is common to all. In the light of the new Torah, everyone began to create works that seek to depict true nature.
This exhibition, according to Margina, is the first to explore the importance of the popularization of Darwin's ideas for artists engaged in visual art from 1859 to the middle of the 20th century. The exhibition includes about 150 paintings, drawings and lithographs, as well as rare documentary material. It focuses on various and varied artists starting from Frederick Church, Martin Johansson Hand, Frantisek Koepka, Odean Redon, George Frederic Watts, Arnold Bocklin, Gabriel von Max, Alfred Cobin and Max Ernst. All of these artists were fascinated by the natural sciences to varying degrees, either by reading Darwin's texts as well as texts by those who opposed him. Darwin's ideas as well as those of his supporters and opponents caught the attention of the visual artists.
In Germany, Arnold Boecklin made contact with Darwin's theories in 1872. In several subsequent paintings, Boecklin combined mythological and Christian motifs with particularly radical evolutionary ideas and these pictorial diagrams were promoted by natural scientists of the time. Later in 1880, Boecklin spent a week with Anton Dohren, head of the zoological station in Naples, who saw it as his mission to confirm Darwin's theory through empirical findings. Therefore, the painter painted several pictures with the dominant motif being mermaids and other marine creatures with features reminiscent of human features.
Convinced that life began in the depths of the ocean, Alfred Cobb presented a striking picture of evolution in his early images of hybrid creatures. Cobbin's early writings revealed his obsession with almost every aspect of Darwinism. The always intermediate, always evil and sometimes strange creatures that inhabited them subtly mock the scientists' optimism, forward thinking, and rationalism. Together with them he emphasized the wildest implications of Darwin's ideas.
The works of artists who worked in France such as Frantisek Koepke and Odeon Redon, revealed that the spread of Darwinism was not only linked to the idea that life evolved from the swamps and seas but also raised the concern about the primitive man (L'homme primitive). In the USA, the reactions to the teaching of Darwin's theory were more subdued.
Despite the knowledge of Darwin's theory, some painters remained convinced of their creation, among them as mentioned Frederick Church. In contrast to him, Darwin's vision of nature as a "complicated bank" influenced Martin Johnson Hand to paint paintings of nature in South America where the struggle for survival is everywhere and he subtly alluded to it. In Britain, although Darwin's ideas were hotly debated, some artists seemed willing to take the risk of taking sides.
George Frederick Watts was a prominent example of this. In his paintings he proposed an evolutionary process as a spiritualization of matter. Almost a quarter of a century later, Max Ernst began amassing a body of work largely influenced by images published in popular science books in the 19th century. He was fascinated not only by paleontology - the scientific study of the geological past - but also by astronomy and meteorology.
In his many paintings and collages, he developed his own version of the evolution of life, creating a new arena called "time is deep". In his works, he not only wondered about the origin of humanity but was also interested in the future of life on Earth. The pictures he painted between 1920 and 1933 were optimistic and sympathetic to the evolutionary psalms, but those he painted before and during World War II already expressed fear of the extinction of the human race.
In the end, the exhibition urges to reconsider the question that Darwin left unanswered: does evolution necessarily progress? Will the human race survive? This investigation is the most important issue in the 21st century, its organizers claim. These questions of course have answers, evolution does not necessarily progress. Creatures develop adaptations in all kinds of directions and if necessary they also become simpler or give up some of the features like the creatures that got used to the darkness the eye is no longer important and therefore there was no selective pressure to prevent its degeneration, many bacteria that became simpler. Our bias is to notice progress and think that this is the whole point of evolution. As for the question of whether the human race will survive, this is already a question that goes beyond the realm of evolution.
The full list of artists
Rene' Binet, Leopold and Rudolf Blaschka, Arnold Böcklin, Jean Carrie's, Frederic Edwin Church, Max Ernst, Le'on Maxime Faivre, Ernst Haeckel, Martin Johnson Heade, John Heartfield, Xe'nophon Hellouin, Max Klinger, Alfred Kubin, František Kupka, Gabriel von Max, Odilon Redon, George Frederic Watts.
Museum details
Schirn Kunsthalle Frankfurt Römerberg 60311 Frankfurt, Germany – four stops from Frankfurt Central Station on tram #11,12
Director of the exhibition - Max Hollein, curator: Dr. Pamela Kort.
44 תגובות
It's hard to line up all the paintings.
A. Thanks for the references, and for the grace in multiplying the meaning. No, I am not known as Simon.
B. I skimmed the articles, thank you. I think that if you move the formation of the male and female into the distant past, you gain the need to assume more than one case of division into male and female, but the difficulty of parallel and complementary mutations, in male and female, in so many different species increases. On the other hand, if the phenomenon is relatively young, the difficulty increases as to how the phenomenon of male and female formation happened spontaneously so many times without any connection between sex.
third. I also see no reason to deny the findings of molecular biology that indicate a developmental connection between the species.
d. The principle of entropy is also known, which favors development in the direction of disorder, in contrast to the theory of development which claims that order increases and progresses, even after endless mutations, an amazing matter in itself.
E. It seems to me that the renewed discoveries following the cracking of the human genome, which claim that not all explanations for known phenomena originate in genes and that there is also acquired behavior that is passed on to future generations in another way that is not yet known, lead to the conclusion that much of what is hidden is revealed.
and. It seems to me therefore that we are dealing with two groups of believers - those in creation and those in the theory of evolution. And I am not disrespecting this. All of us, in large parts of our lives, make assumptions and act according to them even when we have no evidence to support our way. We assume that with the progress of our knowledge, of science, of the sages, of the researchers, etc., we will know more and be able to prove that our way is correct.
I think this will get you closer to the "goal" with fewer searches:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex#Origin_of_sexual_reproduction
Shimon ben David:
I don't know about an *explanation* of the subject.
I came across speculations here and there about the way it might have been created but nothing very confirmed.
Maybe you should read what is written here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex#Evolution
By the way - the phrase "the multiplicity of the phenomenon" is interesting because of its double meaning in the current context - did you notice?
And one last question (the answer to which I will probably only see when I return from abroad): are you Simon I knew in the army?
Can you direct me to a source in the literature that explains the formation of the combination of male and female according to the theory of evolution? And especially in light of the multiplicity of the phenomenon?
Dr. Eddie Simon,
I did not understand your opinion on the question of whether man was a monkey in the past?
Dr. Eddie Simon,
To me, the most significant imbalance is the fact that the theory of evolution is constantly attacked (mainly by religious people), without mentioning the much greater shortcomings of competing theories.
I repeat and ask:
Do you think there are alternative theories to evolution, which are better / more accurate, in explaining the origin of species?
that you brought = that I brought*, a small mistake. I just didn't want it to lead to confusion
I am bringing here a link that you provided in response to another article. Other commenters, the same "illuminating" comments - as they say "*pips* don't disappear, just change..." (complete the *pips* as you wish, creationists are acceptable to me).
http://www.hofesh.org.il/articles/science/acc-evo.html
Eddy Simon:
And what about historical accuracy?
Isn't it important to note that Jonathan did not demonstrate understanding in anything and it was he who (also this time) attacked the others before they attacked him?
And what about the minor probabilistic matter that was raised as a claim and faded away from the need to substantiate the claim?
Doesn't this indicate an unfair bias?
And what about referring to the fact that - after all and despite the fact that you describe Popper's approach as a fad and nothing else - you also use it and only decide to call what everyone calls "confirmation" the name "proof" just to justify a false claim you made earlier that there are scientific theories that have been proven ?
And what about the fact that evolution also "works" and therefore - according to the test you defined - "proven"?
But let's be constructive.
Do you think there are no balanced articles posted here?
I am sure that if you write a balanced article or vote for one, it will be accepted and published with great pleasure.
Avi Blizovsky is always looking for interesting articles and the fact that they send him such simplifies the search.
Note - if you are fed up, you do not have to respond, but the response I suggested - sending a balanced article - is something else and you yourself said that it is a shame that the discussion takes place in the comments and not in the articles
To Michael:
1. I have no problem respecting all kinds of approaches and opinions even if I disagree with them. Obviously, we disagree on some issues - and that's not a big disaster. It's fine, as long as the presentation of the claims is honorable and respectful.
I think that in principle you will also agree with me that the Israeli scientific report is as balanced, objective and free of ideological superstructure as possible, which sometimes turns out to be an ideological ground-norm, to one extent or another.
My opinion is that in relation to the theories of evolution, this is not the case, and proportionality, balance, objectivity are required in reporting in an approach free of ideologies. You may think otherwise, and the debate between us did its service in this respect, by raising the issue.
2. I stress that the issue did not come up the usual way - that is, at the level of articles, as opposed to a dialogue of commenters. In the framework of an essay, it is possible to present a complete and coherent picture conceptually and argumentatively, something that is unavoidable in a dialogue between commenters, due to the circumstances of spontaneity, the shortness of the scene, the shortness of time, etc., etc., which also causes inaccuracies and lack of precision in the presentation/misunderstandings in response/poor interpretation And just getting into side paths, and nagging and even below that.
3. The science site is a platform respectable enough to respond to the challenge. And this is addressed to the editors
the dignitaries
4. I don't accept Kohn's view on a philosophical level, and I said so. But as for his historical research - I think he is right, and therefore, and not only (although also) because of Diem, Popper cannot be accepted. A theory must be required to be logical and 'proven' in the sense that I am talking about, and my personal opinion is that the theories of evolution have not yet reached this stage, and therefore I reject their sanctification as if they were dogma, and I reject the extreme and decisive conclusions that one wants to draw from them in the field of philosophy and religious discourse (or rather - the anti-religious) and even in the current fashionable political discourse, and in particular on the stages of science and popular science. Accordingly, what I called 'celebrations' should also be avoided.
5. If after all you think I'm 'just arguing' - let it go. I said mine, and everyone will judge for themselves.
6. As for Jonathan: I am not trying to encourage anyone, and on the other hand I respect every opinion of every civilized person. I have no idea what Yonatan's views are in general, and as much as possible I also do not try to make speculative hypotheses about them and about Adam's body (I admit that in this I differ from some of the commenters on the forum, and I apologize for that in advance). All in all, I saw that he got the message
that I tried to convey, and what verbal violence he suffered because of it - and I greeted him. As far as I'm concerned, KA is blessed if he tries to act fairly and say sensible things (and that includes you and a few others).
7. At this point I would like to 'close the basta'. After all, we are working people who are supposed to make a living, and we have already dedicated enough resources of time and emotions to the issue. So (if they don't upset me too much, in the meantime-) - bye.
Eddy Simon:
You can justify Kon (wrong) and Diem (also wrong) but that will not make you right.
You also understand this, which is why you suddenly compromised on the meaning of the term "proof" and defined it - how could you not - by success in many experiments and the absence of failures (because this means the claim that the theory "works").
In short - you are just arguing.
Besides, I don't understand what you are trying to encourage Yonatan whose whole purpose is to attack the logic but doesn't even try to offer an alternative.
1. Since we entered the subject, to clarify some things in the context of the philosophy of science. When I spoke of fashionable teachings in the philosophy of science, I was referring, among other things, to Popper's philosophy, which is evidently the support of some of us. According to Popper, science deals with refuting lies; science can progress, even though it is really impossible to verify by experience that a universal law is true, and this is because science progresses because it is not concerned with verifying true laws but with refuting false laws (and here there is a significant difference compared to Bacon and Newton; they argued that it is possible to discover the truth by disproving all lies, and Popper understood that it is possible to disprove lies, but not all of them, and there is no certainty that a theory that has not yet been disproved is true). In any case, our confidence in a theory increases as the theory stands the test of experience, and in this respect it is a matter of confidence rational. Thus the theory becomes more and more tested.
Diem, before Popper, argued that if experience cannot verify a universal law (because such a law speaks of an infinite number of cases), then in the same way it is also unable to disprove a universal law (the experimental testing of a law is done by inferring a concrete conclusion. To draw a concrete conclusion from a law, one must use additional laws to this law, and these are taken partly from the theory being tested and partly from other theories. Failure of an attempt cannot be attributed precisely to the falsity of the law). Popper knew Diem's argument against the possibility of refutation, but he ignored it, hence Popper's one weakness. Diem refutes Popper, but Popper nevertheless gained popularity, because it is very fashionable and profitable for many scientists to be considered rational people and not just guys who act by common sense, or worse than that - by mere instinct or guesswork.
Popper's second weakness stems from Kuhn's claim. He proves that in historical research it becomes clear that scientists do not try to refute, rather they try to verify their theories, and when there are apparent refutations, they systematically ignore them. Kuhn also stands by Diem's claim, and concludes that a theory is circular, and therefore not only cannot be refuted according to facts, but it cannot hold a dialogue with another theory... Every theory is actually a set of definitions. Kuhn speaks and recommends that a theory have "simplicity 'Comprehensiveness' and 'accuracy'.
Kuhn knocks Popper down a second time, but his approach is also problematic, because in a technological culture like ours it is impossible for the technological benefit to be disconnected from the truth of the theory. Two theories that are equally true may be completely different in their technological effectiveness. We believe that real science is technologically efficient. Concepts of 'simplicity and inclusiveness' by themselves, do not have intrinsic intrinsic value. A theory should be plausible or reasonable, and it should match the experience. In simple language and equal to every soul, it should be logical and prove itself, and in more popular terms - it should be 'proven' (which is what I meant in my first words about relativity and quantum theory as proven theories) and all the bees in the Popperian and Kunian style have no meaning or even historical and practical relevance to the scientific truth.
2. Michal: Even though 'leave the rope'1, in light of the above in 19, you should also consider your philosophical starting points in response XNUMX.
3. To the anonymous commenter in response 20: I agree with you that the description of the creation chapter, etc. in the book of Genesis has no scientific value (although, by the way, it has a certain evolutionary basis). I'm also not sure that it was intended to be of scientific value - the scientific concepts and motivations of the ancient Hebrews were quite weak, and their eyes were focused on other areas (such as - morality, which other cultures, including the more scientific ones, were less prominent in). I also believe that the aforementioned cosmological and cosmogenic concepts are not really needed for any method
religious, and it was and still is a mistake to hold them as dogmas. I do not come to defend a religious dogma, but I am equally against the defense of a scientific dogma whose basis for various parameters is surrounded by doubts and imperfections (apart from the raw fact that there is some evolution at some level and in some ways - which does emerge from the findings) and against sanctification as a basis for ideologies. In this context, I would like to quote Kuhn's words, that prejudice and opposition to the progress of science came most often in the history of science - from the scientists of the establishment itself, more than from institutions outside of science, such as the church or the ignorant masses.
I of course agree with you that not everything is known... and precisely for this reason I claim that we should not build too many ideologies and celebrate media celebrations. In this context, the proportion, balance and objectivity in reporting are very much required, and that is what my complaint was from the beginning.
4. To all the 'private investigators' and detectives of all kinds: you are terribly funny. How much energy do you invest just to feel comfortable!
By the way, it occurs to me that if some of the detective commenters of various kinds do stripteases about themselves and their skills, we will find out some things from the flatterers, of which impersonation is not the most serious.
In any case, if you keep looking for better than you are trying to think, you will surely find that I exist, and not under a fake name or plaster.
Beyond that, I think means I exist...and stop referring to the body of the man and start referring to the body of the claim.
5. To Jonathan: Above in section 3, I brought Cohn's opinion (which is of course based on impressive historical research by all accounts). It seems to me that some of the 'smart' responders you are trying to deal with can be included, at best, in the category of innocent destroyers coming from the establishment. In the worst case, these are inflated people, smart in their own eyes and not at all 'nice' who manipulate the few concepts they somehow bought. Do not take to heart.
Jonathan:
Another thing you can add to your list of mistakes:
I certainly respect myself.
It's you I don't respect.
This links, of course, to the article on pattern recognition.
Just as there are patterns that identify Hugin, there are patterns that identify her double.
By the way, Jonathan:
You also searched and didn't find it, so it probably didn't occur to you either, and only when it was proven that it was another impostor - did you find an excuse for him and started to come down on others due to a mistake you made yourself.
I - for my part - did not look at all because I immediately recognized that it was an impostor.
Jonathan:
You're rambling and it's a shame we couldn't get you away
To Oren and Michael
I also searched and did not find.
Did it occur to you that this is a fake name?
Does it make sense to you that someone who respects himself would bother to write comments on this site under his real name?
Imagine Prof. Uman starts talking here under his real name. What might this do to his career? Who will take him seriously next?
The quality of a person is not determined by the title or name they use on the Internet.
If you pay attention to the form of expression and the content of the words, you may notice that this is not a shabbek "from the same Chechona" where the science responders live.
The problem is that whenever someone appears who might slightly raise the general level of the comments on the site, we immediately find someone who exposes the beast in them and smuggles them out as long as they want.
Michael,
Not necessarily in a direct context to the reactions of certain people to the aforementioned article, but I think that the following news quite sums up the "logical and scientific" thinking of the various believers:
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3693035,00.html
And that sums it all up:
"The chairman of the religious council in Migdal Ha'Emek, Rabbi Ya'akov Amar, confirmed the words: "In the words of the sages, led by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, of the Holy Zohar, it is written that when women come up during a funeral to pay eulogies in front of men, harsh and severe things are said about it. The sages warn That this causes, not upon us, an epidemic in the people of Israel and that Satan dances in the cemetery while women are at funerals."
Indeed, the logical thinking of the various faiths could bring us to salvation and scientific enlightenment that was unknown...
Friends:
I didn't bother to search, but since I saw from his first response that he was not worthy of a doctorate, I made sure to contact him without this prefix.
There are, however, also divisions in this field and it happens that people who do not deserve the title win it.
One of the important reasons for this is the parallel between the degrees in the sciences and those of the "humanities".
Small correction,
I found the existence of Simon Eddy but no connection to him being a doctor or publication by that name. The previous question is still valid - what is the supposed field of your PhD?
Noam and "Dr. Eddie Simon",
It's amazing, Noam, that I also came to the same line of thought and yesterday I was looking for a trace of the existence of Dr. Eddie Simon and I couldn't find it. I actually found no trace of a man named Eddie Simon. Of course, this does not mean anything, often, especially a person who graduated from certain colleges, you do not find information or publication about him even after he has completed a doctorate (a doctorate in a college? A special invention....)
In any case, I would love to know what subject you specialized in and did your doctorate in.
Noam,
been there – done that…. many times actually... 🙂
The anonymous user is me, this is what happens after you clear all the cookies...
Dr. Eddie Simon,
(By the way, just out of curiosity - in what field is your PhD?)
There are quite a few scientific theories that clearly contradict religious belief and what is said in the Bible (the age of the universe, for example), but for these contradictions there have been found explanations of this and that (strange and pathetic in my view), which satisfy most religious people.
In this respect, the theory of evolution is completely different. It collides head-on with the three major religions, and there is no way to bridge the gap.
This is probably the reason, which is the most attacked scientific theory. The efforts invested in finding contradictions and gaps in evolution are simply amazing. All in all, it is a successful scientific theory, which receives confirmation as time passes, and the more successful it is, the more it threatens religious belief.
No one claimed that this is a perfect theory, that everything is clear and everything is known. There is still much to explore and discover, and it is likely that there will be changes of this and that, but her fundamental argument, which says that there is no need for an intelligent designer of one kind or another in order for both simple and intelligent creatures to be created, has not weakened over time, but only strengthened.
The theory of evolution, for all its shortcomings, has no competing explanation for the origin of life, with the exception of creationism, which lacks any proof and is based on faith alone.
If you have a better alternative theory for the origin of life, I would be very happy to hear about it.
Eddy Simon:
seriously? Is there evidence in science? can you demonstrate
Come point to a proof of some scientific theory!
You will not find!
All there is in science are refutations of a theory and the more the refutations fail, the more the theory receives confirmation and our belief in its correctness (the probability we attribute to its correctness) increases.
If you don't understand this - you simply don't understand what science is at all.
Simplicity is a good and desirable feature - because it is easier to remember simple things.
Those who are addicted to simplicity - certainly deserve simplicity. You demonstrate this very well when you tend to dismiss a theory because of its simplicity instead of addressing the fact that it works.
Leave - Habel'XNUMX.
There is really no common denominator and in your conversation with Yonatan (under the wings of de Chardin) - indeed he found his kind.
Michael:
1. I read your words about the fact that the theory of relativity has not been proven, as well as the quantum theory, and that in general - a scientific theory cannot be proven. These are exciting innovations... and crazy. For your benefit, I prefer to assume that you have read some fashionable teachings in the philosophy of science - and you have been convinced (and then you have a difficult problem) or that you rely, let's say, on high logic such as Godel's principle, then it is not a simple scientific problem. In any case, if this is your attitude, then your positions on the issue of the perfection of the evolutionary teachings are quite understandable. After all, it is fashionable, comfortable and affordable.
2. I did not claim that quantum theory does contain internal contradictions. Look carefully.
3. Simplicity is a desirable aesthetic feature of any scientific theory. The trouble is that simplicity can sometimes indicate simplism...especially when it is too simple (quantum theory, for example, is not simple, but precisely because of that it is certainly not simplistic, and it is proven and works). Beyond that, every scientific theory contains not only facts, but also claims and hypotheses that can be refuted and need to be proven - and this also applies to a 'simple' scientific theory. At this point, in my opinion, there is a proven and sufficiently proven incompleteness in the evolutionary theories (and the claim about the lack of plausibility and the non-existence of an algorithm is conceivable - it belongs here, and I firmly stand by it) that people do not talk about, but in the XNUMXth they prefer to hold the teachings in their existing formulations as a kind of idea Pix and build ideologies on them and celebrate media celebrations.
4. De Chardin is not the subject, and I do not claim that he should be taken literally, even if his conception is evolutionary; He is just a kind of possible directional reading, another way to enlarge the head that might take some people out of the sovereignty of reduction. Like it, there are other ways, and it is recommended to search and locate them. I remind you that in history there were some very respectable people (for example - Copernicus and...Darwin) who had a hold on the dogmatic truth and said that they were delusional, and the rest is known. So go slow.
5. Yes, I admit the guilt: I have a certain image of divinity, and in general the 'purely materialistic' perception of reality seems problematic to me. Does this pre-empt my factual claims? Does it absolve people from dealing with them? Does this allow them a low and violent level of argument and style? Apparently according to people who belong to the materialist Catholic Church (of Darwinism, in this case) - the answer is positive.
To Jonathan:
I thank you for the identification, but I do not think that these are people who have a 'flimsy concept' in the fields of science. Their problem is in a different area - the problem of 'foolish Yahsididom'/dogmatism/initiated trend of small heads/excessive ideologization - and perhaps of everything together and each one separately. I agree with you that the common denominator required for discussion has become tenuous,
under these conditions. But exemption for nothing is impossible...
: )
Jonathan:
I understand that because you were afraid he wouldn't notice, you hurried to demonstrate to him
To Dr. Eddie Simon
If you haven't noticed, this is a popular science site. The commenters and writers here with all due respect, are usually good and nice people but have a weak idea in the fields of science which is always inversely proportional to their inflated ego.
Some of them are even sure and have sworn with all their heart that they are entitled to receive the Nobel Prize and all that remains is to determine in which field. And I won't name names.
Any attempt you make to conduct a scientific debate with them as a member of culture will cost you health and shame. It's like arguing with the cat in the yard about quantum theory.
This does not mean that you should stop responding to articles. On the contrary, your comments are enlightening and their value is of course significantly higher than the value of the aforementioned article, however I would suggest ignoring commenters who show a sense of nonsense.
Eddy Simon:
I read De Chardin's words and the guy is simply delusional.
If your opinion is close to his opinion then you are in serious trouble.
You said the one whose opinion you are close to, and not me, so that you cannot accuse me of attributing beliefs that you do not believe in.
If you accept evolution, then it is not clear to me why you are against it.
After all, as I said - people are still working on developing it and identifying the multitude of mechanisms that operate in it - this is done by the scientists whose profession is evolution and no one accepts anything in them as an idea fix.
All of them are engaged in the study of epigenetic processes of their own kind and no one has closed the door to any other theory - even though another theory that stands the test of logic and facts has never been put forward.
I attributed religious motivation to you because I thought you had some reason for falsely accusing scientists. It turns out that I was right - even though I was thinking about the Jewish religion and not the Jewish religion.
Guys, you have a reading comprehension problem. In my words, I was referring to the existing formulations of the evolutionary theories, not to the actual fact of evolution. The fact of evolution is an existing fact, beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in light of the discoveries of molecular biology, and this is not what the debate is about. The debate exists regarding the more individual questions, on which ultimately depend the more important proportions and meanings of the fact of evolution, and are the basis of its logical feasibility. And such as - what are the principles of operation and the real mechanisms of the evolutionary processes (and for me it cannot be that a principle like "survival of the fittest" or even "survival of the fittest" - are the real principles, and there are today modern studies that negate such principles simply), what is the range of their operation and of the process Evolutionary as a whole (for example, are 'jumps' in the supposed evolutionary scale explainable or driven by the accepted processes, or not. In my opinion, it doesn't seem so) and is the evolutionary process a single explanation for the question of the origin of species and the phenomenon of their diversity and degrees - or do we need explanations or factors additional or supplementary. My argument is that the theories in their existing formulations are incomplete and improbable, they should not be accepted as 'idea pix' and no far-reaching religious quasi-ideological conclusions should be drawn from them. My complaint is that the reports and reviews on the subject are not objective and suffer from ideological biases, and this must be corrected.
I'm surprised to be proven that someone who doesn't know me knows about the 'God' I'm supposed to believe in and what his behavior patterns and thoughts are. In general, the debate method of 'sticking' arguments and motives to the disputant, while interpreting his arguments freely, distorted and biased - is invalid, and it is a shame that it is used.
And by the way, my God is quite 'evolutionary', and nothing evolutionary is foreign to him. He is not a theistic God in the accepted 'religious' sense, and as far as I understand and diagnose, he is supposed to be a more developed and 'scientific' version of the God of the philosopher and scientist (among other things - paleontologist) Tier de Chardin, although not very far from him. Literature created by great people of its kind is highly recommended. In particular, to people of the 'point' type, as well as scientists and even respected editors, I recommend reading, learning and educating yourself in order to enrich yourself with insights that violate and advance real science, to enlarge your head and not to remain limited to the point. The reduction is suitable for monkeys, not Homo sapiens.
Eddy Simon:
1. I don't know who you call "believers of the theory of evolution".
What I said about doubt being built into science is known by everyone who knows what science is - including everyone who believes that evolution did happen and is happening.
I used the word "believer" because I do not agree that words in the Hebrew language should be used for religious purposes.
For me "faith" is equivalent to "high probability attribution" and has nothing to do with what you call faith.
On that occasion - allow me to reclaim the word "strengthening" as well.
This is also a word that has nothing to do with religion and is much more related to activity in gyms.
2. The theory of evolution has a logical consistency that does not fall short of that of relativity.
The theory of relativity has not been proven at all because - as I have already said and as anyone who understands science knows - it is not possible to prove scientific theories at all.
The same goes for quantum theory (which, by the way - does not contain internal contradictions).
Of all these theories - the theory of evolution is precisely the simplest to understand and the closest to the status of a mathematical theorem (where the proximity to a mathematical theorem stems from the low number and simplicity of assumptions that must be made about the world in order to prove its existence).
This amazing proximity to a mathematical theorem allows us to use the theory of evolution both in software development and in explaining the development of ideas - while relativity and quantum theory - because of their complex assumptions - are only applicable to the world of physics.
I'm pretty sure you didn't understand anything I said but I'm writing this in hopes that others can gain some insight from it.
3. The cracking of all the ways in which evolution works is not yet complete, but this does not detract from the validity of the ways that have been cracked. You're just mixing gender with non-gender here. It is possible (actually almost certainly) that the idea of evolution (again - because of its mathematical generality) works in nature in many ways, but this does not mean at all that the mechanisms of DNA copying with a certain probability of failure, various forms of chromatization and methylation and the other mechanisms that have been discovered do not work and do not have an effect.
None of those dealing with the subject puts the proof on the shoulders of others. In fact, you don't even begin to expect those who believe in nonsense to take any step other than fumes. That is why scientists are constantly engaged in completing the cracking of the mechanisms that work in evolution.
The issue of probability that you brought up and now you claim is not relevant even though you are the one who brought it up just to avoid substantiating the claim that you repeat and make without substantiation again in the same sentence where you claim that it is not relevant can be relevant and can be irrelevant. I leave you the choice but I don't leave you the choice to hold the stick at both ends. If it is relevant and if you claim that the probability is small - prove it. Otherwise - just shut up.
4. Those who believe in nonsense claim the existence of other mechanisms but - in the event that they even bothered to describe such mechanisms - they did not provide them with even a shred of proof. This burden is indeed laid before them, but it is logical that this is the case.
None of them has yet pointed out that the king is naked.
In all the cases that I saw in which the fool pointed to his own shame and claimed that it was the king's shame.
Only monkeys can say there was no evolution.
The theory of evolution has support from completely different fields of science that the chance that they will all support is extremely small unless the theory is correct. It is about DNA, meaning molecular biology, fossils, geological layers, the movement of the Earth's plates, the arms race between predators and prey.
To say about such different and independent proofs that they are insufficient, I don't know, but probably only if the God you believe in comes down from the sky and tells you that there was evolution, that won't help either.
Michael:
1. Doubt is built into science, and it is important that believers in the theories of evolution also know this.
2. Despite the inertia of doubt in every scientific theory, you will agree with me that there is a huge difference between proven theories (such as: the extended theory of relativity, which is also logically traceable and is also highly proven, or the quantum theory - which is admittedly less logically understandable and sometimes appears arbitrarily or contains internal contradictions - but in the XNUMXth century it is the most grounded from a perspective) - and a well-founded theory I saw as limited and indistinct, the plausibility of which is problematic. Every evolutionary theory that existed belonged to the second category. Relying on theories from the first category, it is worth investing trillions - let's say in programs like the space programs. Based on a theory from the second category - only gamblers like lottery gamblers will risk their money on it. All other followers of it will advocate it only because they chose to believe in it, in its existing formulation, or because they did not take into account and did not seriously consider its foundations.
3. There is no conceivable algorithm that explains a complete evolutionary process in practice. The burden of proof and persuasion in the matter of evidence, including the issue of probability (and by the way, the issue of the probability of the smallest, which is really canceled out, of the creation of the first cell in a spontaneous process - is not relevant here), is placed on the shoulders of the theory - not on the shoulders of the questioner or the questioner. These burdens have not been lifted, and it is surprising that they want to throw them on the shoulders of others.
4. I did not find any article or article discussing the above issues. On the other hand, we find an abundance of articles, including Darwinist folklore articles, all of which hold the evolutionary teachings in their current formulation as a kind of 'idea fixe'. And someone among the commenters dares to say that the king looks maybe
Naked in his lower body, and maybe he has no legs at all, then he will be accused of sex and life as a twit/liar/lacking intelligence/religious/waving slogans - by the on-duty believer.
Eddy Simon:
Doubt is built into science and no scientist has ever claimed to have proven any scientific theory.
Every scientific theory is the most likely explanation and that's what every scientist knows.
There are things that are so trivial that you don't bother to repeat them over and over again, but nevertheless they are said a lot because there are a lot of gibberish that never ceases to confuse the mind otherwise.
No scientist has ever claimed that evolution deviates from this rule.
The vast majority of the responses that were raised in an attempt to point out some failure in evolution were nonsense and intentional lies whose entire purpose was to protect religion.
A small part of the responses simply reflected a misunderstanding of the respondent.
No response has indicated any difficulty that actually exists.
Don't get me wrong - we still don't know everything, but telling someone who doesn't know how the first living cell was formed and that he only has speculations is about the same as telling him he has ears (the truth is that telling him he has ears provides more information because it means it didn't happen at the last minute Something that whispered his head and removed his ears).
People often talk about probabilistic difficulties, but no one has ever shown that such difficulties exist - this is just a slogan that is often waved without any justification and substantiation, and it is not surprising that you did not address my question on the subject either.
In my opinion, the articles presented here on the subject of evolution contain everything they are supposed to contain.
Thanks. That's right, I changed the drawings so that the root C.I.R wouldn't be twice
Jonathan - True, it is important to put things in proportion. It is fortunate that there are websites such as "Hidan" that do this and do not give enough weight to creationists' sleight of hand and eyeballs to a scientific theory that accumulates more and more very strong evidence in its favor and theories that have been written within its framework for 150 years.
This article does deal with culture, but the part of culture that touches science and is influenced by it. Even in a serious science magazine there is a place for "color articles".
If possible, regardless, the sentence "the pictures he painted between 1920 and 1933 were optimistic" is a bit jarring to me. Apparently the original word was "paintings" and after the replacement the adjective was not changed.
To Michael:
1. Precisely the "bicentenary" requires a serious and objective approach to the subject. And this means, among other things, articles that also refer to the 'half empty glass', and not as a critic for the sake of criticism, but as a constructive attitude whose purpose is to place the research on the truth.
2. You were right when you claimed that the 'reactions' should be brought into the subject. Indeed, in some of the responses there was much to point out possible weaknesses or deficiencies in the evolutionary theories (yes, among other things from the probabilistic and algorithmic point of view). but! Comments are just comments, and in their limited framework they cannot fully exhaust claims. The objective treatment of the subject should not be left to 'reactions' - but they should (also) be given a journal and a place in articles and articles of sufficient scope - and in particular on the 'bicentenary' anniversary... It seems to me that the necessity of such articles and articles is no less than some 'folklore' articles Darwinist or ideological musings, etc. that we encounter frequently.
3. I am not arguing 'against' evolution. I'm just interested in getting to know it, about its apparent virtues and limitations, and to strive for a more complete and proven theory; And I would like this recognition to also be the property of those who seek the truth. Evolution, in the relevant theories as they are formulated today, is a matter of scientific theory, not of ideology, and that is how it should be. It is a shame that many of those speaking on the subject express themselves as ideologues, and some of them - sometimes even as religious fanatics.
4. As someone who has been studying the subject for many years, I have my own opinion on the subject, and if I manage to establish it well - I will also dare to publish it. In the meantime, it is not for me the little one to determine decisive rivets on the topic of the 'probabilistic problems in the theory' or to place a 'probabilistic model of the problem'. The subject is complex and speculation is not absent from it. But the very existence of the problems is obvious and must not be ignored. By the way, are you able to assess the probabilistic feasibility of the theories - and put it on some reasonable scale? Are you even able to put forward an acceptable probabilistic model of the evolutionary processes, in particular in their decisive stages? - Allow me to assume no, and I also assume that this does not disturb your intellectual rest either, although the evolutionary theories must be, like any scientific theory - proven. As for myself, I am troubled by the fact that the theories are incomplete, and something very fundamental is missing from them. All this does not lead me to creationism exactly, but to the understanding that the subject is far from its correct conclusion.
5. I can agree with your claim that the fact is that the vast majority of scientists dealing with the subject see evolution as the most likely explanation for the origin of species. The wording here is cautious ("the most likely explanation..") and I recommend that all article writers and commenters adopt it. However, anyone who relies on a claim of this kind as evidence of the correctness of a scientific theory is nothing more than making a claim that philosophers call a 'claim from the general consensus', and its value is null. Beyond that, relative plausibility does not necessarily amount to sufficient plausibility for the purpose of proving a scientific theory, and it is certain that this relative plausibility cannot atone for the lack of scientific evidence (for example, observational evidence, which, as far as it exists, is limited in scope and cannot prove the formation of a new species). Given its insufficient level of plausibility, this theory does not rule out - and in fact it clearly invites - an explanation or even some additional or complementary explanations to the question of the origin of species - which may enrich and even fundamentally change the theory - as well as the philosophical implications arising from it.
4. A new scientific theory can only come in a scientific and cultural atmosphere that transmits openness and intellectual honesty. The transformation of a theory into a kind of ideology or religion is the biggest obstacle to the normal (evolutionary!) process of scientific development. Examples of this are not lacking in history - from Aristotelian science to Soviet science. An essential element in creating the required atmosphere is a professional, objective and impartial discussion - also in scientific publications and magazines. All this is also required in my opinion on the subject of the evolution teachings in the 'bicentenary year...'. The respected stage of the 'Hidan' and the community of commentators command this.
You are simply champions in describing how life developed on the scale of evolution, but you know nothing and a half about the initial development of the starting material and how it can be created out of nothing, but none of this prevents you from building a huge theory that affects the daily lives of thousands of people,
The point I mentioned is only a small comma of all the holes in evolution starting from the lack of millions of intermediate stages and ending with the chances of a desert thing
To Dr. Simon
very true! You took the words out of my mouth.
It was important to put things in the appropriate proportions, especially for the sake of lay people.
Eddy Simon:
You ignore some things and distort reality in others.
Almost all the scientific institutions and websites in the world are celebrating the bicentenary of Darwin's birth this year with numerous articles about him and about evolution.
This article also appears in this framework (and it is written in it) as well as news brought from other sources.
The site contains materials that few people are interested in and I think my father does an excellent job in selecting the material so that every science seeker will find what he is looking for. If the topic does not interest you - skip it.
So far ignored.
Regarding your claims against evolution - these are just slogans.
What do you think are the probabilistic problems with the theory?
Are you even able to present a probabilistic model of the problem?
I am sure that you are not as capable as I allow myself to guess that even if you present some model you will not know how to calculate the probabilities involved in it.
And what are the lacunae and limitations you are talking about? Is it that you don't know everything yet? This is - as you said, true for every scientific theory and it is also mentioned at least to the same extent as in other sciences (you are welcome, by the way, to review the articles presented on the website on any subject and show us that when dealing with evolution, the points that are not known more than any other subject are omitted. If you bring the comments in the account you will see that the reality is exactly the opposite).
The fact is that the vast majority of scientists dealing with the subject see evolution as the most likely explanation for the origin of species.
More! In fact no competing scientific theory has been proposed to date!
You are welcome to suggest the first one.
Such articles do not belong to a science website, and are located on other websites. In general, one should not exaggerate what has been portrayed in the last year as a 'Darwin cult' - and certainly not to turn Darwinism into a religion or an absolute truth. With all the importance of the Darwinist theory, it is useful to maintain proportions, and to understand that evolutionary theories have limitations and flaws - and like any scientific theory. For some reason, I did not find any references to the particular problematic or ambiguity of the evolutionary theories as they are formulated today, in terms of their probabilistic and algorithmic feasibility, for example. I'm not one of the creationists, but intellectual honesty requires a more balanced, objective and matter-of-fact approach than appears from the flood of articles appearing on the site, which are better or worse - but always sympathetic, enthusiastic and obviously biased, and sometimes scientifically irrelevant (like the article above). Down with the Darwinist religious indoctrination!