Comprehensive coverage

the deniers

Denialism: the fear of science and creationists - about Michael Specter's book Denialism, following the statements of the chief scientist at the Ministry of Education Gabi Avital regarding evolution and global warming

The cover of the book denialism by Michael Specter
The cover of the book denialism by Michael Specter

This week we again heard the pearls of theChief Scientist at the Ministry of Education Dr. Gabi Avital who denies evolution and global warming. A year ago, the New Yorker's public health reporter, Michael Specter, published a book called Denialism. It was introduced last February At the TED conference in California. Specter deals with the fear of science and the horror it inflicts on the people and the world. Specter tells how Americans do not trust science institutions - especially today more than ever.

For hundreds of years, the popular view was that science is what is called "fur", meaning neither milk nor meat: neither good nor bad. Science is not considered something harmful to be wary of. Science provided knowledge and is considered something that characterizes it as an increase in knowledge and its entire purpose was to provide us with information for the benefit of humans.

Since the twentieth century, science has begun to mix with politics and especially with electoral power, which is not always in the public interest.

Who are those deniers - or the denialists - about whom Specter writes his book? And especially how can they be identified? First, Specter refers to them as charlatans. In the process, interesting topics enter the discussion of the issue: such as medicine, law, science and skepticism. Denial, or denialism, is the use of rhetorical tactics to give validity to a legitimate argument or debate, when in fact there is no legitimacy to the content of what is being said. These false arguments are used when the person has no facts at all, or has few known facts that can give validity to his view against the scientific consensus or against the overwhelming scientific evidence that is presented against him. The deniers use arguments that are very effective in diverting the practical debate, especially by appealing to emotions, but in the end they have assertions that are empty of content and illogical.

Denialism crosses the ideological spectrum and deals with tactics instead of politics.

Typical of confusion deniers, conspiracy theories, such as the theories about the explosion of the coordination towers on 9/11. Fake experts, impossible expectations are brought up in the debate and the logic is generally wrong. Their arguments are so emotionally convincing and work on so many people, that in the end they influence the decision makers as well as the media, which does not always know how to distinguish between an illogical argument and a scientific argument.

It's worth noting that just because people believe stupid things it still doesn't make them deniers!

Below are a number of common deniers (denialists) against whom Specter comes out:

1) The leaders in Africa who prefer the citizens to starve and even die instead of importing genetically modified food or grains. The belief that genetically modified food is harmful.

2) Those parents who do not give their children vaccines, although the vaccines given to children have been shown to provide the best health protection against disease in the public. People still run to demonstrate against their use out of the belief that vaccines lead to autism for example. Although every study conducted so far demonstrates that vaccines are safe, the opponents of childhood vaccination are winning the war on public opinion. There are many parents who do not vaccinate their children and many diseases that could have been prevented spread and often lead to unnecessary death.

3) The people who run to the natural treatments in search of a balm for their ailments. In the USA, there are many studies that are increasing in number and these prove that food supplements and natural healing hardly help, if at all, and on the contrary, sometimes even cause damage. Yet people still spend millions of dollars on natural treatments.

4) The people who fight theExperiments on animals without them understanding science. These people understand that this or that animal must not be experimented on, but when they enter the laboratory they find that they do not understand what animals are at all and what science and scientific experiments are. But it is difficult to free them from their beliefs. In hundreds of the best universities in the world, laboratories are like military departments, classified, not marked as laboratories at all and not known where they are for fear of the opponents of animal experiments. They are surrounded by guards as if they were really a military unit for everything. And all because of the research that contains experiments on animals.

5) The green organizations. Pharmaceutical companies that only forty years ago were the symbol of progress against diseases, are now a symbol of greed And they are not considered green and therefore they are fought because they are not green and thus bring public damage.

6) Supporters of organic food and alternative medicine. Specter brings reliable sources to show that there is really nothing in the arguments in favor of organic food and alternative medicine.

7) The creationists who believe in an intelligent creator who created the world versus Darwin's theory of evolution. Creationists believe in an intelligent creator who created the world as opposed to Darwin's theory of evolution. In this regard, the first response of any denier to an evolutionist will be: "You are the denier". Or alternatively, the creationists will define their views in such a way that they will not be presented as deniers. And immediately the comparison of the deniers to Galileo will come: look, the Inquisition persecuted Galileo because of his enlightened views, so they also persecute us because we support the theory of creation. This is a tactic raised against a legitimate argument. The creationist brings faith without established data and this is the main difference between him and the evolutionist. The creationist will come and say to the evolutionist, look, you are the denier of the Bible and creation because you believe too much in the truth of evolutionary studies. Whereas there are studies by creationist scientists, published in reputable scientific journals, and they try to show the truth of the creation teachings. That is, one side accuses the other of being in denial.

All of these deniers have one thing in common: they aim to replace the skepticism and free and open thinking of science and rationality with an inflexible certainty that is ideologically committed.

Michael Specter in his book believes that all this amounts to a war against progress. We are not ready to accept new technologies with their limitations and the threat they pose. We thus slip back into the age of magical thought. Specter has a solution: he believes we should strive for a new age of enlightenment. We must revive the approach of the physical world that has been wonderfully effective for centuries. It was during this period that we recreated through the experiment what nature considered to be true. But now in the times of humanity's greatest progress, it seems as if we are returning to the Age of Witchcraft. We must therefore revive the Age of Enlightenment.

to Michael Spector's website

Comments

  1. R.H.:

    If I'm an alien and I find a spaceship and I've never seen a spaceship, I don't have the faintest idea how spaceships are made and I haven't heard of anyone making spaceships since my day, then I'll scratch my tentacles, tell this to the alien scientists I know who will start researching the issue, and think of possible explanations for the inventions of the spaceship where she is.
    I can make all kinds of assumptions, but the very fact that I make them will not make them more or less correct - these assumptions can only guide me in the research of the mystery "where did the spacecraft come from".

    And for the example of our engine - I don't have even the faintest hint that an intelligent creature actually produced the ATP engine - it would have been much easier for me if I had known that at the time when science estimates that these engines were created, the Zeburgs lived on Earth, who were a highly developed alien people (and On Earth I know archaeological findings such as the remains of their spaceships). In this case the hypothesis of the creation of the ATP engine by an "intelligent being" was a leading hypothesis.
    But what can we do and our luck will run out - we have no such findings and we are forced to look for other explanations. 

  2. ravine,
    Let's say you're an alien who has no idea about humans and you get to Mars and find the Viking spacecraft hanging around there. Can you conclude that it was created by a natural process or will you assume that something intelligent created it? This is the creationist argument.

  3. R. H. (202):

    "And regarding your argument with the car, you are exactly justifying what biology says. You say 'there are no cars in nature' meaning if you see a car you know that something made it. If so then all the more a complex thing like a cell must have a creator according to the creationists. Instead of dealing with the above claim, you argue with him that cars must have an intelligent creator, which is what he also claims."

    I will restate the argument again as you seem to have misunderstood it. If I see a car in nature - the most likely hypothesis is that a person created it - why? Since I (or someone more knowledgeable than me) knows the car manufacturing process inside out - I can refer you to the history of car design in general, including names of people and places and times, plus I can refer you to any specific car I find for the person or factory that produced the the car. Therefore, the hypothesis that the car was created by a person (I prefer to call the "intelligent creator" by name) is the logical and scientifically based hypothesis.
    Regarding the cell - I don't know of a single "intelligent creator" who produces cells, there is no information that indicates that the cell was created by an "intelligent being" and therefore we must look for answers in the form of laws of nature that would explain the formation of the cell.

    The analogy between a cell and a car is fundamentally wrong. It is based on the nebulous concept of "complexity" - both are complex, says the analogy - one was created by man ("intelligent creature") and therefore necessarily also the other. This argument lacks any foundation. It is roughly as valid as the following argument:
    If I look at the moon, there seems to be a face there.
    When I walk down the street I see faces.
    Behind the faces on the street there is an intelligent being - meaning an intelligent being sits on the moon.
    This primitive inference was indeed valid for several thousand years - and I am sure that to this day there are those who use it...

  4. Einstein waves
    what do you say in your opinion
    Who dares to challenge the sacred science
    what is? blind cow
    I do not think so.

  5. On the similarity between the denial of climate change and the denial of the Holocaust
    and about engineers and fanaticism, especially for the engineer Gabi Avital.
    On Deniers and Engineers: Living in Denial - When a Skeptic Doesn't Doubt by Michael Shermer with a Small Addendum for Aeronautical Engineers
    Is there a similarity between holocaust deniers and climate change deniers?
    For example between Gabi Avital from our information and the Holocaust deniers? Of course, Gabi is not a holocaust denier, but the question is, are there any common characteristics to the various deniers? Despite the difference in the issues of denial?

    According to Michael Shermer in an article published in NewScientist, there are similarities between the different deniers and deniers: evolution, AIDS, vaccines, Holocaust, climate...
    Despite the desire of climate change deniers to be called skeptics, they deserve to be called deniers, and the Holocaust Deniers Association is definitely in its place. - for the translation of the article
    http://the-black-butterfly-effect.blogspot.com/2010/09/blog-post.html

  6. Biology….
    1. Dawkins can be wrong. Even if you find an error in one of his books, you have not contradicted evolution, at best you have slapped Dawkins. (Given your selective quoting method, it is very likely that you simply took something out of context or simply did not understand his words)

    On the other hand, if you prove the creation of life through an intelligent planner or even if you show that something cannot be accepted in the form of gradual change, we can say that you have contradicted evolution...

    2. Let's take your example of a refrigerated truck…
    The refrigerated truck was created by the evolution of thousands of generations.
    Every carrier or family of carriers has changed their truck dozens of times.
    From normal trucks to refrigerated trucks.
    From weak and small trucks to stronger and bigger trucks.
    From carriages to trains and trucks.
    From cargo by man to cargo by beasts of burden.
    from using a wheel and the like.
    Each stage is a mutation of the other stage.
    What is it if not proof of evolution……

    2. David

    The problem is that we don't have the tools to deal with a lie.
    For example, if we could strip Biologia, cover him with tar and feathers and let him not walk around the city square, then we would do it.
    On the internet biology can enter whenever he wants to spread lies, twist quotes and in the end enjoy the protection of innocent people like you who think they are shutting his mouth.
    You are an innocent bystander. You do not intend to perform experiments yourself and you trust the opinion of experts.
    Biologia presents himself as an expert and publishes on a scientific website, and this is how he wins the recognition of innocent people.

    I also attacked points in evolution that are scientifically weak (evolution of sex) and no one attacked me. The reason - this is a good and difficult question.
    Biology, on the other hand, spreads lies and distortions, ignores charges and continues to do so.
    He deserves all condemnation and on such a site also to be silenced.

    And by the way - I'm sure (for purely probabilistic reasons) that even among the website's writers there are quite a few who believe in some kind of God. Leibovitz, for example, was also a man of science and a man of faith.
    Although it is difficult to accept a statement such as the existence of a creator without proof and on the other hand to remain a scientist, it turns out that this is possible as long as it does not harm your function as a scientist. In the case of biology, his statement that he is not prepared to accept a contradiction in his arguments (the existence of the Creator - as a creator and not as a neutral higher power is an axiom for him) disqualifies him from a scientific discussion.

  7. Biology 222,
    There are millions of findings that support evolution. There are millions of fossils that have been found all arranged in layers according to the evolutionary model and there is one trilobite that appears to have been stepped on by a New-Balance sandal. Does this rule out an entire theory? Isn't it easier to believe that there is some mistake in the only example?

    If there were indeed people during the trilobite period, wouldn't you expect a little more significant findings?

    Similarly there are explanations for hundreds of thousands of evolutionary occurrences. And there are a small number of phenomena that are still unclear, usually because they have not been studied enough. Is all evolution wrong on this basis?

    And where are those thousands of positive proofs for the intelligent creator? So far we haven't received a single one. Your entire argument relies on a tiny number of cases that also have reasoned answers that supposedly question the accepted theory to prove your theory. Is it scientific?

    By negation you will not be able to prove anything, even if evolution is proven wrong it will not be automatic proof of the creator theory. You must present positive arguments.

  8. Well, well, biology:
    I already said that he mentions this calculation when he explains that this calculation is based on a naive and wrong model of evolution.
    On that occasion you can quote from his next sentences passages that will sound as if he himself is saying that evolution is impossible.
    Taking things out of context is a method of lying that everyone knows.

  9. Michael - open the blind watchmaker chapter three and you will see that Dawkins claims the hemoglobin number. That is, one for 150^20 (he expands a little more). What exactly is false here?

  10. Of course - his willingness to confidently state his "probabilistic" conclusions - when contrasted with his unwillingness to risk his money on his probabilistic conclusions shows a lack of good faith.
    In my opinion - the vast majority of his words are deliberate lies and not a collection of innocent mistakes, but in the cases I mentioned there is simply no other option.

  11. R.H.:
    I agree with your definition of the term liar and repeatedly claims that biology is a liar.
    Can he claim that Dawkins makes calculations of the probability of evolution in chapter 3 of his book The Selfish Gene when he does not - as a result of an innocent mistake?

  12. Biology:
    It looks - not just like a fusion but like a Partacci fusion.
    There are telomeres in the middle, there are two centromeres, one of which is silenced - in short - it looks like half the job.
    You don't need to tell me there is evolution.
    I know there are other differences between ape and man.
    You can find some other plausible scenario besides the chromosomal fusion.
    Regardless - I did not present this as the only evidence for evolution - after all, there are thousands of confirmations for evolution - I presented this in response to your claim that evolution does not offer ways to disprove it - that is - as a refutation of this claim of yours.
    If you already knew about this fusion - then your claim that evolution does not offer ways to disprove it was not an innocent mistake but a deliberate lie.

  13. Michael-

    Do you mean the chromosomal fusion? Well, then what if it looks like a fusion? Did the tiger come from the fusion of a zebra and a cat? To be invented according to evolution. For example genes from the rfans family, which have no homologues anywhere. Or sequential contradictions between different types of proteins from different species (for example histone h4 which is the same in different species and different in distant species). If primitive creatures have genes of complex creatures (nerve cells). Or a snail that performs photosynthesis and more.

  14. Michael,

    I disapprove of the nickname liar. As far as I'm concerned, a liar is someone who deliberately tells an untruth. Someone who tells an untruth by mistake is just wrong. I don't think biology has any intentions of lying on purpose and he really believes his mistake.
    It is true that his goal is to bring us all back to repentance and that is bad for us, but his intentions in the end do not come from some basic evil in him and a person as a person deserves basic respect.

  15. David:
    It is also proven.
    Most of the proofs are big on you but one of them you realized yourself and now you probably suppress it.
    Actually only as a step between your words and your own private lie.

  16. The above response does not detract from the real and urgent sense of danger that I feel in the face of the religiously motivated irrational attitude that "biology" and its ilk display in the debate with science as in any other issue, when in a large part of the issues, what they call "opinions" is the sense of entitlement that they feel that they have to impose their lifestyles or the results of their parasitism on me.

  17. R.H.:
    Just so there won't be any misunderstandings.
    Keren earned the nickname "biology" not because of his stupid opinions but because of his deliberate lies.
    Even if someone knowingly lied in a debate about plate tectonics or in a debate about the effect of gamma rays on cat's claws, he would receive the same treatment from me.

  18. Rach

    "But a debate whose origins concern a view of life and religion"
    "First all the arrows and only then drawing the target"

    The problem is that in light of the discussion here it is possible to accuse both sides of "sin" - that is, a different interpretation of the data according to the world view (Globin)

    An interesting example is response 149 and response 204

    Indeed, both talk about exactly the same data (the fusion in the human chromosome) only if an interpretation that tries to strengthen the world view of the party explaining.

    It is quite clear why there is an uproar around this topic - because the tectonic plates are not trying
    define us humans, and that's a bit of a difference.

    In any case, it was a pleasure to read your comments and I wish you a happy new year as well.

    Michael

    The problem with your argument is that you are running to sentence biology to 20 years in prison (as a form of expression of course)
    Before it is agreed that he is even a thief (except you, of course).

    I would appreciate it if you would stop the psychological profile attempts you claim to make on me.

    Happy New Year to you, too.

  19. incidentally:
    In the meantime, another comment by "Bio is not logic" was published and I was not surprised to find that it also continues to ignore the example I gave him of an experiment that was carried out that could have easily disproved important parts of evolution and that one would have to be really stupid not to understand that this experiment gives evolution a very strong confirmation.

  20. jelly:
    It was nice at the wedding.
    The daughter of Nahum and Daganit Soroker (Nahum heads one of the two brain rehabilitation departments at Beit Levinstein), who is a biologist, got married there - to her friend (and today - also her husband) the physicist.
    In the previous wedding of the same family, his physicist wife married her mathematician friend.
    In other words - in the family in question weddings are customary "within the family", which is not a science (evolution) and a new age man (biology) school.
    By the way - only after I wrote the last sentence did I notice that even I got swept up in the laundry of words that ran here and suddenly attributed the name "biology" to the liar that floods us when in fact this name is the name of a legitimate science.
    It's something similar to what happens to us with words like "get stronger" which are also extorted from us by the same brainwashed group.
    Something I did think about before I wrote that sentence is that actually the correct expression is "wedding within the biological sex" and not "within the family" but I decided to use the phrase "within the family" as a joke anyway.

  21. Abi, it is not clear to me what you mean by a positive prediction (or observation). I gave the ATP engine as an example. Isn't an engine overwhelming evidence for a designer? And what about archaeology? You also want to rule it out because it is based on a negative assumption (archaeology rules out the natural creation of an urn, and therefore Finding an urn is evidence that we have found evidence of an ancient intelligent culture.

    A rabbit in the Cambrian cow will not be considered a refutation of evolution. For several reasons-

    A) You must limit it in time. What you are proposing is something impossible both financially and in terms of personnel. You are actually proposing to dig for hundreds or thousands of years to find some fossil that is unlikely to have been preserved at all. Who said we didn't dig it up? And maybe it will take thousands of years of excavations?
    b) Even if such a fossil is found, some evolutionary researchers claim parallel evolution. According to evolution, the eye was formed about 40 times separately. Therefore, a rabbit in the Cambrian cow could be the product of parallel evolution from another ancient cell. Or from a parallel evolutionary branch, from another ancient cell, that developed more quickly .
    c) Even if such a fossil is found. How do we know that the fossil did not infiltrate an ancient layer? There have already been studies of finding objects dating back hundreds of millions of years.

    Also regarding the accumulation of neutral mutations - if there is no selection and it is about the accumulation of 100 neutral mutations, this is still a random lottery, and therefore equivalent to a chance of 100^20. So you have not solved the problem.

    R.H-

    you said:

    "The argument was regarding hemoglobin that, according to biology, its various parts do not have any independent existence, and this is an argument that is not true because its various parts (proteins from the globin family and porphyrins) can be found functioning in completely different systems than hemoglobin" - true. But they require other molecules. So indeed *there is no* They have an independent existence.

    By the way, I probably won't be able to respond until Sunday at noon (I won't really be at home in the next few days). In any case, I will return to look at the above article and if necessary I will respond as I wish. Have a nice day...

  22. David:
    As I said - you probably like people to lie to you. It is legitimate. There are also people who love to be abused.
    You want biology to keep lying and for us to stop pointing out the fact that it lies.
    Is it to judge a thief and put him in prison to delegitimize the thief?
    No! The thief exceeded the limits of what is legitimate on his own! This is the point where delegitimization occurs! The fact that he is later judged is only a result!
    The story here is similar - but - as mentioned - it is probably important for you to have your opinion stolen.

  23. Uncle,
    I agree with you that every scientific debate is legitimate and must not be silenced in any way. But we should not be complacent either. It is clear that the case below is different and the debate is not scientific at all, but rather a debate whose origins concern a view of life and religion. On no other subject do you see such long, heated and passionate debates as on the subject of evolution, why?
    No one will call the other a "liar" if he opposes plate tectonics and no one will go and write 70 posts against plate tectonics either.
    This is similar to the fact that sometimes democracy has to defend itself in undemocratic ways against those who aim to destroy it and we should not be silent on the issue.

    You may ask what is the big harm in these arguments. The damage, in my opinion, is that they give the feeling to those who are not knowledgeable and up-to-date that evolution is indeed in serious trouble and has a lot of holes in it and you can't rely on it and not it. All genetic engineering, molecular biology, the enormous development in medicine and agriculture are based on evolutionary principles.
    In my opinion, similar damage was also caused by the great weight given to New Age. People go into a bookstore or websites (such as NRG) and see whole pages and pages of nonsense and here and there established things. This leads to the feeling that there is indeed a debate here between equal approaches or that there is utter nonsense and then of course the choice will be nonsense because they are easy, simple and attractive.

    Have a happy new year everyone, take life easy

  24. But now seriously, I meant to say that this is a dialogue of the deaf and in the meantime there are 209 comments here and in a little while there will also be 400 comments here that will repeat themselves.
    When Stephen Hawking says: "There is no God" 500 commenters immediately jump in the style of the debate here.
    Humans who believe in God are perfectly fine. And Stephen Hawking's statement just defies and hurts a lot of people in the world.
    My problem is different. Yesterday I read a headline in the latest news: We are becoming a Taliban state. Something like that. And they showed a photo of Haredim wearing a veil.
    I purposely do not enter into the biological debate here. What interests me right now is what is being done in Israel. It scares me that we will become a Taliban state. Extremism scares me. And extremism begins with the denial of science.
    And that's actually what I wrote in the article. And I am responding to my own article...

  25. Offspring of what you say - no less than their place.

    Is this a scientific journal to shape public opinion? If so cancel the comments, actually enough to spend
    Scientific nonsense keeps us from what is true and what is not true.
    I doubt the public will understand this.

    There is a very strong feeling that all the use of the words "he is exhausting" "he lies" "he is the creator" "does" etc.

    Designed to create a plastic lack of legitimacy as an avoidance of difficult and good questions

    You attack him for trying to establish that the God of the ultra-orthodox - in the end is the answer to which he leads in his investigation. It is not clear to me why, if the theory of evolution falls apart, at the most a new direction is explored, there is no default in opening a pentagram.

    But in fact this question is really irrelevant to the discussion - it's like asking what was before the big bang,
    Indeed, a super interesting question but not necessary to establish the claim of the form of development.

    As an analogy to sharpen the point - let's say that there is evidence for the existence of UFOs, but not exactly for aliens

    So what - does this eliminate the existence of UFOs because there are no answers to what is behind them?

    On the other hand, if you insist - Analogy offered to stop the discussion if he is requested,
    I will also move on
    And the sea will return to throw its familiar waves

  26. Only one thing I don't understand...

    Can a right-winger not accept the theory of evolution?

    What other theories are the property of the left only? For example, can a right-handed person accept the atomic model? the measurement theory? Is T.Z.C an overlapping sentence for leftists only?

    In short, Israel - you came out badly. And by the way, I'm writing here and I'm not a leftist. (at least in relation to this site...)

    And in relation to biology. I think there is a place to block and there is no place to answer.

    The reason is simple. You in advance receive an asymmetric model for the discussion - why do I have to prove the creation of life through evolution and Mr. Biology only needs to find a rebuttal to contradict? (Isn't it fair to demand that he explain what created the creator? And the creator creates endlessly and what evidence is there for this?)

    The result of an argument with him - such as the sale of homeopathic products (medicines) in pharmacies, which allows him to hash out his nonsense scientifically.

    A scientific journal does not examine its readers and check whether they recognize the bluff (thereby allowing dozens of people to use it as a stage and anchor for their claims), it simply does not allow publishing what is not reviewed by the editors.

    In the above case biology attacks evolution and in a rather stupid way. (As I said there are easier points to attack evolution - Rothschild... I didn't write that there are no answers but that there are no good answers... a lot of people had fun with the answers to the questions I gave)

    David is basically the proof of why biology should not be given a platform or comment.

    And by the way, any honest person who would have received the stream of insults that Biolgia received here when he registered talkbacks in total would have been offended and would have left the site.... But biology has an agenda……

  27. Biology
    The real interesting question is, how did you survive until now. And don't tell me God is watching over you. God doesn't look after you.

  28. David:
    For one moment you tried to demonstrate intellectual honesty and asked biology for an explanation of his lie (one of his lies - one that even you realized was a lie).
    I see that you laid down to rest so that this burst of honesty would pass you by and now you are back on your feet and you are once again praising the lies and helping biology to obscure them.
    Beauty!

  29. Here, for example, is another example of the war of attrition:

    "For a change, I would like you to tell me how to disprove the theory of evolution experimentally."

    I have already given him several times - even in the current discussion - the following link:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMj_45epINM&feature=player_embedded

    But no one (anyone?) as a biologist will refer to the facts. He has his theory and if he repeats it enough times it will become true!

  30. Rah:

    This is a comment I wrote a few hours ago but then the site was down and I had to go to a wedding.
    Since nothing changes in this discussion, it remains relevant.

    In my opinion, all this discourse with biology is pointless.
    He started with a most respectable collection of blatant lies.
    These lies were exposed and then he chose the tactic of attrition.
    This tactic is based on several techniques that he demonstrates to us gradually.
    One of the techniques is to ignore answers given to him and ask the question again.
    Another technique is to play it as if the things that were said to him do not relate to the issue at all and then - when it is shown to him that they do relate to the issue - to ignore the previous claim and switch to another tactic.
    Another tactic is taken from the world of lawyers (I read about it in one of John Grisham's books).
    The lawyer floods his opponent with a flood of words - simply to waste his time.
    His entire argument - on the subject of hemoglobin - if you strip it of the unnecessary words and phrases - is a very simple argument:
    I - biology - think it can't be and therefore no matter what you say - it can't be.
    If you break down the creation of hemoglobin into simple steps - it simply means that either these steps cannot connect without the intervention of the spaghetti monster or that some of the steps themselves need the pasta monster.
    Beyond the multitude of twists in his words - it is clear that this whole argument is a non-special version of the God of Gaps argument. That is, in the most optimistic case for him, he will prove that we don't know how hemoglobin was formed, and this will be "proof" for him that there is a God.
    Of course, this is just as much "proof" of the flying spaghetti monster, but God has protection with him.

  31. ravine,
    I must not have been clear. The argument was about hemoglobin, which according to biology, its various parts have no independent existence, and this argument is not true because its various parts (proteins from the globin family and porphyrins) can be found functioning in completely different systems than hemoglobin. So collecting and building these parts to form the hemoglobin molecule doesn't seem as impossible and far-fetched as he makes it out to be.

    And regarding your argument with the car, you are exactly justifying what biology says. You say "there are no cars in nature" which means if you see a car you know that something made it. If so then all the more a complex thing like a cell must have a creator according to the creationists. Instead of dealing with the above claim, you argue with him that cars must have an intelligent creator, meaning what he also claims.

  32. Biology, I would love for you to have scientific discussions here. What you are doing is a Shin Bet investigation that will bring the scientists to admit that there is a creator and you are already doing this over several articles and hundreds of your responses, in front of hundreds of responses from your respondents. What is this and science?
    Even the creationists in the USA in the name of their political correctness, followers of intelligent design, claim that they are not religious but scientists, but the courts have determined more than once that this is a religion in disguise.
    By the way, the literary critic Michael Handelzaltz once wrote in Eretz, that anyone who does not understand that the intelligent planner is the politically correct name of God is mentally challenged.
    For a change, I will repeat R.H.'s request. That you give a positive prediction, meaning something that will restore your intelligent planner and not just repeatedly attack evolution.
    An example of refuting evolution - if a rabbit is found in the layer before the Cambrian - the period when life actually began beyond the stage of archaea - primitive single cells. You'll never learn that half things don't have to have the same roles as the whole thing. There can be millions of intermediate states in which a mutation has no effect and is therefore preserved in the genome and does not destroy the carrier, until it suddenly encounters another mutation and both of them either kill the creature so it has no continuity, or create a new trait. As this is the case there is a bias, because you are not counting all the animals that died from their mutations, whereas beneficial mutations were preserved by natural selection. But again, you are also dragging me into your pointless discussion. Really go to Doss's website. No one will argue with you there.

  33. David, this is not the record of the discussion, it is already a grind of chewable material and lies a million times. This is not a position, these are simply lies that people at the Discovery Institute make up to convince their flock that evolution is wrong. RH is a biologist at a very respectable university, if he tries to put arithmetic biology on his mistake, trust him. He knows what he is talking about.

  34. And I will add to my comment before I go to sleep… 🙂
    The objection to Dr. Avital's words stemmed from the following reasoning: you can absolutely believe in the existence of a creator, but this is not science. And you can't turn your faith into science. Therefore, it is impossible to introduce such beliefs into science lessons in schools.
    A very common argument is: the students need to be exposed to many opinions because we are liberals and democrats and therefore the creator of the world and creation must be discussed in biology class in exactly the same way that evolution is discussed. This is an argument that confuses science with religion.
    This pluralism argument is true in literature and art but not in science. In art there are many currents of art or many existing paradigms at the same time: Cubism, Surrealism, Impressionism and more. In literature there are all kinds of literature and different reviews and different theories that are correct at the same time. In science it is not like that. In physics for example, you only mastered one theory at a given time to describe the microscopic world: the quantum theory and from it other theories are derived. You cannot say that you have mastered both Newton's mechanics and Aristotle's physics. It's absurd.
    And in biology the paradigm is exclusively evolution. Democracy is expressed within the framework of this theory which has received countless experimental evidences and debaters within this theory. This is how science works. When it is said that the students should be exposed to different opinions, it is meant that they are exposed to diverse and multiple studies in the most recent and modern developments in the field of evolutionary biology. Maybe in a hundred years they will replace the theory with something improved. But they will replace it with an improved scientific theory, with scientific corrections.
    I will give you an example. For example, have you heard of the field of quantum biology? Or quantum dervishes? This is the intention to expose students to the forefront of research within the dominant paradigm and to let them debate in class about different currents of thought in science: in my opinion this scientific current will not solve the problem, but I think this scientific current will solve the problem.... But there is no intention to expose them to religious beliefs. Religious beliefs have their place in the Bible lesson, which also has a prominent place in the school curriculum. But he is something else entirely. It's not science, it's just another field.
    Good night for biology, R.H. Michael, Guy and all the guys I didn't mention but I won't forget them for a moment!
    jelly

  35. At the height of the discussion, you decide to stifle the discussion, father? What is the fear?
    It doesn't look good, it doesn't look good at all.

    Because there is no objective reason to block biology - if you block Israel.

    You come to the conclusion that the discussion did not lead to it at all

    I do not agree at all that there is a deaf dialogue here - you firmly state that you are right about it while biology raises questions that show the opposite (and what's wrong with that?)

    You turn the discussion into an ideological one (also on your part) that has nothing to do with the fruitful scientific discussion happening here.

    After all, even if we say that biology shows that evolution is completely unfounded (say that...)

    It doesn't make us put capoita and streimel

    Other than that it was a pleasure to follow the development of the discussion in the last few days
    And the discussion was very matter-of-fact.

    I did not expect such a move from you.
    What a disappointment.

  36. Father, I am not the "Doss". Although I am familiar with his website. And I am not religious by the way. If you do not want me to conduct scientific discussions here, I will respect that.

    By the way, if the creationists fail to disprove evolution, maybe it is because it cannot be disproved, i.e. not scientific?

    jelly-

    Unnatural does not mean supernatural. I mean rational. And rationality is definitely part of nature.

    "You can believe in the existence of a creator, but this is not science. You cannot make faith scientific, because faith is not science." - The whole principle surrounding the origin of life and evolution is based on *faith*, that given enough time, anything can happen, and a soup saturated with chemicals can gradually turn into a princess with a beautiful title and good looks. And from soup you will grow The magical princess? Will this be called science?

    For a change, I would like from you how to disprove the theory of evolution experimentally. In addition, do you accept the claim that an engine requires creation?

  37. R.H.:

    "It's not like the car's steering wheel or the radiator has no function outside the car"
    Does a human lung have a function outside of a human? Does the human brain have a role outside of our skull?

    The argument is irrelevant

  38. arithmetic biology,
    what name. It's a paradoxical name. Biology cannot be arithmetic. And there is no such field as far as I know. There is a field called: Computational biology.
    Well, but let's say that arithmetic goes with biology.
    You wrote the sentence that is not scientific:
    "If we ruled out the natural formation of an engine. Obviously only reason can create it, i.e. an unnatural factor."
    An unnatural factor is outside of science. Science can postulate a principle such as the anthropic principle according to which the phenomena today are as they are because they are necessary for the existence of life. Otherwise living things could not exist. So we find the world as it is and the physical factors as they are and they explain life. But this is physics and a physical explanation and not an external factor to science. Science cannot explain a factor that is not natural.
    Science can only explain the universe. Unnatural means unscientific.
    You can believe in the existence of a creator but this is not science. You cannot make faith scientific, because faith is not science. Therefore, you cannot mix evolutionary explanations with explanations of an unnatural creator, because you are mixing a scientific theory that claims that the origin of life is in spontaneous creation with the belief that claims that the origin of life is in an intelligent creator.

  39. Israel,
    What is the connection between fasting on Yom Kippur and going to synagogue to the discussion here?
    I don't remember writing an article about the Tishrei holidays and Rosh Hashanah.
    I wrote an article about the creationists and deniers.
    As far as I know, there is no connection between this issue and Rosh Hashanah.
    Only the Central Bureau of Statistics will be able to give an accurate answer to the question:
    Does the majority of Israel go to synagogue on Rosh Hashanah and fast on Yom Kippur?
    But again this is a topic for another article.

  40. Arithmetic biology. Why do I have the feeling that this is a dialogue of the deaf, everything that is answered you repeat the same claims in the hope that they will get confused and agree with you. This is not a Shin Bet investigation.
    If you don't like science as it is, you have endless religious websites, write as many talkbacks as you want, where you will give your God any creative power you want and leave in peace. I didn't want to say it until now, but you already bullied us a few years ago and got blocked. In other terms, could you change a nickname and invent a scientific profession that doesn't exist and through constant exhaustion prove the creationist theories that the best creationists in the world have not succeeded in for 150 years? And even if so, go to the Kipa site, leave the science site alone for those who want to know about the real processes of nature, not those invented by creationists.
    post Scriptum. Apparently "Hadus" got bored on his website where he silences everyone who tells the truth, and here he found out that he is once again allowed to say his nonsense a hundred times and ignore the real and honest answers he receives from the best Israeli biologists in the world.

  41. Arithmetic Biology:
    "If we ruled out the natural creation of an engine, obviously only intelligence can create it, that is, an unnatural factor."
    First, we didn't deny it - you denied it, but without any support for the denial but out of your private decision to deny it.
    Second, what do you mean by "only reason can create"? Where is the line that separates what "reason" can create and what the laws of nature can create?

    "You can find a car even on Mars. Without any other cross-findings. Would you claim that this car was created by a natural process?"
    If there are no additional findings then there is no answer to why or who made the car - we can leave the rest and dream dreams about aliens who put the car - but they are worth as garlic peel without further knowledge.

    Well about the engine - what information do you have about this mysterious intelligent creator? What else does he know how to create?
    If my memory serves me correctly - once he was the one who caused the rain to fall, the sun to shine, people to get sick, plants to grow, tides and ebbs, to create fire, etc., etc., in the meantime he changed his role a bit, maybe out of boredom, maybe he wanted a bit of a challenge, who knows?

  42. Dear Gali (perhaps Supergallipargelisticexpialidochess)
    The truth is that you think your thoughts are the truth
    The only reality and there is no end
    In Hamshirs and movies in virtual reality
    With or without a flying umbrella
    Some eccentrics share your imaginations
    The sane majority does not see these films
    Most of the people of Israel go to synagogue on Rosh Hashanah and fast on Yom Kippur
    And they have been doing this for thousands of years
    Your curiosity remains and will remain a curiosity, good for you

  43. Michael - Twice I went over the conjunction חגר גגורותים and it seems acceptable to me (ie a quote from the source in which this expression appears apparently). Only for the third time did I realize that it was actually a paraphrase of a serious donkey (I said it, not you).

  44. my father
    The theory of evolution and the spherical nature of the earth is knowledge, not belief.
    Faith is only when you are not sure, like God.

  45. Dear Israel,
    The left and the small is not omnipotent
    But the earth is always round
    Red is on the inside and green is on the outside
    This is not a belief but a necessary science
    A left site is a creationist!
    The right is empty and contains only an evolution of reactions
    of Bibi and Sara and Shlomot's revolution
    Gali will be happy to express her opinion on the right side
    But then she will grab a meter of anchors!

  46. Supporting the theory of evolution and a green earth has nothing to do with right and left just like the belief that the earth is round. It is simply "faith" in reality.

  47. Biology,
    How can you claim that there is no gradation here? Some globins are not attached to porphyrins, some porphyrins are not attached to iron. By combining all three together, a molecule was created that binds oxygen. Don't you see the gradual development here?

    It's not like the car's steering wheel or the radiator has no function outside of the car. In our case, each of the components of the system can be found active by itself.

  48. Belt:
    It's simply impressive how people buy lies, nonsense and acts of exhaustion as part of a legitimate discussion (and impressive!) but complain about those who resent it.
    Good for you!

  49. The discussion here is mostly very impressive and is a quality example of a scientific discussion

    Especially in relation to arithmetic biology

    I would like to point out to praise Arithmetic Biology which remains cool and responds to the matter and calmly even when it is vilely slandered.

    (Tick? What kind of language is this?) I would expect the site manager to defend the discourse even in front of a rival to his views

  50. The left column is shorter than the right one, so if you want to add something permanent to the page, it is advisable to do it on the left side, and what does it matter anyway?

  51. ravine-

    If we ruled out the natural creation of an engine, obviously only reason can create it, that is, an unnatural factor.

    You can also find a car on Mars. Without any other cross-findings. Would you claim that this car was created by a natural process?

    Mizpatel-

    First, Ockham's Razor is not a guarantee of correctness. Second, he assumes that the problem with as few disappearing as possible is the correct one. But who determines that this is accurate? And anyway, who determined that a motor -> therefore creates, is a problem with the fewest disappearing?

    "We make tools and therefore assume that earlier people also made tools and try to identify them based on this assumption." - We also make engines. Hence intelligence is required for the ATP turbine.

    to R.H.-

    I am aware of the fact that this is a whole family. But if a "them" molecule was created for the first time, there is no benefit. All the globins are also of similar complexity. So it is not possible to show a gradual development. Moreover, the "them" molecule itself is built by 8 different enzymes, each One is hundreds of bases long. The same goes for the porphyrin structure. All porphyrins have a similar basic structure in its complexity. And each porphyrin works in cooperation with other molecules. Again, there is no gradation from a relatively simple structure.

    "Then you can think of the following scenario: globin, which served in a certain role, contacted porphyrin. "-Why would it interact with porphyrin? What function did the globin serve before connecting to the porphyrin and what was its length? And if it connected with the porphyrin, a change in the spatial structure would have been required to allow the porphyrin to enter the globin, so a big change is required here again.

    "From this accidental pairing, a molecule was formed that binds to oxygen, and this binding was particularly excellent when the porphyrin contained iron." - How will oxygen bind when there is no iron atom yet? And the introduction of an iron atom into the porphyrin is done by the enzyme prochelatase, an enzyme that is 497 amino acids long and has a spatial structure that binds to all four nitrogens and for the iron atom. That means we will need a bigger jump than the globin itself. A serious problem.

    And I'm not particularly attracted to globin. I can give you a list of other proteins. Just choose.

  52. Biology:
    It seems to me that when you say something is not possible it is almost a guarantee that it is not only possible but actually happening.
    All the explanations you explained 3 times are probabilistic - aren't they?
    We have already seen what an idea you have of probability.
    Your ability to calculate probabilities has zero probability.

  53. Biology,
    Hemoglobin is caught as if it were the mystery of the century. If we find how hemoglobin is formed, will it contradict the existence of the Creator?
    So please -
    Hemoglobin consists of:
    1) Globins which are proteins that belong to an extensive family of proteins that are not all related to the heme molecule and all have a common origin. For more information see the official website of protein families pfam - http://pfam.sanger.ac.uk/family/globin

    2) heme molecule that consists of porphyrin and iron. In nature you can find a wide variety of porphyrin molecules that are not bound to iron.

    So we can think of the following scenario: globin that served in a certain role interacted with porphyrin. From this accidental pairing, a molecule was formed that binds to oxygen and this binding was particularly excellent when the porphyrin contained iron. The creature or cell where it happened received a huge evolutionary boost compared to the rest and the rest is history.
    Have we calmed down from the hemoglobin? There is no magic or wonder here.

  54. 1. Biology - regarding the creator the answer is Occam's razor and induction. It is simpler to assume that there is no creator and see if it is possible without him. Basically, in science, theories with fewer variables are preferable to more complicated theories and usually (although not always) are also more successful. As for archaeology, I suppose the reason is quite prosaic. We make tools and therefore assume that earlier people also made tools and try to identify them based on this assumption. I admit that I cannot prove that someone did not fabricate all the archaeological evidence. As a scientist I will try to manage without a creator. But, if it turns out to me even once that there is a creator, I will have to include him in the weighing of all my theories. If my memory is correct, there is an interesting case of the meteorite from Mars who thought they recognized chemical structures in it that were created by bacteria (creator) and thought that this was evidence of life on Mars, but it turned out that such structures can also be created in a natural geological process (without a creator)

    2. To Michael and R. H. or anyone who understands the field - please answer the interesting question of biology regarding the globin. Also, is there evidence of the formation of new proteins in nature?

  55. Arithmetic Biology:

    "I ask again, why do I have to prove to you that an engine/car requires a manufacturer? It's not self-evident?"
    Apparently not.

    As for your answer: (I broke it down so I could better understand the steps of the "physical proof")
    1. Engine (the ATP) is made of consumable material
    2. Hence, if you put its starting material to spontaneous processes, they only could it over time
    3. No engine will be created

    Let's say I get these proof steps. And what's next?
    When does the big jump come in? The one who says "and therefore the creator commits?"
    Or is it "obvious" again (maybe the logical step I'm missing is: Daaa! Like, it's obvious like that)

    And to continue the answer:
    "When was the last time I came across a car in nature? Wherever there are people traveling in cars. Why do you think an engine can create itself and a car can't? What's the difference?"
    The difference is that when there is a car you can cross-reference that find (here as in archaeology) with endless amounts of other supporting finds:
    who owns the car
    When was the car bought?
    Where was it bought?
    In which factory was it made?
    If you try really hard you can even get to the name of the person who designed the car, the person (or the machine (or the person who operated the machine)) who assembled the doors, and the person who managed the person who operated the machine that assembled the vehicle.
    You can also, if you're lucky, find the owner of the car and simply ask him.

    What do I have with the ATP engine? Who should I turn to? Anna will I go? I don't have a shred of a clue that compares to the mountains of information I have about the car (or urn) manufacturing process.

  56. Nice, Michael, did you see what was written there?:

    It is false because it demands a specific sequence in a SINGLE selection step from a pool of random sequences, whereas the real evolutionary model for the origin of protein sequences involves MULTIPLE ROUNDS OF RANDOM MUTATION followed by MULTIPLE selection steps as outlined above.

    Very true. This is the argument of evolution. And it is not possible, as I have explained about 3 times. If it were true, there would be a benefit to the "them" molecule separately, and to the skeleton that wraps it separately. But the fact is that this is not the case, and each part is biologically useless in itself.

    RH-Rashit would like to hear from you how they refute the evolutionary claim of common origin. But if you want to refute the design claim, it is enough to see how the globin was created gradually, because then the whole plausibility argument becomes reasonable and not hopeless. Good luck...

  57. Arithmetic Biology:

    "I ask again, why do I have to prove to you that an engine/car requires a manufacturer? It's not self-evident?"
    No.

    As for your answer: (I broke it down so I could better understand the steps of the "physical proof")
    1. Engine (the ATP) is made of consumable material
    2. Hence, if you put its starting material to spontaneous processes, they only could it over time
    3. No engine will be created

    Let's say I get these proof steps. And what's next?
    When does the big jump come in? The one who says "and therefore the creator commits?"
    or name

    When was the last time I came across a car in nature? Anywhere there are people driving cars. Why do you think an engine can create itself and a car can't? What's the difference?

    Regarding archeology - you don't always find writings or accompanying objects. And in general, perhaps the accompanying objects were also created by themselves? Let's say you are an archaeologist who found an urn with a handle. Would you claim that it was created by itself?

  58. Rah:
    This has been clear to me for a long time.
    In fact, I already tried to stop the argument with him, but since it continued, I came back to respond a bit.

    Biology:
    As one who does not read any evidence to disprove his claims - obviously you will not read hundreds of pages for that.
    That's why I bothered to point out that the issue of hemoglobin is discussed in the first link.
    Look for the word hemoglobin there - ya tick.

  59. God,
    It is clear to you, I hope, that we are wasting words and time here. The Arithmika family has decided that there is a creator and from this stage, no matter what the facts are, they will interpret them in the light of this view. First of all the conclusion and then the evidence for it, first of all the arrows and only then the drawing of the target.

    After all, it is clear that if one day a new animal appears out of nowhere that will have "Made in Arcturus" written on it, we will all accept the fact that there is something that creates new animals without an evolutionary process. But no matter what is revealed the Arithmetic family will never be convinced and so this argument is a waste of time.

    Biology,
    Last question, is there any evidence or experiment that would convince you of the non-existence of the intelligent creator? If not here, the argument between us is over.

  60. Does it do this by a new protein or do you assume that it requires a new protein? And how do you know that the above two species did not exist before?

    To Michael - I can also bombard you with links (want to see?). But I'd rather you give the answer about Globin here. I'm not supposed to read hundreds of pages and search for myself.

  61. Biology,
    You repeat to yourself "nothing new was created", define new.

    Is the HIV virus not new enough for you? On the one hand it is similar to other retroviruses because it was created from them and on the other hand it is new because it is different enough to be called a new virus and it did not exist before the 50s.

  62. RH-You repeat that new proteins were created. I ask again-can you give a specific example of a new protein working on a new substrate? Can you demonstrate how the globin is gradually created? Everything else is a bonus.

    "They are all recently created viruses, there are inevitably new proteins, otherwise they would be defined as existing species. "-You assume what is requested. All dogs also have the same proteins. Despite their differences.

  63. Regarding your claim that the ATP pump components will not produce an ATP pump by themselves, the answer is that given the right conditions they will.
    In analogy, take water. Did they alone produce the particular cloud I'm seeing right now? Obviously not, then this is proof of the creator?

  64. Biology,
    It is not a philosophy. My question is critical to understanding the creator. Is he currently creating new species or do you believe he only created the first cell from which life evolved?
    Sars, HIV and H1N1, all recently created viruses, necessarily have new proteins or they would be defined as existing species. As above, oil-degrading bacteria and the same E. coli that utilizes citrate.

    Just please don't come and tell me that viruses are not alive and therefore were not created by the creator, because then you will agree that a complex structure like a virus containing proteins and nucleic acids can be created by evolution, right?

  65. Legia and R.H.

    Guy, I ask again, why do I have to prove to you that an engine/car requires a manufacturer? It's not obvious? Why don't you have to prove to me that an engine does not require a manufacturer? But if you still insist - proof that an engine requires a manufacturer: an engine (the ATP) is made From a decaying material. Hence, if you put its source material to spontaneous processes, they would only decompose it over time and an engine would not be created. This is physical proof that an engine cannot be created by itself.

    When was the last time I came across a car in nature? Anywhere there are people driving cars. Why do you think an engine can create itself and a car can't? What's the difference?

    Regarding archeology - you don't always find writings or accompanying objects. And in general, perhaps the accompanying objects were also created by themselves? Let's say you are an archaeologist who found an urn with a handle. Would you claim that it was created by itself?

    to R.H.-

    What genetic change took place in those apparently new species? Were new proteins created there? All your other questions concern philosophy (the nature of God, his intentions, etc.). And I don't want to engage in philosophy.

  66. Guy, I haven't come across a car in nature, but I have come across a pretty amazing thing in nature: a human being. Just like that, without a creator, a very complex machine was created, which is called a human, and it is capable of thinking on its own, and even building complex machines. I found a machine many times more complex than a car - and it has no creator.
    We often find beautiful and familiar shapes in the clouds. Still, I find it hard to assume that you will look at the clouds and say that someone must have sculpted these beautiful shapes. Meanwhile, the claim that a work requires a creator has no basis, except for the fact that we know works that have a creator.
    And if you insist, then I will tell you that I have never seen a work that was not created by a human being. Therefore - it is guaranteed that all the things you have seen in nature have a creator who is a person. Furthermore - all the works I know were created by more than one person (even if you took a tree and built a chair from it, someone else made the ax for you. If you made the ax - someone dug the iron for you, etc.), therefore I guarantee that the works you Speaking of them, they were created by many, not by one. Also, all the works that I know the creator of, were created by people who are not perfect, and sometimes have unacceptable opinions on conscientious issues. Therefore it is guaranteed that even the one who created nature is not perfect, and has unacceptable opinions on conscientious issues. In other words: if the analogy is valid, why did we stop at the creator's point?

  67. Arithmetic biology

    Read comment 148, you might learn something.
    There are those who will answer 'God', there are those who will doubt that he knows, and will learn. And there is the rest. The best survivors of all are those who learn. And this is another proof of the existence of evolution.

  68. Lanzer, regarding your feelings that there will always be enough of everything and they always say the same thing:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=PlayList&p=6A1FD147A45EF50D&index=0&playnext=1
    And just one example from the lecture: bacteria are in a test tube and double their number every day. On the sixtieth day they contain half of the test tube. On which day will they fill the entire test tube?
    And if you solved the previous question correctly, let's say that on that day the bacteria realized that the space was going to run out and sent spores to the laboratory table and found 3 test tubes, 3 times more space than they had until now. Why would this be enough at the current growth rate?
    Regarding the claim that it is not possible for humans to change the world in 1000 years, I will refer you to the definition of von Neumann machines in "Odyssey 2001" (or in the English Wikipedia).
    In addition, you are welcome to look for what he read in the Easter Islands when they rented just a few more trees. The earth will survive, life will probably continue, maybe even humans will survive, the question is what will be left of the culture.
    And who do you think has economic interests in reducing pollution and using alternative energy? Are there no economic interests of very rich companies to continue the situation as it is without worrying about the future?

  69. And regarding your archaeological argument, you remind me of the one that found nothing and claimed that it was proof that the Romans had wireless

  70. Biology,

    Is your creator still with us today?
    If not, then how do new varieties suddenly appear? For example, AIDS, SARS, fowl fever? Resistant bacteria like the MRSA strain?
    If so, where is he? Where is it made? And why does he only create microorganisms that are similar to existing ones? How is it that completely new animals don't appear out of nowhere? How is it that such a great creator sometimes falters and children are born with cancer and genetic diseases? How is it that species are extinct?

  71. Arithmetic Biology:

    You keep being evasive - please show how a binding engine is created.
    You asked if a car requires a manufacturer -
    When was the last time you encountered a car in nature?
    Regarding archeology - archaeological findings are backed by knowledge and additional findings about the culture that created them - when you find a broken urn - you can learn about the creator of the urn from the paintings on the urn, other urns that were found next to it, from the mound on which the urn was found, from the shape of the building where the urn was placed, letters from that period that talk about the culture that lived in that area.
    Where are all these findings for your smart engine?

  72. R.H-

    Proteins are formed in many cases from fusions, translocations and moving the reading pattern. Everything is found and demonstrated in the laboratory." - Please, demonstrate to me how the globin is formed gradually. In the laboratory or outside it.

    Every construction that is done in the laboratory is based on these principles. We did not invent anything, everything from nature.
    Regarding the example with the letters, you didn't understand either. The selection is not random, it depends on the environment and therefore a combination of randomness with selection "- but there is no selection if there is no benefit in the protein. And as mentioned, there is no benefit in only half the protein.

    I do not agree with your firm statement "an engine requires a creator" why? How is a fractal of infinite complexity created from two simple formulas? How is a cloud formed? Complex geological layers?" - So an engine does not require a creator? A car does not require a creator?

    Regarding the creator, you are evasive. You didn't show any positive proof, only through the negation "it can't be that..." This is proof through the negation. You will see an unnatural creation process going on all around and we will believe you"-First, everything that occurs in nature is natural by definition. Second, evidence by way of negation is practiced in archeology. After all, the entire science of archeology is based on the identification of planned objects. Are you claiming that finding an engine in an archaeological dig is not evidence to ancient technology? Or alternatively, are you claiming that archeology is not a science?

  73. Rach

    I'm not an expert in the field, but your question is attributed to the fourth theory.

    The intervention theory agrees with the intelligent planning - but does not leave the planner Artilai

    This is the unnatural creation process that the intervention theory points to:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgvqZixAzm4

    By the way
    The discussion became fascinating.

  74. Have any of you ever thought what a wonderful engine is the water cycle in nature?
    It's an engine that runs on the energy of the sun in a super efficient way, raises water to the sky and lowers it in all kinds of places so that you can use the energy of their height and generate electricity (or grind flour) and it works in a closed circuit without creating any waste.
    It is certain that someone created this engine - that is - it is not enough that it is water, the sun and the earth that have such and such properties.
    The same one also created engines on other stars that work on a similar principle with other materials such as methane.
    He also created an engine that moves stars in regular orbits without requiring any external energy source.
    Even at my house he once created a super sophisticated machine.
    I noticed this when one day (many years ago) I woke up early in the morning and saw two concentric circles on the ceiling of the dark room, while in the inner circle - two black dots near the two ends of the diameter.
    At first I didn't understand what it was, but later I realized that it looked exactly like the cover of the sewer pipe control - a cover that is on the balcony next to the room window.
    Then I realized what happened: the shutter was damaged at a certain point and in the slot that distinguishes between its stages that were in the "closed" position, there was a small hole that allowed light to penetrate.
    In fact my room became a camera obscura and functioned as a camera. The hole functioned as a lens and the balcony was projected onto the ceiling.
    And it is clear that a camera cannot be created by itself!
    All the members of the house thanked God and humbled him.

  75. Arithmetic Biology:

    "I don't know and it's irrelevant, all I'm here to show is that an engine requires a creator"

    Please, this is what we are all waiting for - please show it

  76. Biology,
    I'm sorry but even though you supposedly demonstrate proficiency you are very wrong. Proteins are created in many cases from fusions, translocations and moving the reading pattern. Everything has been found and demonstrated in the laboratory. Every construction that is done in the laboratory is based on these principles. We did not invent anything, everything from nature.
    Regarding the example with the letters, you didn't understand either. The selection is not random, it depends on the environment, and therefore a combination of randomness with selection can produce complex structures and, for example, a whole book.
    I do not agree with your firm statement "an engine requires a creator" why? How is a fractal of infinite complexity created from two simple formulas? How is a cloud formed? Complex geological layers?
    Regarding the creator, you are evasive. You didn't show any positive proof, only through the negation "it can't be that..." This is proof through the negation. You will see an unnatural creation process taking place all around and we will believe you.

  77. R.H-

    Who claims that evolution does not believe in big steps? Only all biologists support it. After all, no biologist would claim that proteins are formed in their entirety, just like that, in one fell swoop. Whether it is globin or shoton or whatever. You are also welcome to consult the book Climbing the Improbable Mountain of Dawkins or the blind watchman, and prove to yourself that this is also the opinion of evolution.

    Get a computer that will randomly write letters (these are the mutations), but every time a letter that matches your message comes out, it will keep it in its place (this is the random selection). You will receive your message from a random process in a few seconds." - And that is exactly what * Evolution does not have the power to do that. If we return to the globin example, natural selection will not identify the "hem" molecule, because it has no benefit in itself. Therefore, there is no selection until the entire protein is completed.

    As for your ATP pump, no it is not creator proof. In fact, if I were you, I would talk about the ribosome, which is known as the source of knowledge, but it also does not constitute proof of a creator. It can be seen as stages and development and there are even theories of its creation in stages." - Please. If you mean Ada Yonet's protoribosome. What her research showed is a protoribosome that only makes a peptide bond, that's all. What is not taken into account there is the connection to messenger RNA, an enzyme The guide RNA that collects a specific amino acid for a specific codon, and the aminoacyl transferase RNA synthetase proteins, which take care of connecting the guide RNA to its amino acid. In short, the ribosome that she proposed demonstrates my main point well. And it turns out that she even faced this problem herself:

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/proto-ribosome-0812094/

    "Between the creation of such random proteins in the ancient era by the proto-ribosome, and the creation of today's functional proteins by the ribosome, a decisive step separates and is the insertion of the information."

    "Even if the proto-ribosome resulted in the random creation of primitive proteins with a certain functional capacity, it is not clear whether and how the information on the sequence of these ancient proteins could be immortalized within the genetic information, so that it could be inherited from generation to generation and even undergo evolution. In other words, in the description of the evolutionary sequence from the primordial proto-ribosome to today's life, a central link is still missing, without which the riddle of the formation of life will not be solved, and that is understanding the source of information according to which the functional proteins are formed."

    "Note that we are still arguing about evolution and you have not given me any description of your creator, who he is, what his purpose is, how he created, is he still around? Did he create only the first cell or all species? Did he put the fossils in the ground and if so why? Was all of creation made for us?" - I don't know and it's irrelevant. All I'm here to show is that an engine obliges a creator. What, no?

  78. To my father
    I hope there is such a thing in Rathanis with intellectual honesty, although I am satisfied 🙂
    for biology
    As my father said: it's probably hopeless... you probably didn't even read the links
    You wrote: "Is a new protein created here or is it a destruction of a transfer protein that caused citrate to enter the cell?"
    Well: "..in order for such a mutant to be created, a small change in the gene, and hence an existing protein, is not enough, but a gene must be created to carry a new protein." (This is not about any destruction of anything..:-)

  79. Biology,
    Again I see progress in your words, before you claimed that it was impossible for a new protein to be created, now you already agree that such a situation is possible. So let's move on.
    Who claimed that evolution "doesn't believe" in big changes? This is absolutely not true. There is no theoretical limit to small changes. The genetic changes that take place, and we see them every day in the laboratory, are large and small and in addition there are genetic mixing mechanisms of lateral transfer, recombination and of course sexual reproduction.
    Regarding what you said about the message, take a computer that will randomly write letters (these are the mutations), but every time a letter that matches your message comes out, it will keep it in its place (this is the random H-to-A selection) and you will receive your message from a random process in a few seconds. In fact, you can also get the book Sin and its Punishment from a random process that will accompany the selection very quickly.

    As for your ATP pump, no it is not creator proof. In fact, if I were you, I would talk about the ribosome, which is known as the source of knowledge, but it also does not constitute proof of a creator. It can be seen as stages and development and there are even theories of its creation in stages.

    Note that we are still arguing about evolution and you have not given me any description of your creator, who he is, what his purpose is, how he created, is he still around? Did he create only the first cell or all species? Did he put the fossils in the ground and if so why? Was all creation made for us?

  80. RH - I probably wasn't clear enough. I don't disagree that there is no way for new proteins to form. I claim that it is simply hopeless in an evolutionary way. A slight movement that will cause a frame shift will cause a change of hundreds of nucleotides. This is a huge leap that evolution does not believe in. And that is exactly what I am claiming - The only way for the formation of proteins like globin is big jumps, of hundreds of genetic letters at the same time. This is contrary to the evolutionary opinion of small steps. The same goes for the recombination of proteins, transposons or whataber. My definition of new is a new catalytic activity, which works on a new substrate .

    Regarding letters, what is the chance that by mixing letters you will receive this message? Note that there is *no* natural choice here before the entire message has been completed. As I demonstrated in Globin.

  81. I didn't think I'd say that

    However, your positive vision is extremely convincing for intelligent planning (a god, an extraterrestrial, any entity - that's another discussion)

    Does anyone have a revital for this?

  82. Biology,
    We already agreed that you do agree that there is an evolutionary process, the very fact that you acknowledge the existence of changes (mutations) and selection proves the point.
    Who said new proteins are not created? After all, a slight shift in the reading pattern, insertion or mutation causing the creation of a termination codon is enough for a new protein to be created. And we haven't even started talking about protein fusions, translocations and horizontal transfer.
    Take several Word files, do a copy pass and cut paste between the files and into empty files, in addition randomly change letters here and there at a constant rate, delete letters and add letters, will you not receive new and different files from what you started with with a different meaning (of course the question is asked what is your definition renew?) ?

  83. R. H. Please: I am not claiming that in addition to evolution there is an element of intelligent creation, but instead. I have no problem with a protein becoming a more efficient protein. But I have a problem with the creation of new proteins. Take for example a simple protein like globin, whose function is to transfer oxygen. The globin consists of two subunits: the "hem" molecule, whose function is to bind oxygen, and a special protein that wraps it and enables its operation. Now we will go one last step before the aforementioned protein was apparently created. Let's assume that the "hem" molecule was created first, what use was it before the protein that wraps it appeared ? Or alternatively, what benefit was there in the appearance of the protein before the appearance of the "them" molecule? They both need to be created at once, and the chance of that as mentioned is too low. By the way, the they molecule is also used in other proteins such as cytochrome, but it does not work there either alone and requires an envelope protein. So the level of complexity is the same and both have a low chance of evolutionary emergence.

    What positive evidence do I have? Super sophisticated engines such as the ATP turbine

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8lhPt6V-yM&feature=related

    Do you think an engine does not indicate a creator?

  84. Biology 121,

    So we have made some progress here, if you do not rule out mutations or the existence of selection in nature, then in fact you do agree that there is an evolutionary process. Everything else is small details.
    What I understand is that in addition to evolution you think there is also a process of intelligent creation? So let's move forward and please tell us who the creator is, how he does it and what is the positive evidence (not just the denial of evolution) for his existence?

  85. Arithmetic biology - now your turn.

    Please answer Michael's claim in Dawkins' book in the third chapter
    Probability is not used to prove evolution, just the opposite.

  86. Eric:
    Thanks for the link to the study.
    Even if it will no longer help "biology" - it can certainly help creationists who have a shred of logic left in them.

  87. scion,
    There are many hypotheses about sexual reproduction. The most trivial is that it is an effective mechanism for increasing diversity in the population, which increases the chances of survival. Another advantage is that sexual reproduction keeps recessive mutations from manifesting as seen in consanguineous marriages for example.

    Yair,
    You ask how it is that the changes do not apply much more and the answer is simple: every cell in the world contains mutation repair mechanisms on many, many levels. DNA replication undergoes proofreading, there is identification of bases that have undergone inappropriate chemical pairing, there are a variety of mechanisms to eliminate harmful bases, a variety of mechanisms to repair breaks in DNA and many more. Despite all of this, from time to time a mutation occurs, usually it will be meaningless or fatal For a cell, it will rarely provide an advantage, it's all a question of the number of cells, time and rate of mutations (which can increase, for example, by radiation).

  88. Yair

    You deal with trifles, maybe you're a linguist but I'm a scientist.

    you are welcome. Evolution deals with fitness. Let's put it take.

    Suppose we have a fitness (utility) function that depends on two variables. For example, the development of aviation depends on the development of wings and also low weight.

    Now there is no value for high weight wings (for example Moa lost the wing completely) and there is no value for low weight without wings but there is value in both together.

    If there are individuals without wings and with a high weight... what is the chance of mutation in both at the same time?

    Regardless, I have read a number of articles on this subject (and also on other questions, for example the evolution of altruism, which I deliberately did not go into) and despite this, the question is still open.

  89. Year:
    I know Netzer and he actually knows evolution.
    The use of purposeful terms in the description of evolution is a way of simplifying the expression and as long as it is spoken between people who understand the matter there is nothing wrong with it.
    When he presents "viability" as a condition for evolution, he means that without the mutation giving the organism an advantage (it is viable), its chances of taking over the entire population are zero.
    He is not talking about the mechanism of creating the mutations but about the mechanism of natural selection after the mutations have been created.

  90. to eric-

    I use the words "maybe" and "probably" because I am qualifying my words and not stating facts. Nevertheless, I understand a little bit of biology and the studies I have seen regarding the above findings themselves are not conclusive. And if you want me to show you why a new protein cannot be created from mutations Simple, I'll be happy to explain it to you.

    "
    In view of the fact that we are talking about at least two random mutations that resulted in the improvement of the bacterium in the face of environmental constraints, then this is proven evidence for the mechanism of evolution. Definitely a reasonable possibility. But there is no evidence here for the formation of a new protein, or even a new active site.

  91. scion,
    "The point is that there is not a single serious scientist who deals with evolution who can unequivocally explain why it would have been worthwhile for any species to develop sexual reproduction."
    I don't know what science you are involved in, but raising the question I quoted from you shows that you don't deal with evolution, since no trait evolved because it "should". Evolution is completely pointless.

  92. Hello Ron. For two whole days I have not tried to log in from the IP of the CASHING company and pour your conspiracy theories on us. You failed to convince us this time too, although this time I decided to leave it so that everyone can see who you are.
    Wikipedia has written both opinions, where the assertion that it is sea level rise is from the authorities there who know a little more about what they are talking about than the conspirators who sit in America and vote for the conservatives. The authorities checked that they are paying for the damage. Relocating 10 families at a time in the nation's capital costs them a lot of money. It is true that normal human activity also adds, but it would not have an effect if the ecological situation were not already precarious. Note that this is an island with a diameter of 50 kilometers (although most of the area is the inner lake, but there is still enough space in the strip surrounding the lake). Not on some island of 2 meters by 2 meters. In addition] also small nearby islands have already disappeared, not only the big island which apparently had a problem with water breaking into its inner lake.
    What is being hidden from you is not scientific information but conspiracy theories masquerading as scientific. I'm not going to change the science to suit you, as I mentioned there is another truth site at your disposal, so why are you bothering us?

  93. scion:
    Obviously, there are still gaps in evolution that need to be closed.
    There are such gaps in both relativity and quantum theory.
    This is the fate of scientific theories in general.
    However - it is no longer possible to rule out the fact that evolution exists and all its components - mutations and natural selection exist.
    The only question that can be asked - if at all - is whether evolution is the vision of everything.
    So far no other proposal has been presented that meets the test of observations.
    Will such an offer be made in the future? Satisfied but maybe still.

    By the way - on the issues of sex and aviation, as on other difficult issues - there are suggestions for an answer. The question is more "what really happened?" And not "Could this even happen?"

    sex:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction

    aviation:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_birds
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_avian_flight
    Feathers are not a negative thing (and it is also possible to fly without feathers, as the bats do).
    Even light bones are not a necessary condition to start flying and they can develop later due to the advantage that such bones provide. (The bones of bats are not hollow like the bones of birds. True, they are smaller, but there are animals that have no bones at all).

    What is clear is that with the multitude of crackpots who express themselves obsessively against evolution, a certain degree of assertiveness needs to be demonstrated, and this is not always enough to shut down the flood of nonsense and lies they produce.

  94. I have no knowledge of evolution to enter into the discussion here (like many others, I think)

    But the scientific debate regarding the climate question raises serious doubts about what is being shown to me and what is not being shown about evolution as well

    I read a lot of interesting climate discussions here on the site (war of the worlds should be noted) - and I got a pinch in my heart when I discovered some data hidden from me, even here on a Hebrew scientific site (right at home).

    Therefore, as a touchstone this time, I went to read a bit about this island that was supposed to sink due to sea level rise

    I didn't have to dig deep, the first place I checked was Wikipedia:

    The island is not related to the climate debate at all - it is either earthquakes that caused the island to sink a little and the explosion of the reef by the residents that caused the tide to invade the land.

    I have to point out that it scares me to think that even the scientific world has an unscientific agenda.

    Because who else is left to believe?

  95. I already have a collection of 15 baskets at home that I take to the supermarket and thus save the production of dozens of plastic bags, and if I go to the market, I take used bags with me to weigh the vegetables instead of taking more bags from the supermarket.

  96. to 'arithmetic biology'
    I'm not a biologist, but like other ordinary people it's quite easy to recognize demagoguery:
    In the beginning, you wrote: "A gene for nylon digestion. The truth is that the research they conducted actually found that it was probably a plasmid. That is, an existing gene that was just transferred from another bacterium. That is, it is not a new protein. In addition, it is possible that this is due to a point mutation of an acidic exchange of one."
    You use the words 'maybe' and 'probably'.. because you have no idea what you are talking about, you write that 'it is probably a plasmid', you ramble on and leave it at that (not to mention lying)..
    In view of the fact that we are talking about at least two random mutations that led to the improvement of the bacterium in the face of environmental constraints, then this is proven evidence for the mechanism of evolution.. Using 'professional' words such as 'plasmid', 'point mutation'.. does not make your words more than complete nonsense.. and it has already been clarified about Your 'knowledge' of statistics.. and the challenge you didn't answer..

  97. Gali about psychology I don't usually answer because I deal with science. (If the psychologists were serious about their ability to read people, they would make a living in Vegas. I have met quite a few people who can really read and understand people, none of them were psychologists)

    Nevertheless, in connection with the claims, it is quite stupid to claim that every mission has a clear purpose and it is known to us. We enjoy a lot of things that seem unrelated to the purpose. For example, we learn taekwondo and godo to learn respect and precision in movement, we learn to dance to meet girlfriends, we go out looking for girlfriends in a pub to watch football there. We learn to play football so that we know how to take hits.

    We learn many things from play or imagination. In addition, the mere fact that something has no purpose does not mean that it should disappear. Maybe he once had a purpose.

    In general, the charge is stupid. In a similar way, it can be argued that the opinion gives that all humans had to become extinct because they have a lot of unnecessary organs in the body, for example an appendix or wisdom teeth. It stands to reason that natural selection will favor creatures without unnecessary organs.

    The point is that there is no serious evolutionary scientist who can unequivocally explain why it would have been worthwhile for any species to develop sexual reproduction.
    (Also developing different reproductive organs is not a simple mutation. Suppose that some living being (as simple as you wish) begins to develop a female reproductive organ. Is it useless without a mutation corresponding to a male reproductive organ that will develop at that exact moment?!?)

    There is no solution for this. This does not mean that evolution is not true, only that there are unanswered questions.
    Like how high is it up there….

    Abi - suppose there are fewer forests? so what. Furniture also knows how to make massive... ask IKEA. (I assume you mean to create oxygen. And again.. do you know how much oxygen forests produce?
    Do you know how much oxygen is consumed? Maybe there is a huge surplus. Maybe something else will produce oxygen? The very fact that such a parameter is measured means that there is no problem. If there was a problem, they would say that the concentration of oxygen in the air decreased by 5% in the last year and everyone would be alarmed.) The fact that it is more difficult to extract oil... OK, it's also harder to survive in the competitive world. On the other hand we know more and the technology has improved. There used to be one car for the family and today there are more than two, so the situation is probably not that difficult.

    I do not deny the processes that are happening. I'm just claiming. Let's assume no one does anything about it. Let's assume that everyone will take non-biodegradable plastic bags at the supermarket. Well, then what effect does this have on us? Suppose everyone does all these things? How will things change then? You will surely answer that it is a minor investment and therefore it is worthwhile. I will say that it is more worthwhile to invest the minor investment in the road. or in the children's education and there is no end to it. There will always be something else to do with the time.

  98. scion,
    I have also been told stories and I am older than you. I mean, younger than you... 🙂
    Regarding the question why did sex evolve if it is possible to reproduce by self-replication?
    I will explain to you by another example. People since ancient times have been telling stories, folktales and folktales.
    The question arises: what could be the evolutionary advantage of this tendency to create plots and stories? What in our evolution makes us prone to fantasy? There is a field that conventional psychology does not like and it is called "evolutionary psychology". Is the field a science or not? There is a great deal of controversy on the subject and much has been written on the subject. The psychologists really do not tolerate the evolutionary psychologists and there is a world war between them...
    The most famous evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker from Harvard University gave the following answer to the question I wrote above in the journal "Philosophy and Literature" in the April 2007 issue.
    Pinker, S, "Toward a Conscientious Study of Literature", Philosophy and Literature, Volume 31, Number 1, April 2007, pp. 162-178.
    Pinker writes, "Natural selection can be expected to eliminate any tendency to interfere in imaginary worlds instead of the real world." That is, from the point of view of Darwinian evolution, it is a waste of time to engage in fabric stories. Why did natural selection leave this tendency after all? What is her role? Pinker argues against the claim of wasting time, when he places the storytellers as a central element in our lives.
    The story is an important tool for learning and developing relationships with others in the individual's social group. Most researchers are beginning to agree on the following point: stories have a strong universal appeal that has neurological roots in both stories and the enjoyment of them. The stories are probably related to essential lessons in social cognition.
    Back when our ancestors developed social life in a group, according to Pinker's hypothesis, they had to understand the very complex social relations. Living in a social community requires the individual to label the member of the group and know what each one's role is. It turns out that the best way to adapt and learn about this social life and to spread such information is through the storytellers and stories. This is likened to a guild and an apprentice who passes on oral rules and oral wisdom from generation to generation.
    And the same applies to sex. From the point of view of Darwinian evolution, it may be a waste of time to reproduce by sex. But natural selection still left this tendency because it has a role. It has a biological and social role as a central element in our lives.

  99. Netzer, everything you say about the climate are feelings, some of them unjustified. There are a lot of differences between the world of 20 years ago and today and not all of them for the better as you claimed, the shrinking of the forests (officially confirmed by NASA satellites). Urbanization, the rise in the standard of living in China and India, which increases the consumption of resources, the oil, even if it may not end, it is more and more difficult to extract it (by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico). And also, the amount of sulfur dioxide that is sufficient to raise the temperature by itself by preventing the infrared light from leaving the earth and being projected into space.
    post Scriptum. Venice has a lot of flooding. It's not just that New Zealand and Australia are preparing a place for refugees from islands in the Pacific Ocean that are expected to be flooded, as it already happened about a year ago in Papua New Guinea.

  100. First of all, I want to join the discussion (what to do, sometimes the discussion is more interesting than the article)

    Avi…. I guess you can't suspect me of being a creationist. But it seems that for the sake of the just war against creationists and the stupidity they spread, we are sinning the main thing.

    1. Evolution is a scientific theory. In this theory there are many things that are difficult to explain, for example
    A. - Why did sex evolve? (sexual reproduction vs. asexual reproduction) It is clear that sexual reproduction is less efficient in self-replication.
    B. - There are several phenomena that require a large amount of mutations, each of which is harmful. (For example, flying. Lighter bones, feathers, wings) Each individual mutation is negative and only when they all come together is there a positive effect - this cannot be explained by a gradual change.

    There are a large number of such examples and it is important to note that compared to other scientific theories (the atomic model for example or the theory of relativity) it is not possible to make a prediction based on evolution.

    It is possible that in a few years evolution will be rejected or corrected according to future scientific knowledge (like the raisin cake model for the atom or the assumption that mathematics is complete - which is a growing mystery)

    Even so, evolution is the best theory we have, but I'm not ashamed to say - I don't know or I'm not sure. This is the difference between science and religion.

    specific to the topic of the article.

    Again - I also think that the chief scientist at the Ministry of Education is a shame. A person is of course entitled to a free opinion, but placing him in his position is, in my humble opinion, a shame for the Ministry of Education and the State of Israel.

    but…. I did not check. And I don't have all the knowledge. But in my humble opinion (!) there is a lot of public relations and a huge bubble in the field of saving the planet which is probably driven by economic entities.

    Earth has gone through 4 ice ages. It was hit by meteors that destroyed the dinosaurs - who ruled the earth for billions of years. All the continents on earth move and move. Volcanic eruptions and tsunamis are a common thing... and if this is the human race... who has been industrialized for maybe 100 years, really thinks that he is endangering the planet? That the way to save the planet is through splitting the garbage into several bins? Collecting bottles?
    are you serious? You are worse than the fly that sits on the ship and says we have sailed. You are the fly that sits on the ship and is afraid that it will drown from the excess weight. (and thinks that if he makes sure to throw his dung into the sea everything will be fine)

    I am 31 years old today.

    I think from the age of 10 I was told that the Arab countries will soon run out of oil, that the earth is warming and that the species are extinct....

    So it's been 20 years for the Arabs to have oil. Brazil still has rainforests.
    The year 2000 passed and nothing happened. 2038 will be fine too.
    Hot in summer and cold in winter just like a year ago.
    There is no population explosion. There are lots of free spaces, just not in the big cities.
    Big Brother does not rule us and will not rule in 2084.
    Holland is not flooded and neither is Venice. More or less the same channels.
    Species have become extinct and are becoming extinct regardless of us. In fact, most species were extinct before humans even set foot on Earth. (When have you ever seen a petrondon, a Nediartely man, a mammoth, a sabre-toothed tiger or a brontosaurus? Did mankind make them extinct?)
    We move in big cars that are heavier and safer, and yet they consume less fuel. The greenhouse gases we emit are roughly equal to the greenhouse gases that cows fart. (they are not worried)
    It doesn't seem like there will be a shortage of oil soon, but if we do we will open cars that run on water and when the water runs out we will learn to drink oil...

    So maybe I'm in denial too, but maybe those who deny are all those who develop theories and horror scenarios who basically ignore the fact that they repeat the same horror scenarios year after year and nothing ever happens.

    (And by the way, it's true that I didn't check everything. I don't sit and check everything I'm told in a compulsive nature. I also don't know if Pi's proof is different from Mann Pi's correct one and I don't know how to prove the Goldbrech hypothesis. I occasionally trust my intuition like any other person I also pay attention to the fact that a total of 20 years of wrath prophecies and everything is fine.)

  101. R. H. and Eric-

    Obviously I do not deny the existence of mutations. What I do deny is that mutations + natural selection have the power to create complex proteins.

    Eric-

    What happened there is a point or two mutation. According to the original article I saw. Hence no new protein was created there. What probably did change is probably the control of the entry of citrate into the cell, that is, a loss of specificity. It is possible that this is due to a mutation that occurred on a transmembrane protein, so on Transports certain substances out of the cell and into it.

    As far as I know, no actual evidence of the formation of new proteins with new catalytic activity has yet been documented.

    By the way, if you are so sure that all the findings match the evolutionary tree, then I have a surprise for you-

    http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/3/555.full

    For instance, there are more amino acid differences in histone H4 between two classes of ciliates (Spirotrichea and Oligohymenophorea) than there are between land plants and animals"

  102. I have to admit that the discussion here is more interesting than the article I wrote... 🙂
    I will tell you a story. Exactly two years ago I published an article on my blog on the occasion of Charles Darwin's 200th birthday. Come on, how time flies and Hope Charles has grown a year. 🙂
    I wrote in an article that the Church of England owes an apology to Charles Darwin for not understanding his theory of evolution and for making mistakes in its response to this theory. And I didn't say that! This was said by a senior priest in the Church of England. And he added that the church intends to recognize its mistakes in preparation for the celebrations the following year, the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin.
    On the occasion of the event, the church launched a series of articles on its website as a sign of the great reconciliation with Charles Darwin. I reported on the articles the church wrote in honor of Darwin. And here are the original articles of the Church of England:
    http://www.cofe.anglican.org/darwin
    The story is not so simple. The church reconciled and the pastor said sorry Darwin that we blamed you, you were a devout believer (although at some point you abdicated Christianity a little but returned to the faith). In the rest of the article I tell the story, and some mud was thrown at Darwin on the way... (but what..)
    My blog article is one big mess with you, sorry:
    http://www.notes.co.il/gali/47799.asp
    Then read on the website of the Anglican Church.

  103. R.H., Guy, Yoel,
    Thanks for the answers, they are quite good if not without problems regarding my questions, and yes, it seems to me that I did not focus the questions enough.
    My main concern is the evolutionary process. One of the puzzling things about this process is the great stability of animals and plants, despite the scandalous bombardment of mutations that nature constantly creates in them. That is to say, if the widely known genetic disease in humans had a significant evolutionary effect, we would have long ago found many parallel species, especially due to the separation that existed between human populations for many thousands of years. We know today that the degree of difference between all human races is small.
    When we look today at an animal like a horse or a fly or a crocodile or a fish, we know that their forms millions of years ago were very similar. Similar things can be said about a great many animals of all levels and forms, but much less about single-celled ones, where the changes are much faster.
    Randomness is a statistical concept, but I did not mean this interpretation, but casualness, meaning that the mutation that causes development was created without any relation to any trait that develops in the organism.
    While biological research has the ability to show haphazard/random processes, it seems to me that it currently does not have sufficient resolution to rule out or prove a positive relationship between the organism's functions and development, beyond single cells.

  104. to 'arithmetic biology'
    I quote from the following article:
    http://telem.openu.ac.il/courses/c20237/evolution-g.htm
    Therefore, under routine conditions of mutagenesis (causing changes in the genetic material of the bacterium), the search for Cit+ mutants (capable of growing on citric acid) of E. coli (which is originally Cit-) is often unsuccessful. There is no wonder, since in order for such a mutant to be created, a small change in the gene, and hence in an existing protein, is not enough, but a gene has to be created to carry a new protein. In the few cases where Cit+ mutants of E. coli were found, they were found in populations of bacteria of different species, and it turned out that the mutant bacteria picked up from their neighbors a plasmid carrying a gene for a suitable carrier (in other words - horizontal transfer). "
    Now note:
    "In 1988, researchers Zachary Blount and Christina Borland, in the laboratory of Richard Lenski, began the experiment described below. Since then the experiment has been going on for 20 years. During the long experiment, the researchers were able to find a Cit+ mutant of E. coli, in a population isolated from the environment and other bacteria - so the development of the new feature resulted from genetic changes in the descendants of the original bacteria."
    Well: there is a mutation that developed without the transfer of plasmids and it is also quite complex..

  105. Michal/Hazi, a serial annoying commenter who constantly changes IP's like socks in order to introduce his adultery does not deserve a comment. After all, everyone knows that the difference between science and religion is abysmal and is found in one thing - facts, so why bother. If you have something productive to say - prove with facts that science is wrong, please. Steams - go to Rutter's forum.
    my father

  106. On second thought, there are unicellular plants (various algae) but even bacteria, which are more distant from us than plants, have genes common to humans.

  107. Yair
    Certainly there is a connection between random mutations and phenotype
    For example, there are "libraries" of random mutations in various organisms, including the plant Arabidopsis. These libraries were created in a huge number of plants intentionally by irradiation, mutagenic chemicals or the introduction of "jumping genes" at random (the emphasis is on random) all over the genome. These mutations usually disrupt the gene where they "land". These processes are identical or at least very similar to the random process in nature. In these libraries, enough mutations have been created to cover a significant part of the genes in the plant genome, when it is possible to find a plant with a mutation in almost any gene you want. You will find in the library plants with countless phenotypes such as early bloomers, late bloomers, straight or split roots, albinos, tall and short, whatever you want. You will not find mounted plants in which there is complete damage to an essential gene because they will not grow offspring (Za the lethal mutation). In this way, researchers can order a mutant (damaged) plant from the library for the garden they are researching, and through negation deduce what its function is. By inserting the normal gene artificially, the plant is completed and the phenotype is returned to its original state. The reason most mutations are not lethal is that most genes have parallel genes that cover their activity in a different direction, and thus mutations in the parallel gene(s) that eventually lead to "improvement" are possible in nature.
    Oh, and plants are not single-celled, and even single-celled have genes that are common to humans.

  108. Mr. Blizovsky
    I do not know Mr. Hezi Atzil
    This is the second time I have entered your site
    And you do behave exactly like a religious zealot
    of the sacred science you are trying to represent
    You can go back to the Middle Ages or join the Taliban
    They also judge without a hint of factual basis
    And that's how you look too

  109. Year:

    When mutations are said to be random, what is meant in this context is that they are caused by factors that are outside the model that describes a certain phenomenon. For example, when it is said that the result of a coin toss is random, it means referring to a simple model in which there is a hand that throws the coin in the air with some force and finally the coin lands and you get a result. Of course, in such a simple model it is not possible to achieve any accuracy in the prediction of the result of the shot beyond a probabilistic result and therefore the result is said to be random. This does not mean that the result is not affected by the throwing hand, the wind blowing in the room, the gravitational force acting on the coin, its shape and weight. The general assumption is that given a full description of all these environmental conditions it will be possible to fully predict the result of the shot - but this is a different, much more detailed model.
    The real question is how detailed the model is required to be with the help of which we want to describe a certain phenomenon - many times randomness is introduced into the model because it greatly simplifies the model and a level of detail beyond that is not required.
    In a rough way, such is the randomness of mutations in evolution - the simple model means that it is not necessary to detail all the factors that influence the formation of the mutation in order to explain the development of new species. Of course, now it is possible to ask what is the mechanism that creates mutations - and here an expansion and over-detailing of the simple model is required - this is equivalent to going down to the details of the forces and measuring the sizes associated with the coin toss.

  110. Yair,
    Sorry I wasn't clear. The environment can change the frequency of mutations, but to date no mutations have been found that are not random, i.e. directed.
    What Lederberg and many others after him showed (today any high school student can show this) is that resistance to antibiotics (or in Lederberg's case to phage) is independent of and not caused by the presence of antibiotics.

    This he showed in an elegant way, he copied bacterial colonies using a technique known as "replication" so that he had two sets containing identical copies of each colony. He exposed one set to antibiotics and found that there were several resistant colonies and then he went back to the other set that had never seen antibiotics and showed that the mutation was there as well.

    To your question, is it possible to prove a connection between mutation and phenotype? certainly. For example, have you heard about genetic diseases? Have you heard of genetic diagnosis? These two are based on this connection.

    For Arithmetic Biology 108 - What is the evidence for evolution? I think you have a bit of a problem with concepts. Are there mutations in the world? Is there a selection against the least suitable in a certain niche? If the answer to both of these questions is "yes" then how can you deny the existence of evolution? And if you think the answer is "no" then go out and learn, not a day goes by that these two processes are not shown in thousands of laboratories around the world. After all, all genetic engineering is based on random mutagenesis and selection.

  111. R.H. (61)
    When you wrote "that mutations are random and are not influenced by the environment."
    Were you in a hurry, or did I not understand you: when they say that mutations are random, they usually mean that they are not caused in any way with the functions of the organism. Conversely, if the environment produces some kind of radiation or chemicals that are introduced into the organism and cause mutations, then the mutations are both random and influenced by the environment. But maybe you meant something else?
    Regarding the claim that it has been proven that the mutations are random, that is, in your opinion, there are no mutations directly related to the functions of the organism? I know it's common, but is there really any evidence for it?
    And in the context of the evolutionary processes, is it really possible to prove a connection between mutation and phenotype beyond the level of single cells?

  112. For arithmetic biology - both and and and, the beauty of evolution is that all kinds of unrelated methods give the same results, as the theory predicts. This is the closest thing to proof there is.

  113. Yaniv:
    The people I attacked did one or more of two things:
    1. They lied about the facts
    2. They misrepresented control over material they did not control.

    A response to such dishonest behavior cannot be a particularly instructive response because all in all - what should be said to a person is: "Hi - you are lying and you are not able to work on us".
    When Arithmetic Biology says that in the book "The Blind Watchmaker" Dawkins makes a certain calculation when in fact Dawkins does not make such a calculation in the book but only presents a creationist calculation - of the type that Arithmetic Biology tries to sell us and explains - with reasons similar to mine - why the calculation is not justified - what can you say to him other than "Stop lying to us!"?
    When he presents all kinds of false claims about the gene for nylon digestion - what can be done except to present to him again and again the true claims about the matter?
    And by the way - time and time again - after how many times is it allowed to say that it's already enough?
    When he tries to sell an absurd use of probability - I don't have the possibility to start giving a course on probability here, but I think that through the challenge I explained very well both the fact that before starting to calculate - you need to understand what the model is for which the calculation is valid and the fact that in his heart Mr. Arithmetic knows that the calculations he makes are not are justified and he is not ready to rely on them when his money is involved.

    The truth is that during this debate I brought a lot of links, some of which are simply fascinating, but apparently you didn't go into them either and you only concentrated on expressing my anger at the fact that lies are repeated and lied.
    It's not too late yet. The links include much more material than can be presented here in the discussion and as mentioned - some of them are simply fascinating.
    If you enter them you will see that this discussion was not wasted.

  114. Yaniv - What do you mean by the term "fact". Do you mean fossils? Or maybe a phylogenetic tree? Are you sure that findings cannot be interpreted in any other way than evolution? What is the clearest evidence for evolution in your opinion?

  115. Small correction - I do not "believe" in evolution. This is, of course, not a belief, but a proven and clear theory.

  116. I believe in evolution
    I don't believe in creationism, and even think (not sure) that I understand why Michael is right and arithmetical biology is wrong.
    But - it really could have been explained here, once, and not referred to the challenge (about which I'm also thinking and I'm not sure I understood its connection) or to say that this has been discussed in the past in two hundred different places.
    The energy that Michael invested in responding time and time again and attacking everyone who answered him, could have been invested in a short and educational answer in this context.

  117. I think that Michael's style is great, in my eyes the greatest audacity is asking a question, ignoring the answer, and then saying that you didn't get an answer to the question, looking through the comments on the site and even a short one in about every article that discusses the topic will show that Michael has put up a series of articles referring to his claims, are any of the commenters in this article ( Ask the same commenters who comment in other discussions) comment on the same articles? Did they relate? No, and they still allow themselves to keep pressing problems and saying that they don't get answers? This is an insult.

    It's about crappy discussion culture and disgusting behavior. To speak to them in a belligerent tone is at most to reply to them in the same currency. And regarding the establishment of the panel or the discussion, this is a terrible idea, there is no equal discourse here, one side responds with articles and quotes and the other side talks about feelings and does not present proper references, would you do such a panel with people who claim that the flying spaghetti monster created the universe?

  118. Biology:
    You said a lot of things and each of them was wrong for a different reason.
    The things have already been explained in the previous comments and I see your question as part of the ongoing experience of exhaustion.
    Therefore - if you ask me, then the answer is no. I don't want you to continue. I would be very happy if you would stop. Maybe that way you will have time to read what has been written to you so far.

  119. Hi friend. I'm still here. If you want me to continue the discussion, have fun. A question for Michael - what exactly is wrong with the things I brought up: the calculation in power? The space of possible sequences? Something else?

  120. Hello: in short "there is God" "there is no God" and everything in between...
    Legly" I read the article at the address you mentioned - Casimir is the king!

  121. Ah - I understood what you didn't understand:
    When I wrote that evolution developed people it was simply a misspelling of the word developed. This is what you did not understand when you talked about the abuse of the Hebrew language.

  122. Anonymous (95):
    I spoke about the garden of prophecy not because it exists - after all, in my opinion, prophecy does not exist either, so it is clear that there is no garden that enables it.
    I used the term because I got the impression that you actually think of yourself as a prophet who is able to predict what atheists will say.

    Unlike religious people - most scientists do not bend logic to fit their prejudices and if they are presented with logical claims they can be convinced.

    And regarding the Hebrew language - I have no idea what you are talking about.

  123. Extension to the last sentence: you preached a "scientist" but not a scientist who deals in the relevant field.
    Avital, for example, due to a system error, can define himself as a scientist but cannot do so in the field of biology. In this area his expertise is equal to that of my housekeeper. He can express his opinion, so you suggest inviting him to a confrontation.

  124. David:
    And I say (what you say I cannot say) that he is lying.
    There is no possibility of error here.
    There is also no possibility of a mistake in the interpretation of his avoidance of answering the challenge: he is afraid to trust his probability calculations when his money depends on the matter and he relies on his calculations freely when the only ones who can be harmed are others.
    A discourse that consists of outright lies is the furthest discourse from decency that can even be described - even if the style is a spectacle. Such discourse is certainly inappropriate.
    His style is an attempted deception that works on you and my style expresses my resentment towards his devious behavior.
    You continue to defend the lie and attack those who call lies in its name.

    If an expert is someone who can express his opinion then each of us is an expert and it is not clear what you want.

  125. Hello David, I don't think there is any point in this, even if it is intellectuals (and in the case of Dr. Avital I doubt it) it was impossible not to organize a dialogue between deaf people because there is no comparison between evolution which has billions of proofs and creationism whose followers do is find holes In evolution (and if there is none, then they are invented based on statistical probability). After all, what do the creationists offer in return, a universe created arbitrarily by God (or an intelligent planner in politically correct language) and therefore there is no point in understanding anything in nature, because the Creator has decided what we will understand and what we will not.
    These are completely different worlds and there is no bridge between them. And since there is only one truth, it's a shame to waste resources.

  126. Machel
    There is no such thing as the Garden of Prophecy, and evolution does not develop in people.
    Isn't it a shame to abuse the poor Hebrew language anyway?

  127. Just a clarification:
    Don't take my word for it when I say expert, I mean a scientist who has the ability to present his side of the evolution issue

  128. You are trying to establish a fact as if it were already absolute - which I completely do not accept.

    That is to say, the most he says about biology is that he is wrong.

    His style of discourse was proper and fair.

    I defended the style of the discussion - this is not a political or yellow site, this is a scientific site.

    The subjective personal insults only harm the side of the argument - not strengthen it

    There is nothing like a neat argument (like your sentence and a half that I quoted) to deal with a mistake if it is one.

    I would recommend the site manager to create intellectual conflicts on the site (article or video)

    invite Dr. Gabi Avital or there is also a recognized professor from Bar Ilan University (I remember his name now) who raises doubts about evolution

    Just such a confrontation - expert against expert can whitewash the issue and convince people one way or the other.

    Any other form - no one will move from his position.

  129. David:
    And of course another question is asked and that is - do you want the participants of the discussion to lie to you.
    Note that so far you have only come out in defense of the liar. This is not exactly behavior that suits those who "just want to hear a discussion"

  130. David:
    If you "just want to hear a discussion" then please - do not take a position towards one of the parties until you understand what he is claiming and why.
    I am angry at biology because he is lying and you come and scold me for being angry without trying to understand why and then - when I prove to you beyond any reasonable doubt that he is lying you suddenly "just want to hear a discussion".
    Doesn't that seem a little crooked to you?

  131. David, Dawkins' quote, as in biology and you understand it, is equivalent to the next thing, that I will write an article in which it will be written, according to creationists, the world was created in 6 days 6,000 years ago. You will omit "to the knowledge of the creationists" and spread in the world: the editor of the website Hadan has repented.
    In English it is called Quote Mining. Finding quotes from the other side that seem to support your position, and often taking it out of context.

  132. Michael, you misunderstood me.

    I claim nothing.

    As a reader or as an ordinary person so to speak

    All I'm interested in is hearing a purely factual discussion with criticism on such an important subject.

    I invest my money these days in gold by the way 🙂

  133. David:
    You didn't have to go far to find someone who disagreed with Dawkins.
    Could you suggest biology or yourself as an example.

    Now please explain to me how to calculate the probability that biology claimed to calculate (because the guy in the link doesn't do it either and I claimed in advance that there is no knowledge today that allows such a calculation).

    And I say again: We'll see you put money on your own conclusions in the field of probability!

  134. David:
    I thank you for setting me up for my mistake. For some reason the letter "l" disappeared from my eyes when I read his words.
    You proved, then, that he did read the book and therefore you proved that he simply lied and did not quote a phone friend.

    I repeat - there is no model that allows calculations of this type and those who do not understand this do not understand the meaning of the word probability.
    The challenge is intended to show that this is not just a mistake - but a deliberate mistake, because if you had relied on your probability calculations you would not have had any problem responding to the challenge, but since you lack information about the model - that is, you do not know how my friends and I will make the choice - you do not dare to rely on your calculations When it comes to your money.
    I say again: I do not require you to present any calculations - I only require you to show me that you yourself trust your ability to calculate probabilities.
    But you avoid it because here it's a matter of money.
    Do you understand? When it's just about deceiving others - you have no problem bragging about your understanding of probability, but when it's about risking your money - it's a completely different thing!

    And another thing:
    When I decide that you defend my position better than me - I will defer to your advice regarding "what should I have written". Until then I will decide for myself what to write.

  135. What is this nonsense?

    He wrote "for Friday" and made a spelling mistake instead of "Tuesday" Sherlock.

    Now (and I'm not the first to ask for it) spare us the speculative slurs and other vegetables

    It is unbearable to read this on a scientific website.

    The "I have a challenge" - it is a patent to divert the subject, therefore it is ignored.

    It was enough to write a line and a half:

    "He doesn't talk at all about the sample space needed for calculations of this kind because for the sake of describing this sample space a model of chemistry is needed, among other things."

    And from there see how biology would answer

    This.
    What is so complicated about it?

  136. In this response, I do not intend to exempt David and his protégé from responding to the challenge - but only to point out one more interesting thing.
    In response 54 mentions biology, and I quote: "The model is known to all evolutionary scientists and biologists. Open the book The Blind Watchman, chapter six "Accumulation in small steps", and you can see with your own eyes Dawkins making calculations."
    When I answered him - I didn't feel like checking exactly what Dawkins wrote because it was clear that there was no connection between what he wrote and what he "understood" in biology.
    Today I decided to look up what he was talking about.
    Well - the sixth chapter of the book is "Finding and performing miracles."
    The chapter whose name is most similar to the name that mentioned biology is the third chapter called "accumulation of small changes".

    This combination of facts - in itself - suggests that the biologist did not read the book at all and only heard the argument he presented from some telephone assistant (Friday - Tuesday - notice the phonetic similarity? steps - changes - our memory often deceives us - but this could just be forgetting which is not related to a telephone transfer)

    But that's not the point. Dawkins does in that chapter make a number of calculations like those of biology just to……(I would have put a few pages of points here like they do in emails to increase the tension but I don't have the strength)…….. to demonstrate the mistake that people like biology make! He does not make such calculations to reach his own conclusion!
    He does not speak at all about the sample space needed for such calculations because for the sake of describing this sample space a model of chemistry is needed, among other things.
    In other words - the phone friend misled biology (at best! At worst biology itself is lying. Nevertheless - reading the book and saying something different from what is written in it requires more audacity than relying on the words of a liar and lying just by claiming to have read the book) but it is still not It bothered David to define the result as a good question.

  137. http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%9A

    In the link there is a graph of the 'subjective probability curve of the theory of value'. If we take the extreme religious for example, it will be possible to see that the chance of them believing in something other than God is almost nil or nil.
    But, it will be interesting if we take the atheists who are absolutely sure that there is no God, and it seems that the situation is the same for them.
    Really cool.

  138. The common denominator among all deniers is that each in his own way stops the progress due to ideological belief. In the case of organic vegetables, it is not correct to say that it will not do any harm because their yield is much smaller than regular vegetables and therefore there will not be enough food for the 7 billion inhabitants of the planet. Not all claims have the same weight.

  139. incidentally:
    The rest of what is written in response 35 is a lie.

    Responses 45 and 54 are based on probability calculations that I have already explained to you that are not relevant in the absence of a model and that you do not know how to perform - as demonstrated in the challenge that you are avoiding.

  140. I usually support the articles written on this site, and I support almost everything
    written in this article; But even though I consume completely normal vegetables
    (and priced accordingly), I can still understand people who don't want to eat
    Vegetables that have been sprayed (or washed) with insecticides.
    The link, made in this book, between a demand for food that has been removed from phosphorous toxins,
    and the existence of an intelligent creator of worlds, is so illusory, that with all the sorrow involved
    Mr. Blizovsky, I am afraid to inform you that in presenting this book - in the way you presented it,
    You failed yourself.

  141. Well, Michael, you are not well.

    30 minutes I look through the material you brought and I can't find the points raised.

    If you have a specific answer to responses 35, 45, 54 - don't skimp on the ink.

    If you can't, I'd love to hear from someone else or whether the conclusion of arithmetic biology is indeed correct.

    Let's not make this a personal fight please.

  142. David:
    I am not arrogant and I do not pretend to be what I am not.
    Are these puffs your replacement for the challenge?
    Are you only able to learn from Nobel laureates? If so - it's clear why you haven't learned much until today.
    Why are you suddenly sitting and reading the links? I have brought them many times already! You're complaining about the fact that in arithmetic biology he didn't get answers even though he got these links - were you just kidding?

  143. Thanks Michael - I will sit and read.

    At the same time, if this is your haughty and pretentious style towards me as well - ugly and out of place

    If you want to prove how smart you are, don't pull a muscle on me - impress the conference you're giving
    Nobel Prizes or Fields Medals, then we will really know if you are a caliber or full of hot air

  144. David:
    After all, it is clear that you did not even understand the questions that Arithmetic Biology raised (just as it is clear that he himself did not understand them).
    If you understood, you can surely answer the question I posed to him on the topic of probability (after all, it is hard to believe that you will be convinced by probabilistic arguments without understanding probability, right?).
    If so - you are welcome to take on the challenge I put before him - would you agree to organize a game like the one I proposed to him (response 53 - see how many "convincing" things he has said since then without answering the question!).

    Apart from that - all his arguments are chewed to the bone and everything he brought up like everything that will come up in the future has already been answered - both here and on websites that specialize in the company like yours.
    Please read here:
    http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/Creationist_Arguments
    And here:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217143838.htm
    And here:
    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist
    And here:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
    And here:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-speciation.pdf
    And here:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/lizard-fast-evolution-230408/

    And watch these movies:
    It:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M7kkRG5vlI&feature=related
    and all its sequels (parts 2 to 5)

    and this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr71eDqwl7o

    and this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyF3J48G2pU

    and this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMj_45epINM&feature=player_embedded

    and this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=IL&hl=en&v=JVRsWAjvQSg

    But - I repeat - maybe you should before you claim to have read the above mentioned things and seen the films - convince yourself and us that you understand what Arithmetic Biology was trying to say and respond to the challenge from response 53

  145. People who deny logic need to be treated. logically. And the sooner the better.

  146. Arithmetic biology raised beautiful questions that received a very unconvincing response of slander
    and honor games of "how dare you ask" and "why who are you"

    As one who accepts the scientific approach, I would like to hear answers to his difficulties - if anyone can answer.

  147. More very important denials that the writer deliberately and deliberately ignored:
    All men generally deny the day of their death.
    All humans (including scientists) deny the fact that they have no idea why they even exist.
    All human beings deny the fact that they are products of circumstances.

  148. I find no denial in his words:
    It seems to me that you can't find your hands and feet in this discussion either.
    If he expects formulas and experiments, as you say, there are two very central questions that need to be asked:
    One is why he ignores the findings found and the experiments done?
    The second is - on what formulas and experiments is he basing his statement that "God created man... there is no other situation. "?

  149. I also:
    Is not paying attention to what is being said seen by you as long-suffering?
    To me it is perceived as disrespect.
    The whole struggle of "arithmetic biology" (which did not start in the present ink) is one big mask of exhaustion.
    He thinks that if he repeats the same lies over and over they will become the truth.
    So it could be that due to the lack of knowledge you claim you don't notice the lies, but tell me - of those who lie and those who point to the lie - who do you think behaves more honestly?
    By the way, note that when I tried to demand from him to prove that he knew what he was talking about (an attempt that was continuously ignored until I literally left him no choice) he became silent.

    I assume that now he is looking among his acquaintances for someone who can give him the answer to the question he asked.

  150. to Daniel,
    You don't learn aviation lessons in a broom majoring in aeronautics, but you learn something close in physics... a year ago I wrote about it on my website. I will update the article to be correct for 2010 and the article will also need to be edited. Meanwhile the 2009 model article on my website: http://www.notes.co.il/gali/60330.asp

  151. The phrase "you can't even reproduce the development of new species" is a denial.
    There are enough methods to test this, DNA for example, to mention Watson that Bittel did Quate Mining for

  152. For "not finding denial" - God save us from studying creationism in biology and physics classes... Does a person's right to hold a certain opinion give him the right to teach, let's say - aviation lessons on a broom with a major in aeronautics?

  153. To "me too" - this is a debate and discussion that spans many articles and weeks... Please ignore the form and refer to the content. I, for a change, really enjoy and am looking forward to the discussion since my personal concrete knowledge tends to zero, unfortunately.
    Thanks. Don't stop!

  154. Key quotes from Gabi Avital's speeches:

    "Avital, 51 years old, religious, is trying to expand the life sciences as well... Not long ago he claimed that it is impossible to base only on Darwin's theory of evolution, and the students should be exposed to other views. The academy went into hysteria. "The biggest problem is the origin of life and the origin of the universe," explains Avital. "

    God created man... there is no other situation. No one will reproduce in any laboratory experiment any development of a wing. You can't reproduce the development of new species either. These are not Newton's physical laws that you can go back and verify."

    What is all the fuss about?
    He expects to see an experiment and proof by experiment, equations, like any other scientific theory

  155. For "me too" the argument of the zero probability for the formation of life, which is the favorite of the creationists, is very worn out, they have been raising it for decades and all the attempts of scientists, and there have been many such, to explain to them that they are wrong (especially because of natural selection - the non-random component of evolution) has met with an impenetrable wall . Michael shows great patience towards Ofer, but Ofer uses the tactics of a war of attrition. At first he tried to get us out of the Shin Bet investigation that there is a God, and when that didn't work he went to a war of attrition ignoring the answers he gets.
    There is no such thing as "I don't know who is right". There is a matter here of science working according to the results of their experiments versus religion which works according to WISHFULL THINKING. These are not equal sides.

  156. Indeed a shallow article full of mistakes that misses its purpose. I haven't read the book, so I'm not sure if the problem is with it or with its description.
    For example, it is claimed that: "For hundreds of years, the prevailing view was that science is what is called "fur", meaning neither milk nor meat: neither good nor bad. Science is not considered something harmful to be wary of."

    I'm sure Giordano Bruno, Galileo and Copernicus would disagree with this statement 🙂

    In Eik I agree with Yoav's response (42), it is true that those who deny without knowledge are annoying, but the examples given in this article of "denial" are weak and subject to dispute.

    On the other hand, the automatic chorus of evolution fools "kinesin, probability, randomness", aren't you tired of yourselves already?
    Mrs. Gillian (22), if you read a basic biology book you would know that it was shown a long time ago that mutations are random and are not influenced by the environment. For this Yehoshua Lederberg received a Nobel Prize in 1958. And even if one day non-random mutations are found, they will be rare and form a tiny percentage of all known mutations, and that will not show anything about planning either.
    With all due respect to the scholarly articles on aliens, I have not seen any such article in Nature or Science, and if there was real and absolute evidence, there is no doubt that the entire scientific community would jump on it and there would be no hiding. See for example the story of the bacteria that was or wasn't in a rock from Mars that was discovered by NASA.

  157. Michael, allow me as a side reader who started reading the exchange of interesting things presented here to comment that your style is very blunt and insulting.
    While "Biology" answers in a super-patient way and absorbs this style, ignores your stings and answers the matter, you continue to repeatedly pity him, mock him and in general act like a typical baker's boy who is sure that he is the smartest of them all (which, by the way, may be true!)

    I'm not a "scientist" like you, and I don't really know who is right. What I do know is that you take a potentially very interesting discussion and just take it down a few notches.
    I am enjoying this discussion very much and I would be happy if you continue it, I will not object to judge almost, but please, behave with respect even to those who do not share your world view.
    After all, you, and the website owners, are supposed to be the "open" and enlightened ones, right? So please, it is certainly allowed to disagree, argue and contradict, but there is no need in such a disgusting style..

    Thanks - and as I said, please continue the discussion!!! 🙂

  158. The complaints about the unscientific nature of the article, and the demand for an apology and the removal of an article are out of place. The science is not only a site containing scientific knowledge, but also a scientific worldview. A view that I sometimes disagree with myself (see one comment back), but this article is definitely part of it.
    If I have one complaint, it's to my father: Organize nested comments here. It is impossible to understand what is happening here in the discussions.

  159. Michael (response 19), my complaint is directed at him, because he made a review of the book here, and not a summary of it. Gali did not renounce the position presented here, and as far as I understand he agrees with it, and I would be happy to see him defend it. With the author of the book, I will have more difficulty communicating.
    Other than that, I have no complaints. I have an achievement on a position presented in this article, and it is important to me that this achievement be attached to the article. A person who comes across this article may think that organizations opposing animal experiments are completely like creationists, and the scientific consensus is against them, when it is a completely different kind of struggle.

  160. Arithmetic Biology:
    Probably yours - nothing is clear.
    One of the things that should have been completely clear to you is that in order for me to take you seriously you must show us how much you trust the probability calculations that you yourself make and accept the challenge that I proposed.

  161. I described and took Dawkins' calculations exactly. I have no idea what you mean. The calculations go like this - the number of types of amino acids, multiplied by the number of acids participating in the protein. What is not clear or understandable here?

  162. Arithmetic Biology:
    I talk to you with logic and you answer me with demagoguery.
    Dawkins does calculations where he knows what he's talking about. I guess he didn't list everything he knows because it's a popular science book.
    Anyway - you did not describe either a model or a lottery process.
    I don't know why you decided that what I said did not refer to evolution.
    He actually is.
    But to remove all the fog I suggested you face one well-defined probabilistic challenge.
    In the meantime - of the rabbit categories I described - you belong to the ignored category.
    You are allowed to move to another category at any stage.
    Of course I will be happy (and even richer) if you stop avoiding.

  163. Michael, I'm talking to you about lessons and you answer me in kind.

    The model is known to all evolutionary scientists and biologists. Open the book The Blind Watchman, chapter six "Accumulation in small steps", and you will be able to see with your own eyes Dawkins making calculations. So you will understand that this is not my invention but of the evolutionary scientists themselves.

    "In order to calculate the probability of any event, you need to describe the sample space and the method of the lottery within it.
    In order to apply probability in the field we are discussing, you need to describe a model of chemistry and of all the ways in which a living organism can form "- I wasn't talking about the origin of life at all, but evolution. But you are right that we need to describe the sample space, and that is exactly what Dawkins does in his book, when he brings the globin protein.

    "Then calculate the ratio between the number of experiments that would have yielded success and the number of possible experiments and multiply it by the number of experiments that were actually carried out" - and this is indeed what scientists do. The existing estimate that taking into account the number of stars in the universe and the time span (14.5 billion years) we will get no more than 70^10 Mutational scans. So it doesn't scratch the threshold of nothing compared to a space of 100^20 options for one small protein. The number of other options that can be considered are also dwarfed compared to the possible space. For example, sometimes one mutation is enough to destroy a protein so that there are not too many sequences coding for it feature, especially not in sensitive proteins such as histones or kinases), and even if we take into account a trillion squared other useful sequences that can lead to the same or a different function, it is nothing.
    .
    In conclusion - the problem is indeed a problem and cannot be ignored (speaking of denial :))

  164. Arithmetic Biology:
    Before you crack down on explanations - it's better to know what you're talking about.
    It turns out that when you talk about probability, not only are you not in control of the subject, but you don't even understand the meaning of the word.
    To calculate the probability of any event, you need to describe the sample space and how the lottery is drawn within it.
    To apply probability in the field we are discussing, you need to describe a model of chemistry and of all the ways in which a living organism can be formed, then calculate the ratio between the number of experiments that would have yielded success and the number of possible experiments and multiply that by the number of experiments that were actually carried out.

    The matter of a model is very important. Think for a moment about the strange fact that the moon always faces us on the same side.
    A fool will say that it can't happen (it does happen) because there is no way that the speed of the moon's movement around the earth will exactly match the speed of its rotation around its axis so that it completes both rotations at the same time. It will be argued that the chance of two random numbers being identical to each other is zero (and zero, as we know, is smaller than all the chances you "calculated" for this or that biological process). He will conclude that God took care of it. But he is, as mentioned, stupid, because he did not take the laws of physics into account. A sane person who notices this point will try (and succeed) to find the laws of physics that cause this and will be able, therefore, to free the god of gaps for more important tasks.

    This is the importance of the model

    But let's touch on another point for a moment.
    I will ask you a question based on the ability to calculate chances.
    Consider the following game (which involves a participation fee):
    There are 100 people who each received one of the numbers between 1 and 100.
    There is a room inside which is a thick wooden surface with 100 holes arranged in a row and covered with lids.
    Inside the holes are written the numbers from 1 to 100 in random order.
    The job of each person is to identify the hole where their number is written.
    For this purpose, he is allowed to examine the contents of 50 holes according to his choice (that is, he is allowed to access a maximum of 50 holes and in each of them open the lid, look inside and close it again).
    Then he must go to the game managers and say in which hole he thinks his number is.
    After telling the managers this he goes home and cannot have any contact with the others.
    After everyone has gone through the room checkers who manage all the people's guesses.
    If everyone guessed correctly, they distribute a prize of NIS 1000 to each.
    Otherwise they don't share anything.
    Before the people enter the room they are allowed to discuss among themselves and make any decision they want.
    How much is it worth to them - if they are smart, to pay for participating in the game?
    To check if you trust yourself answer the following practical question:
    It was said that I and 99 of my friends are willing to pay 10 shekels each to participate in such a game that you will finance the prizes distributed in it.
    This means that for each cycle of the game you are paid 1000 new shekels.
    Do you want to commit to playing with us, let's say, twenty such games?

    I assume that someone with your level of knowledge will stupidly think that the chances of winning are very low and will come to the conclusion that the offer to finance the game is worthwhile for him.
    On the other hand, he will think, whoever presented me with the challenge may know what he is talking about and between me - after all, I know that I don't know and I only play the know-it-all towards others - so maybe he will agree to finance the game because of the danger?

    With such a conflict, it is likely that you will decide not to respond because money is involved here. This is different from the stupid statements you usually make that cost you nothing.

    So what will happen?
    would you agree

    If you are like your predecessors - you probably won't agree.
    So far I have had two types of responses to such questions:
    One is ignoring.
    The variety is the delusional claim that it doesn't belong.
    I wonder if you will come up with another delusional claim for us.

  165. Ok, so here's my take on various issues raised here:

    Alternative medicine - I recommend reading the book "Cure or Temptation: Alternative Medicine to the Test" which examines alternative medicine using scientific tools. According to the book, it can be understood that alternative medicine helps in a few cases (and is harmful in other cases), but is usually nothing more than pseudoscience and a placebo effect.

    UFOs and aliens - although I haven't looked into it in depth, but from what I understand, there are two events/cases that conspiracy enthusiasts like to cite as "proof" of the existence of aliens on Earth: the Roswell incident and Area 51. Regarding the Roswell incident, from what I've read, everything was an experiment of war tools for spying on the Soviets as part of the Cold War, so they lied to the residents that what crashed was a "balloon" or something like that. The story of Area 51 is similar, we tested aircraft in the 60's and that's how the rumors about the flying saucers and the aliens emerged.

    The pharmaceutical industry - what are the drug companies to blame? What did they do? Conspiracy buffs often say that pharmaceutical companies create drugs to treat symptoms and not to cure them. Oh, so much nonsense. After all, if some company were to release a universal cure for cancer (science fiction) then that company would become a company of billions. It is so difficult to develop drugs that only about 25 drugs are approved a year by the FDA!

    Genetic engineering - in some cases may cause ecological damage (such as damage to the ecosystem by crowding out other species). Therefore, some supervision is necessary, but there is no reason to avoid genetic engineering. This is one of the only ways to prevent world hunger and it can lead to healthier and cheaper food.

    Vaccines, autism and everything in between - it would be unnecessary to write the story about Dr. Andrew Wakefield again, and as pointed out by dozens of studies, no connection was found between vaccines and autism. It is true that there was a decrease in infectious disease infections due to hygiene, but the vaccines are the ones that turned infectious diseases from the main cause of death in the world to a not so significant factor in developed countries. Take polio for example - just as the virus was facing extinction, Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan stopped vaccinating (blaming it for causing AIDS, a conspiracy to kill Muslims, etc.) and thus polio did not disappear, it still exists, but thanks to the return of vaccinations in these countries, the virus is facing extinction again.

  166. Father, this is exactly what I argued. If you base it on the accumulation of neutral mutations, the chance remains equal because there is no selective pressure. Therefore, if you accumulate, let's say, 100 neutral mutations, then it is a neutral lottery (that is, essentially random) of 100 genetic letters. Therefore, evolution also does not believe In the accumulation of hundreds of neutral mutations until they affect the phenotype. That is why she advocates a model of natural selection and selective pressure. You can read about this in detail in Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker and prove it yourself. In addition, you can prove there that even a jump of a small protein like globin at once is not statistically possible. So certainly not for a large protein like kinesin (do you know how much 600^10 mutations are? You would need a time several orders of magnitude greater than the age of the universe). And this is not my testimony but that of the evolutionary scientists themselves. Otherwise, they would be ready to accept that a cell there was also created in Mecca. But a fact That no scientist claims this, if only because of the zero probability.

  167. Year:
    Indeed, I responded in the wrong article.
    I will copy the answer to the right place.

  168. You won't believe the GMAIL overflowed because of people showering me with pictures and presentations. On occasion I will empty it so that new emails arrive. Until then, send me to the site's mail.

  169. Machel,
    Since I did not find a commenter named Yair on this page, is this an answer to my response on the Demon Haunted State page?
    I did not comment anything about the laws of nature, I said that the theory of relativity is not the end of the scientific verse, but I did not claim anything about exceeding its limits, but raised the possibility of a flight of hundreds of years.
    I am not at all sure that thousands of scientists are working - in practice - on an attempt to discover objects.
    If you are responding here to my comments, you are ignoring the testimony of the American pilot, who was completely ignorant of aircraft.

  170. No, it's really not a serious problem in theory. You simply do not understand the meaning of time and the change of generations. There are many mutations that are neutral until one day after they accumulate they become positive or negative. As long as they are neutral or positive they are preserved for future generations and do not cause the creature to die. Even a protein of 600 letters can be formed gradually as a result of mutations. In bacteria this happens all the time.

  171. Short explanation:

    A point mutation is a change of a letter or two in the genetic sequence. The creationists' claim is that in order to create catalytic activity (stimulation of a new reaction that works on a new substrate) it is necessary to change hundreds of genetic letters in sequence. Therefore, it is apparently hopeless, even if you accumulate hundreds of point mutations in a neutral way ( Because even then the lottery is random.) When you look at the spatial structure of proteins, there is truth in the above claim. For example, there is a protein called "kinasin", this protein works and looks like a micro robot, with two legs and real walking. Missing basic parts of this protein will cause it to stop its action. Hence, there is apparently no gradual way of its formation. Several basic components are required without which the protein cannot perform its function - signal transmission. Both 2 legs and a binding site for the cargo are required. This protein consists of 600 genetic letters, so the chances of its formation in one fell swoop is around one in 600^10. Evolution also does not believe that this protein was created in one fell swoop. But in light of the above, there is no possibility of gradualism. A problem. And how do you solve it? I don't know. But this is a serious problem in theory.

  172. come on. The "scientific" articles of the Epoch Times have a record of scientific trust about as much as Menachem Ben has. The fact that you translate nonsense from a creationist website does not make it scientific. And as a matter of fact, according to the requirements you demand from the evidence, it is really impossible to prove anything, not even that today is Friday. But this is what the creationists do, they set an artificial apple such a high bar that power, even if you see it with your eyes, is not enough for them.
    As a matter of fact, I don't see how the lateral transfer of genes that is possible in bacteria contradicts evolution, what's more, in some species, if not in these bacteria then in others, there was a need for a mutation to form and then it is passed on.
    What exactly is a point mutation and how is it different from a normal mutation which is the raw material of evolution?

  173. Year:
    In general - no one categorically rules out anything - but as long as none of the thousands of scientists working on the subject has been able to find even one evidence of extraterrestrial visits - there is no reason to decide that they actually visited and that the laws of nature known to us are incorrect.
    I assume you've heard of the SETI project.
    This is a high-investment project that has been operating for many years with the aim of discovering evidence - if not of alien visits here - unfortunately - of the very existence of aliens.
    So far brought up pottery in his hand.
    I want to remind you of some facts.
    1. It is very easy to see UFOs. In fact - the greater your ignorance - the easier it will be for you to see UFOs. The reason for this is of course the definition of the word UFO - unidentified object. The less you know - the less objects you will identify and define more objects as UFOs.
    2. Even if a technique is discovered that allows movement at a speed exceeding the speed of light (and no technique of this type has yet been discovered. Some people have speculated that it makes sense to search for something by warping space - but this is still wild speculation, much more than wormholes) - still not This will make the light itself move faster. Because this is so - even the knowledge of our existence could not reach alien civilizations that are at a great distance from us (and those that are very close to us - we would probably find out).

    As I said - nothing can be completely ruled out. Not even the existence of the flying spaghetti monster. But is this a reason to accept the faith of those who worship that monster? In my opinion, no way.

  174. Another one who gives science a bad name, thus clearly promoting the various deniers.

    1. Which leaders in Africa is he talking about? The only story, only!! This is about one leader in Malawi. An example of a straw scarecrow attack.

    2. Vaccines, most vaccines are extremely essential but there have been other cases in the past (radiation against ringworm, for example). Underestimating people who are afraid because of past experience is dangerous.

    3. Natural treatments really don't help, but how are they harmful? How did sugar water extract hurt someone? On the contrary, it is known that the placebo effect is a real effect, so why underestimate it.

    4. Is it necessary to kill tens and hundreds of thousands of animals in order to test the toxicity of each new drug? In the pharmaceutical industry there is criticism of the need for such a massive killing of animals as required by FDA protocols. Is it necessary to kill thousands of animals to test cosmetic products?

    5. Which green organization argues against drug development? What is this nonsense?
    Criticism of the ownership structure of patents and the economic method used to develop drugs is not a criticism of science, it is a criticism of society.

    6. There is benefit in alternative medicine, due to the placebo effect. which has been proven to be extremely effective.
    There is no benefit in organic food, this is an interesting claim, does he claim that there is benefit in eating phosphorus residues? Is there any research that supports this benefit? Is the proven environmental benefit not important?

    7. When it is ignorant, narrow-minded people who represent science, it is no wonder that many flock to superstitions like creationism.

    Those who identify science with corporations do not understand what science is. In other words, whoever thinks that criticism of the pharmaceutical industry, the food industry, the chemical industries and agricultural technologies is a criticism of science is not only an ignorant person, he is a dangerous person to represent the Enlightenment.

    The technologies we developed did not create only good, they created a lot of bad, and this should be criticized, criticized from knowledge, it is real science.

  175. A student drops out

    I would happily link sources if I wasn't blocked

    Editor's Note: Just to be clear - no 220 watt response was blocked. A demagogue is a demagogue is a demagogue

  176. Gillian:
    Your comments are funny as always.
    Thanks.
    When you make a list according to the common denominator - make it according to the common denominator. There is no intention in this to compare other features of the members of the list except for that common denominator.
    Just as the creators of science (Einstein) can be included with the creators of the holocaust (Hitler) in the same list, the deniers of science (types like you) can be included in another list with the deniers of the holocaust (types like Ahmadinejad).
    By the way - of course you can tell the truth about all your false claims, but it's really a waste of effort. If someone allows himself to claim that there are no studies proving that evolution works by random mutations, then he is simply completely disconnected from reality.

    Watt 220:
    You are talking left and right.
    It might really be better for people like you to stay away from science.

    There are many more experts who are much more experts than your experts who think there was no conspiracy about the Twin Towers.
    In relation to the denial of 9/11, I have already encountered "experts" who claimed that their "proof" of the conspiracy in this matter was that the towers fell faster than the acceleration of gravity.
    Their expertise did not understand that this was impossible because for that the laws of nature had to be complicit in the conspiracy.

    Although I assume that when you wrote "genetic food" you meant genetically modified food, but the foolishness is not small because of that.
    Genetically modified food - like food modified by your intelligent creator - can be toxic, beneficial, yellow, salty, all according to the food itself.
    If you think genetically modified food is bad and natural food is good, please eat the chicory fruit every time you feel like eating a tomato.

    (Certain) diseases were in drastic decline before vaccines because science took some drastic steps (like hygiene) before vaccines started.
    If you disbelieve in the effectiveness of vaccines I suggest you visit Africa without taking the necessary vaccines. If you are an extreme fan, I suggest you meet a dog with rabies and avoid vaccination.

    The whole subject of "alternative medicine" is a laundry of words whose function is to sympathetically describe what reasonable people should call "untested medicine".
    Conventional medicine will be quick to adopt any "alternative" treatment that proves to be beneficial. It is a bit unfair towards the alternative "medicine" but it is similar to the unfair advantage I have in an argument with you when I choose - for reasons of convenience - to defend the truth - while you choose - for reasons reserved with you - to defend the lie.

    Molecular Biology:
    You do not understand the subject so much that it is really a shame to even devote a word to you.
    Still, out of pity, I refer you to the following links:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-speciation.pdf
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/lizard-fast-evolution-230408/
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMj_45epINM&feature=player_embedded
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=IL&hl=en&v=JVRsWAjvQSg

  177. In my opinion, Gali's article is too biased and uses too harsh language to sound scientific. I'm not sure I agree with everything she wrote but her arguments are mostly correct. One way or another, I don't see any point in getting personal with the author since the discussion is not personal. The only reason for this expedition is probably a desire to publicize the UFO website...
    I am appealing here to you, Avi Blizovsky, to attack the subject of UFOs in a scientific manner - perhaps in a series of articles - that will be able to illuminate the subject in a logical light (I mean, not by slandering the intelligence of the "believers" but by persuasive arguments)...
    Shabbat Shalom

  178. for 220 watts:

    You react like the average idiot - without sources, without an in-depth examination, etc., so how do you expect an appropriate response from us?

    Regarding the study that found that "pomegranate prevents cancer and heart disease":

    Does my Lord know what causes cancer and heart disease? So indeed, you do not know what cancer and heart disease are at the molecular and cellular level and yet you react like a herd of ignoramuses hanging around on various conspiracy sites.

  179. The truth is that there is not much to deny in evolution. Because no evidence has yet been found for its main claim, which is the creation of new catalytic activity (enzymes). I will give some examples:

    A) A gene for nylon digestion. The truth is that the research they conducted actually found that it was probably a plasmid. That is, an existing gene that was just transferred from another bacterium. That is, it is not a new protein. In addition, it is possible that this is due to a point mutation of an acidic substitution.
    b) Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is also achieved by plasmids, meaning again existing genes and not new ones. And also by a point mutation, which causes the spatial structure of the antibiotic's target site to change. There is no new catechetic activity here, again.
    c) Evolution of lizards. The cical valves may be from a point mutation of a visiting gene. In addition, it is not certain that the aforementioned lizards are indeed the ones that were there originally. This change is also possible from a pseudogene that has undergone activation (activation).

    That's pretty much it. Indeed, those who deny these explanations seemingly deny it themselves. Because the fact is that there is still no real evidence for evolution. In Nusaf, there are several findings that disprove the phylogenetic tree. For example, this finding-

    http://www.epochtimes.co.il/news/content/view/8922/88/

  180. It's a shame that the "Hidan" website disgraces itself not only by bringing articles on behalf of reporters who do not understand the subject they are writing about, but also by "racist" statements - in quotation marks because this is not classical racism on the basis of race - (we must explain, because otherwise the writers and commenters here do not understand and when explaining they don't always want to understand) and lack minimal culture.

  181. Gillian, you break into an open door.
    Avi and Michael themselves believe that there are aliens/extraterrestrials, but in their opinion the paragraph creates such a limitation that any contact between us and them is not possible.
    Gali already wrote that it is known that there are materials on Earth that originate from outer space, and it is not clear how they arrived (she brought up the hypothesis of meteorites).
    For my part, I asked what the possible technological ability of an intelligent being more advanced than ours is.
    A commenter named "Answer to Ofer" suggested that this intelligence could indeed be very advanced, citing Kurzweil's book, and expressing his opinion that technology is indeed advancing at an exponential rate and within a few decades we will be able to create entire worlds by ourselves....
    It follows from this that if this entity preceded us "only" by a few thousand years, then we are unable to estimate its ability.
    These abilities are outside our world of concepts.
    Our attempt to understand this intelligence resembles to me a person hiding behind a wall, and we are peering through a keyhole.
    After all, as soon as we cannot distinguish it, we no longer have the tools to know its location.

    By the way, an off-the-cuff comment, but to the point. I'm sorry for your nerves. The Sages say "one prank repels a thousand rebukes". Give some sting, and move on.

  182. From all of the above, it is clear to me (at least on the subject of UFOs), that Dr. Weinstein does not know what types of scientific research there are (and there are 4 categories) and she clearly does not know the official scientific studies conducted on the subject of UFOs.

    Anyone who ignores the studies, but anyone who states that the field of UFOs is not considered scientific, is simply presenting an argument that has no basis in reality.

    In conclusion - I recommend that Dr. Weinstein go back to her sources and start studying the subjects she writes about (including the subject of UFOs), before she bothers to spread arguments to the world - especially those that have no scientific/factual/realistic basis.

    Hanan Sabat
    http://WWW.EURA.ORG.IL

    From all of the above, it is clear that you have not done any research of your own or bothered to read the existing research. After all, it is easier to publish arguments behind the desk, than to conduct research.

  183. Connects to 220 watts
    Black and white articles like this actually cause people to move away from science.

  184. The damage you are doing to science with arrogant black and white articles like this will not be healed, the public will turn its back even more.

    Just to illustrate:

    The theories regarding the explosion of the coordination towers on 9/11 - there are groups of experts (pilots, engineers, academics and military personnel) who raise sharp scientific questions regarding the government version.

    Section 1 - The studies from Russia prove that genetically modified food causes harm to mammals

    Section 2 - Government statistical information shows that the diseases were already on a drastic downward trend before the vaccinations began.

    Section 3. The Japanese study on vitamin D.

    "They strive to replace the skepticism and free and open thought of science and rationality with an inflexible certainty with an ideological commitment"

    Hits this article with a stamp.

  185. Progress is not necessarily a good thing for us humans in the evolutionary sense of survival and culture, it is certainly possible that progress creates a comfortable life for us here and now at the expense of lowering the chances of survival and reproduction of the human race in the longer term.
    See the value of nuclear weapons, population explosion, depletion of resources and ecological damage to the only globe we can live on, all as a result of "advance", an advance that cuts off the branch on which it sits. Today, more than any other time, we depend on progress, a dependence without which civilization will collapse in a few days, and with it most of humanity. In any case, "progress" has very little time to "prove itself": only until the oil runs out, when the oil runs out (and there are likely to be problems with its supply in the coming years), both progress and most of humanity will end, and until humanity returns to the "advance" level of On the eve of the end of oil use, if at all, coal and gas will also run out.
    I am pessimistic about this, but maybe there will be a miracle, and they will invent cold fusion or some other idyllic solution.

  186. A. Dozens of miles? What exactly are you talking about?

    B. I'm afraid, father, that you don't understand what you're reading at all - I'm talking about science and facts, studies and documents that have been presented to you many times, including at the famous conference where you also delivered a lecture. Since we know each other personally, allow me not to be favorably impressed by your childish attempts to sting me and present me as someone who does not understand what science is. I understand when things come from a reader like Michael, but I don't expect such behavior from you.

    third. What does this have to do with our newsletter anyway?

    d. Where does the delusional idea that we are afraid come from? The registration is intended to prevent spamming by bots to the forums (probably you are not knowledgeable enough in the field of information systems after all). To read the articles it is not necessary to register.

    God. The email registered with me is your private GMAIL email, and not the email you specified - it's interesting that in the past you received emails from me to this address without any problem

  187. First, evolution is not random because natural selection moderates the element of randomness created as a result of there being many factors that cause a creature to die before it is old enough to reproduce. Natural selection chooses the suitable ones and what to do, also the lucky ones and they bring the next generation, for its few mutations and if the environment has not changed - with its adaptability talent. If the environment changes - indeed the mutations play a role. See for example bacterial resistance to antibiotics. The idea that everything is reshuffled every generation and nothing is preserved i.e. complete randomness is an idea of ​​creationists who describe evolution in such a way that it is easy for them to dismiss it.

    I don't understand why anyone would want to run on all the trillions and trillions of living things 0 animals, plants, bacteria, algae, viruses such a complicated algorithm that would appear to be random.

  188. Gili,
    First, calm down. You attack from all sides because the subject indirectly concerns UFOs.
    There is a serious problem with UFO research. The study of UFOs is not considered under the category of science. It does not meet the criteria of scientific research.
    There is a question that preoccupies UFO researchers themselves: Is there a conspiracy, that is, a plot to hide important and even vital information on the subject of UFO landings by various governments in the world from the general public?
    But the UFO researchers themselves often feel that they may be part of this conspiracy itself.
    In any case, these questions are outside the field called science!
    These are questions that are suitable for series like the twilight zone or the series "Bags in the Dark". That's why articles about UFOs are not suitable for channels dealing with science.

  189. By the way, my father, there are no studies supporting that evolution is "planned". Nor are there those who support that it is random, this is a theory and this is a theory and none of them have proof at this point. The only fact is that evolution exists and continues to exist. I don't know how knowledgeable you are in the field of information systems, but sometimes a particularly complicated algorithm may be perceived as random in the eyes of someone who does not know the system in depth.

  190. Gillian, if you don't understand what science is and what the abysmal difference between it and faith is, then you should probably go and read basic books. Science is based on facts. Faith shoots an arrow and marks the target around it.
    Denial can only be in the face of facts. Denial in the face of other claims that are not supported by facts is a meaningless action.

    P.S. Where are your dozens of emails? I also did not receive the email you claimed to have sent this morning - my address editor@hayadan.org.il. If you mean your newsletter, I'm sorry, but I can't register properly and read the articles in detail, so it doesn't help me. Who are you afraid of, why don't you publish the articles without registration?
    my father

  191. Michael, I don't understand your stupid comparison. Of course not - there is no connection between Gali's comparison and "the people who influenced humanity". If you don't understand the difference, your situation is no less serious than hers and my father's. I find myself amazed every time anew by the extent of your misunderstanding, or disregard - and this is denial for its own sake.

    Gali, I don't appeal to emotions - I appeal to logic, tact and human relations, but probably all of these are unfamiliar to you. Let's say that if a newspaper editor in the US had expressed himself like that, the next day he would no longer be the editor. Besides, can you read? I don't think so, because I explained very well that I am not a creationist and I'm not even close to it, when I said that my father is a denier - I mentioned a fact, which you are probably not aware of, because my father received many materials from me and Donor Svet during the last two years, which he completely ignored - including studies, and documents analyzing findings physical.

    My father - you definitely deny, and as mentioned - deny the studies and facts that you prefer to sweep under the carpet, that too is indisputable. You have received from me and donor dozens of times scientific studies and documents that for some reason you completely ignored their content and continued to repeat your mantra.

    But it's a shame to argue - because my father, Gali and Michael are essentially religious people, those who feed on their private beliefs and spread their teachings with passion. This is not the point at all, the point is that a serious comparison was made here, tasteless and one that deserves to be known about publicly and officially so that they can see and be seen.

  192. Guru Yaya:
    Your complaint should be addressed to the author of the book and not to Gali

    Gillian:
    If someone were to write an article about the people who influenced humanity significantly, they would include Einstein and Hitler.
    Would you consider it a comparison of the two?
    Of course not - they appear on the same list only because of one feature they have in common and that is the extent of their influence on the world.
    It is worth noting that lists of this type do exist.
    for example http://www.dlmark.net/hundred.htm

    Holocaust deniers appear with the other deniers for a similar reason.

    Did you really not understand or does the demagogy necessary for deniers take over every area of ​​some of their lives?

  193. Gillian, you overdid it and crossed the line of good taste!
    What "facts, studies and scientific data" are you talking about? Did you read in my article what I wrote about "facts"?
    Here I bring you the section again here:
    "These false arguments are used when the person has no facts at all, or has few known facts that can give validity to his view against the scientific consensus or against the overwhelming scientific evidence that is presented against him. The deniers use arguments that are very effective in diverting the practical debate, especially by appealing to emotions, but in the end they have assertions that are empty of content and illogical."
    It somehow suits you. You turn to emotions now.
    And I wrote later in the article:
    In this regard, the first response of any denier to an evolutionist will be: "You are the denier."
    And for some reason it also suits you... very interesting.

  194. There are no studies that show that evolution is part of a plan. Therefore, denial has no meaning, as I said, anything invented by a person is something that cannot be denied, but also cannot be confirmed, therefore it is meaningless. I deny a lot of things because humans are very creative and create different worlds in their imagination, that doesn't make me a denier.
    Again, I can't find anything that I deny exists and that has scientific proof. Unequivocal.
    I also do not deny the existence of aliens but the claim that they came to visit and decided to drive poor people crazy through telepathic transmission to their minds and drive conspiracy theorists. You also reject the claim (except that in your opinion they did come to visit but nothing more than that) otherwise you would have continued to be with Avi Greif and his gang.

  195. It's amazing how you, as a member of a family of Holocaust survivors, dare to say such serious things, and it's even more amazing how much you don't understand what I'm writing: Who said you deny the Holocaust? I asked a simple question: are you ready as a denier of any kind (and it doesn't matter what you deny at the moment), to sit in the same boat with holocaust deniers? And here is a vivid example of stigmas and narrow-mindedness on your part: I am not a creationist and not close to being a creationist, not to mention far from believing in God and the creation of the world. I am indeed very sensitive to the subject of the Holocaust and am not ready for such comparisons with anyone, no matter what their opinions are.

    And just another comment - your narrow thinking and that of a large part of your colleagues, allows evidence only in black and white: either creationism, or evolution. While there is no doubt that evolution is arbitrary and unquestionable, still neither you nor anyone else can establish that evolution itself is not a program similar to a computer program and that its moves are random. Avital has nothing to do with the matter at all, I already said my opinion about him a long time ago.

    Bottom line, father, these things are extremely serious and you should take them back, because these comparisons are no different from comparisons with Nazis.

    Like it or not, father - the facts are what you deny: you ignore research, ignore facts (not superstitions - and not "banality" as you wrote), and ignore scientific data for your convenience, and there are dozens of evidences for this.

  196. Not only am I not a Holocaust denier, I am the son of a Holocaust survivor, I visited Poland and saw the evidence. The problem is that the evidence is abundant and yet people choose to ignore it, therefore they are the deniers and not me.

    I didn't know you were a creationist that you would be so sensitive that whoever tells the truth about evolution is actually the denier (a denier of what, of the existence of a God who created the world 5,800 years ago in hocus pocus?). The playing field is not an even playing field. Not everyone who denies superstition is denying because superstition is a product of invention and therefore there is no meaning in denying it, on the other hand denying something for which there is evidence is a crime that cannot be atone for. Evolution has trillions of evidences, countless transitional species or their fossils have been discovered, but instead of dealing with the evidence, the deniers say - there is no such thing, no evidence. Just like I wrote about Gavi Avital who ignores the evidence - who thinks that if he hides his eyes no one will see him.

  197. My dear love, you are probably not aware of what you yourself are writing, so I will tell you about "Your Father's House":

    "It is important to mention other important deniers: Holocaust deniers.
    All these deniers have something in common."

    That's how you wrote black on a website - or maybe you don't know what a comparison is.

    Father, I sent you an email about half an hour ago, please check your email box. And it's not you who needs to apologize (or at least until now you didn't need to), I'm sorry if you misunderstood - the one who needs to apologize is the doctor, who she now claims is not her saying the things but Michael Specter, but she doesn't even bother to point it out Implicitly. If that were the case, she should have written "More claims Specter because..." or "Thus claims Specter". As long as she didn't do that, then it can be understood that the words come from her own mouth, as a support for the things written in the book (I have no idea since I haven't read it).

    Do you really not understand how severe the comparison with holocaust deniers (which you now supported and demonstrated explicitly, and not from the mouth of the celebrated author)? Don't you understand that you have crossed the boundaries of all good taste and morality? And speaking of my father, you yourself are a known denier, you too systematically ignore facts, studies and scientific data, so you definitely belong to the group of "deniers". Are you ready to be compared to a holocaust denier?

    I repeat my demand to apologize, now unfortunately from you too, father, and I'm afraid I'll have to stand up for it. The things are very, very serious and cannot be put on the agenda.

  198. Something else. The phenomenon of Holocaust deniers is very serious. And the Holocaust is science. for your information. exact science. So that anyone who calls out about the holocaust, should think twice, because the holocaust is an exact science. They killed millions of Jews with the help of terrible scientific means and they are witness to this and when they are no longer alive history will be witness to this and it is not at all subject to historical interpretations. And when talking about deniers, it is very important to mention Holocaust deniers.

  199. Gillian, it's good that you sent a letter to the editor of the scientist asking him to remove the article because it shows that you really oppose its content.
    Michael Spector made "the complete salad between conspiracy theories... and alternative medicine" (as you say) in his book. So I suggest you write to the editor of the New Yorker and ask him to be fired from there.
    Another thing, where does it say that I compared holocaust deniers to creationists?
    I don't compare anyone. To compare means to say "like". I mean, creationists are like holocaust deniers. And that is clearly not true.
    The article talks about deniers and the phenomenon of deniers in general and this is what Michael Spector's book deals with. If you have any complaints, you are welcome to contact him.
    Maybe I really should have written a denialist. But I translated from what is written in English and that is why I wrote Danielist, because in English it is written with A. Yes, you are right.

  200. Gillian I didn't get any letter from you. It is not clear what I should apologize for, since Gali describes in the article things that a respected person wrote in the book. And yes, creationists who deny the abundance of evidence in favor of evolution and distort it to fit their agenda are doing exactly what Holocaust deniers are doing.

  201. Now I know it's not science, it's just another religion with a nice name, which labels people with other opinions as "infidels", oops, sorry: "Daniels"...

  202. By the way, I sent a very sharp letter to the editor of the site, Mr. Avi Blizovsky, demanding the removal of the article or its editor, as well as a clear and immediate apology from the top of the site.

  203. Sorry, but you crossed every line Dr. Weinstein. To compare creationists with holocaust deniers is a scandal like no other, and I wonder at my father who gives anything to such blasphemy in a magazine that is supposed to be scientific and impartial.

    I am no longer talking about the fact that you make a complete salad between delusional conspiracy theories (the Twin Towers) and alternative medicine, which there are many studies that prove its effectiveness as well as the fact that it has become part of public medicine.

    If you don't know what you're talking about, if I were you I wouldn't publish such a shameful article which unfortunately reveals your lack of knowledge in many areas, as well as the fact that you are arrogant, insolent and tactless.

    And the most ridiculous thing - that you honestly think that you have an open mind and that you are a scientist, while you are fed by personal beliefs and your own private demons.

  204. How can you respond to such a one-sided and demagogic thing...well, you can try...something needs to play the defender here because a lot of what you said are half-truths which, as you know, are sometimes worse than a lie.

    1. Modern conventional medicine has existed for less than 100 years.
    In contrast, Chinese medicine for over 3000 years...
    As someone who has indeed seen quite a few charlatans in natural medicine, one cannot argue with the facts that there are quite a few that help.
    For example, homeopathy helps and cures asthma patients...I have never seen anything like this in conventional medicine.
    Acupuncture that transfers inflammation - I personally went through one after 10 years of no success and my legs almost opened up like a sausage...the acupuncture did it in 5 treatments.
    And there is more and more.. such as relief for patients with intestinal problems..
    And there is a preparation called INFLU HEEL which is homeopathic but works so wonders against viruses that it is almost impossible to get it in pharmacies because it has been hijacked.
    2. Vaccines .. yes, because in the past vaccines did not cause serious diseases... and even today... being careful about an injection that sticks into you is not necessarily such a stupid thing.
    Just a little more than 10 years ago, everyone was injected with antibiotics without a diagnosis. Let's not talk about other things.
    Our parents and grandparents were pushed DDT...they used to do dental treatments with lead!!!! Lead...which poisons teeth..some people were poisoned before they got the point.
    3. Global warming - the only fact is that humans have nothing to do with it .. and if there is warming it is a product of the sun and not ours and if anything it will lead to an ice age ... refer to the value of unsalted water that melts and joins the salted .. the ability to return heat goes wrong .. air currents ..yada yada yada…
    4. Experiments on animals - yes, it is necessary in quite a few cases... but that a shampoo company such as Johnson, according to what I have heard, does experiments on animals is it good?? that they try makeup on?
    There are quite a few experiments today that could have been spared from the animals and by not saving money it was indeed possible to do them in computer simulations.
    5. Evolution - even though I believe in evolution, in the end it's all one big theory... and as both a believer and a scientist in my mind I have to accept the chance and the possibility that maybe something else is involved in this... I'm not saying God... it could also be a comet... but it's not fixed in stone
    6. The pharmaceutical organizations - the most successful market in the world is not weapons, oil or gold... it's medicines - they make billions upon trillions on our backs. Since I "believe" in their good and benevolent nature, I don't think for a moment that there are many drugs that could be much more effective and last longer and that we would need them less... especially since more than once the FDA prevented a potential disaster of drugs that were somehow released and caused the death of people or disabilities of various kinds ..see the value of flu vaccines ..an affair that only happened a year ago.
    7. By the way, New Age - I don't know where you got this nonsense from, but studies prove that people who live their lives in peace .. do yoga and sports are much healthier than others .. and as a cynic who eats junk, I would die to do that as well.

  205. I don't understand how you put the objection to animal testing in the same package with the rest. Even with the animal organizations distorting the facts here and there, the factual debate is quite small: experiments are being done on animals, which would have been done on humans, this was unthinkable. This is done, despite the basic claim shared by animal protection organizations and the scientists performing the experiments: that the animals are similar enough to humans, so that it is possible to infer one from the other. It is clear to both parties that in a significant part of the experiments, animal suffering is involved, and that the suffering is real. Some have experienced it.
    If there is any of the points above, which you claim is incorrect - please explain. If not, then please explain to me how the debate surrounding animal testing is equivalent to the debate surrounding creationism, or genetic engineering? The only point where the "science" side does not agree with the "crowd" side is the question of whether these experiments are ethical, and this is not a scientific question, once the factual points have been clarified.

  206. The idea of ​​denial is not new, and historically, it can be said to be parallel in several aspects to Britain's Luddite movement of the beginning of the Industrial Revolution: http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/
    Similar to the Luddites who faced the loss of their livelihood due to the industrialization of spinning and weaving, the "modern" deniers have an agenda: religious such as the Breites, ideological such as the opponents of the experiments, or economic such as the oil magnates.
    Unfounded fear or mistrust can be instilled in the public, but it is almost impossible to erase it.
    Just as the fear of cars in England caused a law that required a flag to go in front of every car, so the fear of transgenic plants will disappear for economic reasons - in England it was the development of the automobile industry in France, their hatred, in the rest of the world it will be the increasing production of blockbuster transgenic plants in China and the like.

  207. Thinking that organic food is healthier - is this denial?
    I would say that his honor is eating a movie, so at least he has an appetite.

    What wonder they are afraid of science, with such dogmatism that does not allow thinking outside of science.

  208. By the way, you have a conflict in the interpreter.
    It translates 8 ) as a smiley with sunglasses.
    I would recommend changing all the numbers to
    1.
    2.
    and so..
    (at least until you change the settings)

  209. When I initially saw the word Danielism I thought it was about someone called Daniel and then I saw the picture of the book in English and the token fell.
    When translating a name (of a book in this case) there is no choice but to translate phonetically but it is important to do it correctly.
    Anyone who speaks a little English knows that denial is pronounced Daniel (or at least Daniel) and not Daniel.
    Please fix, it's confusing.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.