On the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, a study was published today on one of the reasons for the rise of man, but also for serious diseases from which many people suffer
About 10 million years ago, a major genetic change occurred in the common ancestor of gorillas, chimpanzees and humans. Segments of the DNA in the genome began to duplicate copies at a greater rate than before, creating an instability that still exists today in the genes of modern humans and contributes to diseases such as autism and schizophrenia. However, this gene duplication is also responsible for the genetic flexibility that has manifested itself in some of the unique human characteristics.
"Because of the architecture of the human genome, the genetic material is added and subtracted in several areas frequently" says the geneticist Ivan Eichler from the Harvard Hughes Institute and the University of Washington who led a project that discovered the new findings. "It's the equivalent of volcanoes inside the genome, spewing pieces of DNA."
Eichler and his colleagues focused on the genomes of four species: macaque monkeys, orangutans, chimpanzees and humans. They are all descendants of an ancestral species that lived about 25 million years ago. The line leading to macaques split first, so macaques are man's most distant relatives in evolutionary terms. Orangutans, chimpanzees and humans are descendants of a common ancestor that lived 12-16 million years ago. Chimpanzees and humans are descended from a common ancestor in a species that lived 6 million years ago.
By comparing the DNA sequences of four species, Eichler and his colleagues were able to identify gene duplications in the lineage leading to these species since they shared a common ancestor. They were also able to estimate when the splicing occurred from the number of species sharing the same duplication. For example, duplication observed in orangutans, chimpanzees and humans but not in macaques must have occurred after the split ie at most 25 million years ago, but also before the branch of the orangutan lineage split.
Eichler's research team found that a particularly high rate of replication occurred in the species that led to chimpanzees and humans, even though other mutational processes, such as changes in single DNA letters, slowed during that time. "There is a burst of activity that occurred when the genome rearranged itself and suddenly started moving," he said. Surprisingly the rate of replication slowed again after the human and chimpanzee branches diverged. "One could think that humans are unique because we have more duplicates than previous species, but this is not the case."
These duplications have created a region in our genome that is prone to large-scale reorganizations. This architecture is responsible for the repetitive deletions and repetitive duplications associated with autism and schizophrenia and a wide variety of other diseases." Eichler said.
But still these regions show signs of being under adaptive selection, meaning that some of the reorganizations must benefit the individuals who inherit them. Eichler believes that as yet uncharacterized genes, or regulatory signals in the duplicated regions must create some type of reproductive advantage. "I believe that the negative selection of these duplications was masked by the selective advantage of these new genes, but this has not yet been proven." said.
According to Eichler, an important task for further studies will be to identify the genes in these areas and analyze their function. "The geneticists need to find out what the genes in this area are and how their variation leads to different aspects of human conditions such as diseases. After that, they will pass the information on to neuroscientists, physiologists and biochemists who will be able to find out what those proteins are and what they do." said. "It is possible that these genes may be important for language or cognitive aspects, although there is still a lot of work to be done before we can say for sure."
92 תגובות
I too, like Eichler who cannot prove it, believe that a double segment in our DNA cannot survive only because it is not disruptive enough for so many millions of years. It must also have a specific advantage, otherwise it would not exist. It's just a shame that there is no way to prove the It.
Someone from somewhere:
You claim that I did not create a squirrel but only designed it. Do you want me to curate too? I guess if a genetic engineer did it for me you wouldn't have a problem with it, right (because he's human too)? I'll tell you what he would do - take a squirrel, look for the gene relevant to a biological clock, irradiate it with radiation (only the gene, not the whole squirrel), paste the incorrect copy back into the squirrel and there you have a squirrel without a biological clock, who enjoys like Needed from the treats in the lab. Of course, in nature he had a serious problem, but for the specific conditions I mentioned, he is suitable.
Now, *that* is smart planning!
You are avoiding the question. Who designed (not created, just designed) a better squirrel, me or the intelligent designer? There is no connection between better planning and the ability to carry it out, because we assume in advance that the intelligent planner has an unlimited ability to carry out his plans (you are welcome to challenge this if you want, I also think it is a very weak argument).
As usual, you ignored all the other problems I posed to you.
You are welcome to admit your mistake. There is no shame in making a mistake. It's a shame to keep making the claim that you've long known is wrong.
someone:
so that's it?
Are you really done now?
So please go back somewhere and stop bugging us here.
For infinite loops there are computers - you don't need humans.
By the way, this raises a suggestion in my mind: maybe continue the debate with the mechanized psychiatrist program?
Correction - when you prove the opposite, you will disprove my claim.
Just a little note to light-
Here you go: the "glue copy" of the squirrel's intelligent planning, only I plan it so that it eats food as needed, so that it doesn't starve in the winter and doesn't decide in the middle of the summer that it's time to cut back on activity, but reproduces, simply because it can" - copy paste? When you create a squirrel from its building blocks (nucleotides and amino acids) then we will talk. A squirrel is like a robot - a squirrel requires a creator. When you prove the opposite, you will prove my point. Have a nice day...
I would like to consider this as an addition to my last comment-
Someone somewhere admitted that the squirrel's intelligent planning is not who knows what, but it is still planning and still intelligent. And to prove:
""The same argument applies to the squirrel as well. What kind of planning is this?" - again - when you create a better squirrel then we will talk. And even then - even a robot that is not well planned is a planned robot."
His position can now be called the medium intelligent planning, or the Hafifennic planning of the intelligent planner.
someone,
Since this is your last comment, this will also be my last (unless yours won't be the last after all).
You asked me to design a better living room. Here you go: the "glue copy" of the existing zalon, except that it spreads its top only when there is enough light for assimilation, and a handful of them in any other situation, to save water. To remind you, the real zalon unfolds its surface in cycles, which can be easily disrupted if desired (the researchers succeeded).
What do you say about my plan? Am I more intelligent than the intelligent planner? Or do you think the real tzalon is better?
You also want an improved squirrel. Here you go: the "glue copy" of the squirrel's intelligent planning, only I plan it so that it eats food as needed, so that it does not starve in the winter and does not decide in the middle of the summer that it is time to reduce its activity, but reproduces, simply because it can. In short, somewhat human-like.
Why did the designer want humans to depend on their brains for awareness and rid the hydra of that need? I think it's better to be a hydra, both awareness and unbelievable regeneration ability! Isn't it better than humans, who can't regenerate even an amputated finger? Unfair on the part of the intelligent planner, but hey, they don't call him the fair planner, do they?
Bottom line, most of the time you'd be all about attacking evolution, but when your "theory" was put to the test, it was slapped on the hip. This, by the way, hints at intelligent planning on your part, you probably knew that your strength is in attack and weak in defense.
If you feel like harping on some scientific theory, I suggest you choose an easier victim. For example, continental drift. Everything will go well until someone asks you about volcanoes and what is this stuff that comes out of them and where does it come from. Remember: as long as you are on the attack, you are on the wave. Don't let them divert you for a moment to the position of the defensive, because that is the ideological edge.
I hope this debate is indeed over.
someone,
Maybe you should really stop here. You repeat yourself, and say the same wrong things. What is a change in nucleotides, if not a mutation in DNA? And a mutation causes a change in proteins and control mechanisms.
Apart from all this, you ignore the fact that at least one new enzyme was created there, and focus on the passing comment that "there was a change in nucleotides".
And again I say - believe what you want, but don't try to mislead people with false knowledge.
someone:
Don't put words in my mouth. It's clear that when I said that this is an example of bad planning, I didn't mean to say that there was planning, but that even if you accept the argument that there was planning, you have to admit that it was very poor planning.
You say "degeneration can occur from a degenerative mutation"
say? Are not you ashamed? After all, you were in first grade, but what? After all, you are already in the third grade!!!
"That's what you claim. Try to make a better ostrich."
I created I got a horse. In a previous attempt that was less successful, I got someone.
"The peacock's tail also corresponds to this"
Walla? really?! The peacock tail never meets it? I did not know.
bullshit!
My last comment guys-
Roy-"Once you see a complex system, there is no reason why another complex system could not be created in this way"-do you understand that I meant a system consisting of a number of new genes? The example you gave is only changing a few nucleotides in an existing control.
Or - I want to say, there is an elaborate mechanism here that is suitable only for the conditions to which it developed, and not for other conditions." - It's good that you admit that there is an elaborate mechanism here.
” So what, the intelligent planner is a bit over the top, isn't he? "-Here's a challenge for you-Try to create a better salon, think you'll succeed? You'll also get a few Nobel prizes along the way. What are you waiting for?
"The same argument applies to the squirrel as well. What kind of planning is this?" - again - when you create a better squirrel then we will talk. And even then - even a robot that is not well planned is a planned robot.
"After all, if a hydra can have awareness without a brain, why can't you, a properly designed human being, preserve your awareness without it?" - because experience shows that humans need it. That's how the designer created it.
Michael-
"This is an example of bad planning." - In other words, you admit that there is apparent planning. Do you think that a broken robot does not require a planner?
Are you saying that maybe it's the degeneration? So maybe you can explain to me how something that is well planned degenerates? And in general - what is degeneration? Maybe eyes are actually the degeneration of the absence?"-Degeneration can occur from a degenerative mutation.
The story with the ostrich wings is even funnier.
Are the wings good for a certain acceleration? After all, if you add their energy to the legs, you'll get better acceleration!" - that's what you claim. Try to create a better ostrich
To attract partners? What kind of planning is it that plans such an awkwardness instead of planning the couple so that there will be no need for wings to pull them" - the peacock's tail also corresponds to this.
someone:
Your answer shows how unwilling you are to think at all.
First of all, everything is "maybe" and there is no explanation that you feel really comfortable standing behind.
As someone who sees the reality of a creature with eternal life that cannot be discovered as possible, it is not surprising that the things you wrote are also possible in your view, even though they do not make any sense.
Maybe the eyes of the rats are enough for them anyway? for sure! Their wings are also enough for them. The difference between their wings and their eyes is of course in existence. Their wings are much more efficient because they do not exist, cannot be injured and do not require a blood supply.
This is an example of poor planning.
Are you saying that maybe it's the degeneration? So maybe you can explain to me how something that is well planned degenerates? And in general - what is degeneration? Maybe eyes are actually the degeneration of the absent?
The story with the ostrich wings is even funnier.
Are the wings good for a certain acceleration? After all, if you add their energy to the legs, you will get a better acceleration!
To attract partners? What kind of planning is it that plans such awkwardness instead of planning the couple so that wings are not needed to attract them (by the way - are you also attracted to non-functioning wings? Or is it your partner?)
to somewhere
To define the theory of evolution as a delusion, by those who believe in an "intelligent creator"...
Hmmm…
To the best of my recollection, a hallucination is defined as something that exists only in the imagination, and has no sign in reality
Doesn't that remind you of something?
Roy - thank you very much for the compliment. 🙂
someone from somewhere
You also inferred that Tzalon has a biological clock, as the researchers concluded in the experiment. The problem is that the watch can break down under unnatural conditions - you also agreed with that. That is, the clock is in order as long as the conditions are not radically disrupted in a way that is unlikely to occur in nature. I want to say, there is an elaborate mechanism here that is suitable only for the conditions to which it was developed, and not for other conditions. So what, the intelligent planner is a bit over the top, isn't he? This is how the poor waiter gets humiliated when he spreads out his top in complete darkness? Do you not agree that there is a flaw in the design, or does it seem like a perfect design to you?
The same argument applies to the squirrel. The squirrel has a brain (I'm sure you won't dispute this assertion), yet it fools around and consumes energy according to cycles of conditions that were valid in the past and are no longer valid in the pampering laboratory, instead of eating as much as it can. That is, his efficient biological clock, which helped him in nature, started to disturb him as soon as the conditions changed. What kind of planning is this? Would you buy a heater that works automatically in the winter, but would still work in the current Israeli winter and warm you from the pleasant weather outside to an unbearable heat? I don't know what you would do, but I would complain to the manufacturer about the stupid design of the oven, that instead of operating based on temperature feedback, it operates based on day length feedback. Or do you think that the planner of the oven (and of the squirrel) is actually an excellent planner?
Hydra doesn't have a brain, but I admit I forgot that you were initially arguing that no brain or any substance is needed for consciousness. After all, God does not have a material body and has consciousness, according to you. I made a mistake, I directed the argument, which seemed absurd to me, to someone who was ready to receive it with open arms.
But since you have already challenged me with the question about the consciousness of mindless beings, I will ask you - would you agree to have your brain removed from your body? After all, if a hydra can have consciousness without a brain, why can't you, a properly designed human, maintain your consciousness without it?
'someone',
Amazing that I have to quote your own words to you again.
"Once you see a complex system, there is no reason why another complex system cannot be created this way."
You were presented with a complex system in the last discussion. I am still not tired of repeating this point, even though you ignore it again and again. Is it the strength of your arguments - that you get to the point where you put your hands over your ears and keep shouting the same mantra over and over again?
In any case, I take my hat off to Or, who nicely showed that the theory of intelligent design does not explain many findings, while evolution can explain them. I just feel a little embarrassed for a person who keeps answering "don't know", "don't know", "don't know", but believes he knows everything.
OK.
"Together with the eyes of the rats and the fish of darkness and together with the wings of the ostrich and the other birds that do not fly,"-
1) It is possible that the eyes of the rats are enough for them this way.
2) Their eyes may have degenerated from genetic drift.
3) Maybe these wings are good for some acceleration and maybe they are for attracting mates.
"A Tsalon tree spreads its leaves during the day, for the absorption of sunlight and efficient assimilation (photosynthesis). At night, when there is no sunlight, he pinches his top to avoid water in vain. Amazing planning, isn't it? Until you isolate the tent from daylight, you see that it continues to unfold and shrink in a cycle that gets worse and worse as the isolation continues. In other words, the safflower spreads its leaves and pinches them in complete darkness, and not only that, but over time it begins to spread its leaves when it's night outside, and pinch them in the afternoon. Why bother spreading the leaves in the dark? Isn't it a waste of energy? What kind of photosynthesis will the plant do at one o'clock in the morning in the laboratory?" - this could actually be evidence of planning. Because if it were only exposed to light, then you would claim that it is a reaction caused by light. This shows that it has a built-in mechanism like a biological clock.
- A squirrel eats less food in the winter than in the summer. Very economical and efficient, because in winter the food is much thinner. We put the squirrel in a 5-star lab, and provided him with plenty of food and a comfortable temperature all year round. It turns out that he continued to eat less in the winter than in the summer, and over time this cycle went wrong - that is, the squirrel started to cut back on eating in...April! What happened to the sophisticated mechanism? Why didn't the squirrel maintain a constant level of eating all year round, since the conditions have not changed?" he asked him.
Perhaps these conditions disrupted his biological mechanism. Perhaps he is programmed for limited conditions in advance? And these are unnatural conditions.
-Hydra has the ability to breed asexually, so its offspring are XNUMX percent genetically identical to it. When two genetically identical hydras capture the same prey, they fight each other over who will devour it. Why? After all, it's a waste of energy on their part, if one gives up, the other (genetically identical) will save energy and thus the identical genes will be able to reproduce more efficiently. I remind you that the hydra does not have a brain, so its entire behavior is "planned" by the intelligent designer, according to you" - how come you don't have any awareness? Do creatures without a circulatory system not breathe oxygen? Also - this is an argument that stems from ignorance and does not belong to science but to the philosophy of science.
someone,
You answered so many times that you don't know what to answer. Doesn't this seem to you to be proof of the weakness of your claims? Your "theory" leads you nowhere. There is nothing philosophical in what I asked, they are all questions of biology. What is "philosophical" in the discussion is your claim about intelligent design, and this is not a philosophy of religion.
How can you even compare tobacco to a monkey? Are they similar to each other in any way other than 48 chromosomes? Can you think of any living creature more like a monkey than tobacco? I'm sure you can think of something.
You really asked for it, so here you get it - a list of flaws:
- A tsalon tree spreads its leaves during the day, for absorption of sunlight and efficient assimilation (photosynthesis). At night, when there is no sunlight, he pinches his top to avoid water in vain. Amazing planning, isn't it? Until you isolate the tent from daylight, you see that it continues to unfold and shrink in a cycle that gets worse and worse as the isolation continues. In other words, the safflower spreads its leaves and pinches them in complete darkness, and not only that, but over time it begins to spread its leaves when it's night outside, and pinch them at noon. Why bother spreading the leaves in the dark? Isn't it a waste of energy? What kind of photosynthesis will the plant do at one in the morning in the lab?
- A squirrel eats less food in the winter than in the summer. Very economical and efficient, because in winter the food is much thinner. We put the squirrel in a 5-star lab, and provided him with plenty of food and a comfortable temperature all year round. It turns out that he continued to eat less in the winter than in the summer, and over time this cycle went wrong - that is, the squirrel started to cut back on eating in...April! What happened to the sophisticated mechanism? Why didn't the squirrel maintain a constant level of eating all year round, since the conditions didn't change?
- Hydra has the ability to breed asexually, so its offspring are XNUMX percent genetically identical to it. When two genetically identical hydras capture the same prey, they fight each other over who will devour it. Why? After all, it's a waste of energy on their part, if one gives up, the other (genetically identical) will save energy and thus the identical genes will be able to reproduce more efficiently. I remind you that the hydra has no brain, so its entire behavior is "planned" by the intelligent planner, according to you.
Will you answer "don't know" to all the questions I asked this time?
someone:
Fact is not!
Don't argue with examples I didn't give.
We'll see you face the ones I brought!
Or. I have no idea what I would do as a farmer and it's none of my business either.
If you were minister for environmental protection, and environmentalists urged you to protect the last amphibian, would you answer them that the intelligent designer can re-design the amphibian and only needs to be persuaded to do so?" - I have no idea.
Do you agree with eugenics from a scientific point of view (not from a moral point of view), or do you believe that the depletion of genetic diversity will harm humanity in the long run?" - Don't know
Your other questions are more philosophical and I have no intention of getting into philosophy. Suri.
If I were to present to you a mammal that you do not know (but announce to you that it is a mammal), would you assume that the female is nursing the offspring with milk? If so, why wouldn't the rational planner decide that this mammal will not breastfeed its young?" he asked. I have no idea.
"If you knew that a sea urchin of a certain species has eight "sections" in its body, would it be reasonable to assume that a sea urchin of another species also has eight sections? Why?" - I don't know. What is the connection exactly? If an average shark has 5 gills, should we assume that others do as well? Is that so? It's a fact that there are sharks with 6 gills.
If a mutation was found in all the details of a certain species of chimpanzees, and another mutation was found in all the details of a certain species of fungi, which of the mutations do you think is more likely to be found in humans as well?" - Are you talking about vitamin C? Anyway, not sure that this is evidence For something. For example - the tobacco plant has 48 chromosomes, so do monkeys. Does this mean that the monkeys evolved from it?
Michael - I've already heard enough about defects. Like the wiring of the blood vessels in the eye and the appendix. The fact is that they were deceived...
Just as an observer from the side:
God is indeed in total memory and intellectual recognition..but, in totality.
So to which theoretical niches and teachings his details belong, it doesn't matter at all.
In one of my responses I presented someone with a series of "design" flaws that contradict the optimal design claim that was presented.
I really restrained myself from the same reaction, together with the eyes of the rats and the fish of darkness and together with the wings of the ostrich and the other birds that do not fly, to also indicate the mind of the Creator.
So now I don't hold back anymore.
For what the hell were the creationists equipped with a brain?
Isn't this another design flaw that causes them to waste energy without producing anything?
someone from somewhere
You demonstratively ignored my claims, except for the one about the antibiotics. I ask you again - if you were a farmer, and you were advised to avoid spraying your fields so as not to raise the competence of pests resistant to the poison and make them take over the population, what would you do?
If you were Minister of Environmental Protection, and environmentalists urged you to protect the last amphibian, would you tell them that the intelligent designer can re-design the amphibian and only needs to be persuaded to do so?
Do you agree with eugenics scientifically (not morally), or do you believe that the depletion of genetic diversity will harm humanity in the long run?
If I were to present to you a mammal that you do not know (but announce to you that it is a mammal), would you assume that the female is nursing the offspring with milk? If so, why wouldn't the rational designer decide that this mammal would not nurse its offspring?
If you knew that a sea urchin of a certain species has eight "compartments" in its body, is it likely that a sea urchin of another species also has eight compartments? Why?
If a mutation was found in all individuals of a certain species of chimpanzee, and another mutation was found in all individuals of a certain species of fungus, which of the mutations do you think is more likely to be found in humans as well?
I hope you are honest enough to answer these questions and not avoid them.
Noam. What exactly are you talking about? There are thousands of evidences for planning in every enzyme and molecular machine. And you can study genetics without believing in evolution and its delusions..
The discussion in the forum illustrates important differences of approach, far beyond the discussion of this or that detail:
When a scientist encounters an unknown and unexplained phenomenon, he approaches to investigate it, look for sources, conduct experiments and try to arrive at an explanation that is consistent with the criteria of the scientific method. This is arduous work, which takes a lot of time and resources.
The creation rushes to declare "It's God" (ignorance = God), thus ending his investigation, after all he has no need to prove anything, and he has no need to look for findings and/or experiments that support his opinion.
Of course, the creationist solution is much more economical, so he has plenty of free time left over, and he uses it to peer over the scientist's shoulder to constantly look for real and imagined flaws in his work, hoping to delay his progress.
Humanity is divided between those who invest their talent, time and resources to advance human knowledge, and those who devote all their time and energy to attempts to delay any progress in knowledge so that the safety and peace of their faith is not harmed.
Despite the above, I declare that I am ready to fight with all my meager powers, to allow creationists to remain in their ignorance, this is their elementary right, and no one has the right to deny it to them
Roy, I really didn't claim that. In any case, there is no chance of finding a functional enzyme in an evolutionary way. Remember this when they try to create a mechanical cell and check the chances of it being formed by itself...
gift:
You're probably talking about yourself.
I've already said a lot of interesting things, but I simply don't have the strength to repeat them a thousand times just because types like you don't understand.
someone,
What statistics are you talking about exactly? So far, all the statistics I have seen from the creationist side have been marked by serious logical flaws, or a lack of understanding of evolution.
post Scriptum.
I am very surprised that you still support the theory of intelligent design, after you yourself declared that it would be null and void if a complex system was created during evolution, and the fact that such a complex system was indeed created recently in bacteria, was presented to you and even won your approval.
I recommend to all Danes here to read the excellent science fiction books "Ender" and "Xenoside"
Ander mainly because it is an excellent book and because it is an introduction to the book Xenocide, one of the most powerful books, which discusses with great force and objectivity the conflict between religion and science, the author DA is a believer, but I (as a non-believer) think that the arguments that were "against" religion were More powerful, but it's probably only because of my views - secularism!
In any case, brilliant books... recommended to read - opens the mind (in a positive sense of course) to anyone who has a little desire to understand the other and not stay stuck in their position!!
Let me surprise you for the tenth time. All biology that you call general is based on evolution. I'm pretty tired of reading the same nonsense a million times that genetics has nothing to do with evolution. It's enough for me that all the great experts on evolution and genetics say that. And it seems to me that if you don't stop this harassment, I'll just delete all these mentions. You don't have to show ignorance all the time. You repeat this claim in the hope that if you say it a thousand times it will become true. enough.
Noam, what discovery has evolution already made? Genetics? This belongs to general biology and has nothing to do with evolution. Roy-there is evidence in the statistical field-the chance of an average functional enzyme appearing in an evolutionary way is too low. And speaking of Michael Shermer-you have already had the chance to watch his videos on YouTube with Wallace And Hovind?
someone:
Are you unable to keep any commitments?
In the beginning, you gave Roy a challenge and said that if he meets it, thank you for everything.
He met the challenge and you continue to squirm.
We noticed a long time ago that this is what you are doing, so we were happy when you said in one of the comments that it was a last attempt to convince, but - see it's a miracle - you continue.
Maybe you will at least keep this promise? You're just boring!
Noam,
Unfortunately I agree with you. The discussion here is really a dance of evasions: on the one hand the creationists refuse to accept any proof of evolution, to the extent that they contradict their own assertions. On the other hand, they are unable to show how their theory proves its correctness, so they ignore questions on the subject and incite them in other directions.
And this is what Michael Shermer already said, after a particularly stormy discussion with Creation:
"Confrontation is a form of art. It is about winning arguments. It is not about discovering the truth. There are certain rules and procedures for confrontation, which really have nothing to do with establishing facts - rules and procedures that creationists have acquired skill in. Some of these rules are: Never say anything Be positive about your own position, because that statement will be open to attack. Instead, break down what appears to be a weakness in your opponent's position. They are good at it. I don't think I could overcome their creation in a confrontation. I can draw with them. But in court they are terrible, because in court You cannot make speeches. In court you must answer direct questions about the positive status of your faith..."
The discussion here perfectly illustrates the tactics of creationists and supporters of the intelligent creator all over the world.
They devote supreme efforts to finding flaws and gaps in the theory of evolution, and not even one permil of their efforts is devoted to proving their theories.
I politely asked someone who would be so kind as to remind us of one important discovery that the theory of intelligent design brought to our world - and even in that he failed.
Their anxiety is understandable - evolution fatally damages their faith, but what can they do, their fight is a lost fight, and they are losing it continuously, one after another.
Every advancement of science closes knowledge gaps and leaves less room for an "intelligent creator" or any higher power of one kind or another.
A system of 2 nucleotides is a complex system? In my opinion, what happened is that a simple mutation occurred in the regulation, which caused the enzyme to become permanently active, that's all. And in my opinion, this cannot be compared to the formation of a new active site (folded by dozens of amino acids in the protein skeleton) that fits like a glove to the substrate New. Well, I think we exhausted the matter.
someone,
You keep on dodging.
What do you care how many nucleotides were added and where? Even the addition or loss of one, means a mutation in the DNA.
You refer to the fact that there was an enzyme before that broke down citrate, but you charlatanically ignore the fact that there was no enzyme that introduced citrate into the bacteria under the same conditions. You similarly ignore the fact that the same enzyme that breaks down citrate has mutated, or that the control mechanism for it has mutated.
So let's go over it again:
Two mutations: one that produced an enzyme that introduces citrate into the cell, and one that made the enzyme that breaks down citrate work at a much higher rate, or created a new such enzyme.
Each of the mutations is worthless on its own. Only together they bring a beneficial result.
A complex system was created here.
And therefore, as you say, complex systems can be created in evolution.
Noam - on the contrary - at the time they didn't even know what a gene was. Today, with all the technology and knowledge, when you know that each gene has its own control, and control for control, and control for control for control, that's saying a sermon. Every day new biological wonders emerge (epigenetics, methylation, differentiation ), and it will be difficult for scientists to ignore.
Dan: And because I don't see you, you don't exist
In fact, you were created with all your memories just so that I can respond to my own creation
How beautiful life is.
Where were you the year before you were born?
I know I wasn't.
Unfortunately, this is not new, it is from the XNUMXs, and for seventy or so years, generations of creationists have grown up who lived long lives thanks to the updated antibiotics, and they continue to deny evolution.
To my father
The combination of genetics and evolution is the bad news for creationists/intelligents, and it is this combination that actually gave Darwin's deep scientific basis for evolution.
No wonder somewhere and others try their best to ignore it. Someone already said (don't remember who):
"Everyone has the right to be ignorant, and everyone has the right to do their best to remain so"
For someone somewhere, enough with the pretense, you have been told many times that genetics is part of evolution, it is the mechanism that explains evolution and it will not help you to write it a thousand times, it will not make it true.
Noam, Roy...
The entire article was about obtaining a new property: the bacteria's ability to digest citrate.
Before, the bacterium could not digest citrate under the growing conditions.
Now he can digest citrate, under the same growing conditions.
So a new feature must have been created here." - not a new feature but a new timing. For example - suppose that tomorrow females will be able to produce milk from the day they are born. Will this be evidence of the formation of a new function? No. This will be evidence of a new allele that affects the timing. That is, the gene does not Changed the original function.
And not only that, but a new protein was created that is capable of introducing citrate into the cell. The original bacterium did not have such a protein. In a bacterium that has evolved, such a protein exists." - Not according to the source I saw. From what I saw, the genes for decomposing citrate actually existed before.
So we have a combination of two proteins - one that digests citrate at a high rate, and the other that injects citrate into the cell. Both did not exist in the original bacterium. Both are part of a new complex system, which did not exist before." - I asked and I will ask again - how many nucleotides do you think were changed there?
And you are welcome to continue living in your faith, but please try not to ignore and deny all the scientific knowledge that exists today, in an attempt to present your faith as correct" - I am not denying anything.
To Noam - what discoveries are you talking about? Maybe you mean genetics, biochemistry, physiology, etc. These are not related to evolution at all.
to somewhere
Noooo!!!!
To put all the discoveries of evolution, which hundreds of studies, books and scientific publications describe in detail, against only one "discovery" of the "intelligent creator" and claim that it is of equal value...
(And at the same time, not understanding the difference between a fertile and continuously advancing theory, and a stagnant "theory" with only one "discovery")
I want to donate you a free egg:
Stay away from this type of forums, don't read scientific books, don't listen to scientific reviews - all these are a complete waste of time for you.
It is evident in you that your faith is much more important to you than the search for the truth - don't risk what is so important to you.
'someone somewhere',
"I was talking about a new, non-homologous feature. There is no new feature here, but only a different regulation = no new protein is created here."
The entire article was about obtaining a new property: the bacteria's ability to digest citrate.
Before, the bacterium could not digest citrate under the growing conditions.
Now he can digest citrate, under the same growing conditions.
So a new feature must have been created here.
And not only that, but a new protein was created that is capable of introducing citrate into the cell. The original bacterium did not have such a protein. In an evolved bacterium, there is such a protein.
So we have a combination of two proteins - one that digests citrate at a high rate, and the other that injects citrate into the cell. Both did not exist in the original bacterium. Both are part of a new complex system, which did not exist before.
Conclusion: Complex systems can be created in evolution.
And you are welcome to continue living in your faith, but please try not to ignore and deny all the scientific knowledge that exists today, in an attempt to present your faith as correct.
Guys, one last try in the hope of understanding.
Roy - I showed you a study on a complex system (two proteins that work in a different way than they did in the past, and contribute to each other's action) that was created in evolution.
You agreed that this is some kind of mutation." - I was talking about a new, non-homologous feature. There is no new feature here, but only a different regulation = no new protein is created here.
pleasantness-
"I would be happy to learn from you what new discovery / new knowledge the theory of intelligent design has brought (besides, of course, the claim of an intelligent "creator", which leads nowhere"-first, what interesting information did evolution provide? secondly-in my opinion, the inference that someone created you is much more interesting than any question Otherwise. For example, we will not treat junk DNA as junk and likewise for a "defective" design such as in the blood vessels in the eye or the removal of the appendix in vain.
Michael - you have the right to believe that (molecular) machines do not need a creator. But don't call it a fact.
Light-antibiotics is not related to evolution. That bacteria develop resistance is a fact. Evolution claims that a bacterium can slowly turn into an elephant - this is only a theory.
Well, it seems to me that no one will be convinced otherwise, no one will live in his faith...
someone from somewhere
As mentioned here before, this discussion is getting really exhausting and it is not leading anywhere. If you want, you can deny evolution. This has more implications than you think for your private life:
1. If you deny evolution, you have no reason to worry about the extinction of species because the "intelligent designer" can simply re-engineer them after they become extinct. I suggest you do whatever it takes to get him to do it (pray/fast/send an official letter/whatever you can think of).
2. If you deny evolution, you have no reason not to use antibiotics from fifty years ago, because it is not possible that the same species of bacteria that was vulnerable to this antibiotic in the past acquired immunity to it as a result of natural selection. This way you can save money on new medicines!
3. If you deny evolution, you have no reason to extrapolate from the characteristics of one mammal (for example, having fur and nursing its offspring with milk) to another mammal whose biology you do not know, because it is impossible for them to have a common ancestor.
4. If you don't believe in evolution, you have no reason to draw conclusions against eugenics (sterilization/elimination of "inferior" individuals in society to prevent the spread of their genes) as a result of evolutionary studies that show that its application will deplete the genetic diversity and the resistance of the species to selection factors. You can support it wholeheartedly, scientifically (I assume you oppose it morally).
I guess the other commenters will be able to provide more options for you to do with your faith in the Intelligent Designer.
someone:
By the way - you repeat and remind me of something a friend once told me when I encountered someone like you:
Good charlatans never commit.
someone:
Really funny!
I admit that a molecular machine does not need a creator?! I admit this to the extent that I keep saying that man does not need a creator either! Glad you finally noticed!
Regarding the example - if you don't accept the human example then Roy gave you a simpler example. All that is left for you is to use your promise and acknowledge everything.
The questions I asked are not irrelevant.
As I said - in light of your claim that you derive your opinions from what logic tells you, I wanted to check if you even have a conversation with logic.
It turns out there isn't, but you can't admit it explicitly, so you accuse me of irrelevant questions (which, as mentioned - you bothered to define as such only when it became clear to you that you are not equipped with the necessary hardware to answer them).
to somewhere
Not suddenly - that's how it's always been, and no one claimed otherwise
I would love to learn from you what new discovery / new knowledge the theory of intelligent design has brought (besides of course the claim of an intelligent "creator", which leads nowhere)
'someone',
You claimed that if a complex system is formed in evolution, this will be evidence that other complex systems can also be formed in evolution.
I showed you a study on a complex system (two proteins that work in a different way than they did in the past, and contribute to each other's action) that was created in evolution.
You agreed that this is some kind of mutation.
Mutation is one of the mechanisms of evolution.
Thus, the complex system was formed by evolution.
From your mouth - since one complex system was created by evolution, others can also be created by evolution.
To Michael, Noam, Roy-
Michael - you are just treading water with irrelevant questions. And for that matter - you admit that (molecular) machines do not need a creator. Do you have any evidence for this? I think not.
To Noam - so suddenly it became just a desire for knowledge? Beautiful. Then the planning theory also strives to know the mysteries of creation and the wonders of the body. Like the ATP turbine for example.
By the way, when did I claim that a complex system can be created by evolution?
'someone from somewhere',
It is still not clear to me how you can say that - 'a complex machine has a creator', when you yourself admitted in the previous discussion that complex systems can be created by evolution, and therefore there is no point in the theory of intelligent design.
to somewhere
You wrote: "To Noam - so you are basing yourself on the fact that these studies might ever help?"
Don't you read what others write? What is not clear:
I wrote: "The goal of scientific research, with the help of the scientific method, is to enrich and advance human knowledge, whether it is used for technological achievements or not."
Someone from nowhere:
Genetics is ultimately another of evolution's predictions that have come true.
From the moment it was understood that there must be a mechanism for the inheritance of traits because it is not God who builds us, they began to look for the same mechanism. This is how the theory of evolution, among other things, led to an achievement that thousands of years of creationism did not come close to.
someone:
I did not avoid your question - it is clear that if I think evolution is possible then I also think that such a machine does not require a creator. I didn't want to cooperate with the stupidity or complacency in the question.
I explained the connection between my question and your pretense to speak in the name of reason. After all, some of your reasons come from this sublime source and you even told us that he tells you all kinds of things. I wanted to know if you have the same direct connection that you pretend to - with logic.
Turns out there isn't.
It also turns out that you think people won't be able to read the previous comments where you also agreed that I would give you a logic question and you didn't ask what the connection was because you still thought you could solve it.
to my father-
Evolution is not related to genetics and research on it. Diseases can be cured even without the need for this theory.
To Michael - and how exactly is your question related to evolution? I have no idea. Why did you avoid the question - do you think machines (let's say a molecular car) need a creator?
To Noam - so you are basing it on the fact that these studies might ever help?
from somewhere
You wrote: "What are you kidding? What's the use of blowing millions of shekels on delusional theories like "Is Homoeractus related to Homo cactus" or "Can fish count to 4?".
Since I'm polite, I have to believe that you also know that you answered completely off topic (in fact, if I were more scientific and less polite, I would choose a different definition...)
The purpose of scientific research, with the help of the scientific method, is to enrich and advance human knowledge, whether or not it is used for technological achievements.
I'm sure you know that countless times, studies that were completely impractical at the time, later caused technological breakthroughs.
The scientific method has enriched human knowledge in the past, and continues today, and this cannot be said about creationism, voodoo, "crystal science", and a long list of pseudo-science.
someone:
Come take another question that will allow you to also confirm your claim to understand the probability of events.
This is a question I once asked your duplicate who honestly earned the nickname Airwax:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/animals-one-celled-ancestors-2402081/#comment-40130
someone:
Here is one question (for example).
Given a stick with a length of one meter and no width (just a straight section).
Is it possible to build a planar body whose area is less than one square centimeter within which the stick can be rotated at any angle.
For someone somewhere, genetics has been an integral part of evolution since the XNUMXs - the new sythenesis they called it.
It is the mechanism that Darwin lacked that would explain the reason for transmission while changing.
Michael - you are welcome to ask your logic question. Do you also think that (molecular) machines do not need a creator?
someone:
By not getting to the root of my opinion, you proved my point.
You are not equipped with the logic you pretend to be.
Therefore, what you claim that "logic says" is not related to logic either.
Noam, Michal, Or-
Michael - I didn't get down to rooting for you.
"It's good that the scientific method won, and thus we can enjoy modern medicine, advanced technology, and many other benefits, and for all of these the intelligent theory, creationists, astrologers, card readers, and more, did not contribute and will not contribute anything" - What are you talking about? What benefit is there in the fly Millions of shekels on delusional theories such as "Is Homoeractus related to Homo cactus" or "Can fish count to 4?". Is this science? Isn't it a waste of money? On the contrary, if we believed that "garbage DNA" has a role and that the appendix has a purpose , we would have saved a lot of heartache and money. Furthermore - all research is related to genetics and not evolution, and genetics is a blessed business like medicine for diseases.
in light of-
!) "Unknown" is not a theory, because it doesn't explain anything. I can always answer "I don't know" to any flaw you find in the theory I will put forward "-what's the connection? You claimed that someone created the creator. You have no idea if he had a beginning and therefore your claim is invalid.
2) True, I can always assume that a molecular machine was created by a planner, which is also infinitely complex, so it is clear that it had a planner, that it was also designed by a planner, and so on. If the complexity of the designer does not require the assumption that someone designed it, then the complexity of the molecular machine does not require the assumption that someone designed it. "-Only if you claim that she has existed since time immemorial. Is that your claim?
"So I can answer you, with the same validity, that there was only one ancestor, but I do not know if he had a beginning. Both (un)arguments are equally plausible." - No. There are hundreds of evidences for the beginning of man. There is no evidence for the beginning of man's creator. One.
someone,
This time I will be short.
you said:
"You make the well-known claim (which Dawkins also makes in his book), but this claim is completely denied because of 2 reasons-
1) It is not known if the creature itself had a beginning, unlike man.
2) Even if it had a beginning it would not change the first conclusion - a molecular machine was created by a planner."
My answers:
!) "Unknown" is not a theory, because it doesn't explain anything. I can always answer "I don't know" to any flaw you find in the theory I will put forward (though of course I would prefer to make a much stronger argument: the god of flaws planted this flaw on purpose to plant doubt in the hearts of those of little faith). This is evading an answer, not an answer.
2) True, I can always assume that a molecular machine was created by a planner, which is also infinitely complex, so it is clear that it had a planner, that it was also designed by a planner, and so on. If the complexity of the designer does not require the assumption that someone designed it, then the complexity of the molecular machine does not require the assumption that someone designed it. It works like a boomerang. Or alternatively, I could say there was only one planner, but I don't know if he had a beginning. So I can answer you, with the same force, that there was only one ancestor, but I don't know if he had a beginning. Both (un)reasonable arguments are equally plausible.
to someone
The problem with your arguments is their lack of fruit and purpose - to say that they are completely impotent.
For your information, there is no difficulty in producing dozens or even hundreds of "theories" in a short amount of time that cannot be disproved under any circumstances, but they are completely useless, do not promote anything, except maybe a complete waste of time. Humanity would have remained at least two thousand years behind if we adopted such theories.
It is good that the scientific method won, and thus we can enjoy modern medicine, advanced technology, and many other benefits, to which the rational theory, creationists, astrologers, card readers, etc., did not and will not contribute anything.
Someone and his ilk are simply waging a war of attrition here.
They have no intention of understanding and they repeat the same nonsense over and over again.
They probably also come back and get the same answers (such as https://www.hayadan.org.il/what-is-evolution-1002094/#comment-172196).
Someone from somewhere is already renewing something for us.
He does not speak with God but with reason. It is logic that tells him all kinds of things that he does not reveal to any scientist.
What do you think, someone from somewhere, that I ask you some logic question and we'll see if you really have a conversation with logic?
Just say - if you have courage!
Legal, Noam, Shahar, Or. First of all - I do not wish to enter into debates about religion and faith. Proof of an intelligent creator is not proof of any religion and I have no intention of entering into this matter.
You make the well-known claim (which Dawkins also claims in his book), but this claim is completely denied because of 2 reasons -
1) It is not known if the creature itself had a beginning, unlike man.
2) Even if it had a beginning it would not change the first conclusion - a molecular machine was created by a designer.
Logic says that it makes more sense to assume that molecular machines need a planner. Information theory is the one that will probably finally end the issue of evolution vs. intelligent design. In my opinion, whoever sees that a machine or even an enzyme (which includes control, an active site, etc.) of average length can be created by chance, it will be Significant evidence. As I imagine, then evolution will have the upper hand...
RAM,
It can be assumed that intelligent design is responsible for life, because we know that intelligence can direct evolution (eg artificial selection or the example I gave earlier). The problem is to assume reason. It is impossible to assume reason without sufficient evidence (and there is none). I assume intelligence in humans and I have conclusive evidence. Proponents of intelligent design assume intelligence in God (or any other designer), and have not a shred of evidence that it exists. There is a theory that explains how intelligence evolved without the need for another intelligence to direct it, it is called evolution and part of it is explained here.
Furthermore, even if we assume that we did develop as a result of intentional reason, we return to the fundamental question: How did reason (the one that designed humans) come into being in the first place? The answer may be "it's wonderful of you not to investigate" (and in contemporary Hebrew translation: "like this") or it can be assumed that a previous intelligence planned the intelligence that planned human beings.
This is a circular argument. You can charge it countless times in a row and get nowhere. Therefore, it is advisable to charge it the minimum number of times: zero. Any other answer will only increase the maximum number of assumptions and will not add anything to the "theory".
To clarify the point:
Let's say I don't know why the sun goes around the sun, why objects fall and why arcuate trajectories are created in ballistics. I can make three assumptions that will explain these phenomena:
A. The sun god causes the universe to circle around the sun.
B. The god of falls causes objects to fall.
third. God of the cannons causes trajectories to be arcuate in ballistics.
My theory explains all the phenomena successfully, and it is not possible to predict anything with it without making additional assumptions (for example, it is not possible to predict with its help that the moon revolves around the Sun).
Newtonian mechanics makes one assumption - the force of gravity, which also explains all of the above phenomena *and* also provides good predictions (for example, that the moon revolves around the Earth). Therefore, I prefer the theory of Newtonian mechanics. Later, when the theory of relativity is developed, which will give me even more successful predictions, I will prefer it.
Or alternatively, I can also assume that the moon god causes the moon to circle around the sun. But again I was left without predictions but only with the ability to explain the findings.
Or, ok, agree, science fiction is fun but we don't need it in our context.
I think the argument of creationists is that humans were created by intelligent design. Or maybe they claim that the whole world? There are probably some who take the first argument, and others the second. In relation to humans, there is no reason to assume that we were the first to appear with intelligence, therefore it is possible that we were created, or directed to a certain place. Regarding the entire world, I don't see an answer to the question of how it was created. In fact, I don't even see how any unequivocal answer would be possible. Who created the conditions for the big bang? Or to the plasma cloud of a competing theory? Where did they come from, these conditions? In other words, I am unable to understand, conceptually, a situation where there is no external force whatsoever, and a closed system always exists, non-stop, from big bang to big mess and back, or perhaps in constant dissipation. What should it be, such a system? It has no cause, no result, no temporality, it exists by itself. I can't imagine it.
By the way, while writing I realize that these are actually the words that certain religious people use to describe God. He has no reason, etc. This does not mean, of course, that I think the religious establishments know what they are talking about, when they speak in the name of God, but I think we all run into the same thought barrier.
RAM,
From the moment intelligence evolved, it can be said that intelligent design influenced evolution. You don't have to go that far into science fiction to understand this principle.
Let's assume for a moment that some organism is in danger of extinction due to human activity. Intelligent people decided they wanted to save this organism, took the necessary actions and now the organism has been saved. Now, since the organism has survived, it continues to evolve. Had it not been for the intelligent humans, who planned to save it (and also knew that this meant it would undergo evolution), then the evolution of this organism would have been different - it simply would not have existed because the entire species would have been extinct.
Once you assume intelligence, you may assume intelligent design that affects evolution. But the assumption of reason raises a difficulty. In my last argument I assumed that humans are gifted with reason, and we have enough evidence that this is indeed the case (I'm sure you won't dispute that). At the same time, it is very difficult to argue, convincingly, that there was intelligence before there was life. How is the planner gifted with intelligence, if he himself is not alive (intelligent banks have enough proof) and was not designed by another intelligent planner?
You say that it is not possible to disprove intelligent design as affecting evolution, I want to qualify this by saying that the argument requires from the beginning to assume that intelligence exists. Inability to refute is not equivalent to proof. For example, you don't know that I'm not an alien from Mars, and you have no way of disproving it. But this does not prove that I am indeed an alien from Mars, or that this is the most likely assumption.
To my father, it is clear to me that it is not necessary to add intelligent planning in order to understand development, even development as incredible in its complexity as living things. But the possibility of intelligent planning cannot be ruled out. Let's say, for example, that in the coming decades we will be able to integrate advanced supercomputers into our daily lives, and we will create a kind of worldwide consciousness (or smaller groups, to be less ambitious). Something like an instant Internet, which includes not only databases but also a glimpse into people who are around us; A glimpse bordering on the abilities usually attributed to telepathy. In other words, standard science fiction, which becomes reality. Such a development would, I suppose, bias the direction of evolution because it would give significant advantages (perhaps also disadvantages) to a certain group. In such a case, wouldn't it be possible to say that human development - in the sense of humans as living beings - underwent a change as a result of intelligent planning?
A ram - there is an intervention on a huge scale, for example the fall of a large asteroid from the sky that causes mass extinction, creates new niches and diverts existing ones to creatures, usually small, that survive the disaster. And it is even an intervention from heaven, but there is no planning or reason with it.
Maybe we don't have to go too far, it is enough if we look at the thought philosophy behind the 'viewer' as being influential, according to Eisenberg's theory - quantum theory, in order to understand that 'external intervention' is the very 'thought involved' / spontaneous in looking into A researched process and a spontaneous/perhaps also a conscious-hidden/involuntary induction that triggers the acceleration of living processes and their revelations/exposure.
As mentioned, evolution is related to everything.
Or - Thank you very much for the detailed and clear explanation.
Regarding the debate between creationism and evolution, it seems that there is not enough data for a meaningful answer, isn't it? We just don't know. An outbreak of replications like the one in the article here can come as a result of chance, or as a result of extraterrestrials, say, who came and decided to produce a new type of life here, for their own reasons. In any case, the fact that there is evolution, natural selection, group selection, sexual selection, etc., does not mean that from time to time there is not external intervention on a huge scale, which goes beyond all the small cumulative changes.
To someone, maybe instead of bothering with the skeptical questions that often stick to the way of expression rather than the essence, you will offer some considered and interesting alternative.
Let's say some old white grandfather who creates molecular machines for his own pleasure and then checks if I prayed 3 times today or if I just cursed at a traffic light.
That in itself is a serious argument but I'm afraid I have some objections to it.
It's not that I don't appreciate our tradition, which we have preserved and even passed on to other peoples. I'm glad that we discovered some pagan peoples who conduct horrible things like the sacrifice of a first-born son (and thanks to the one who left me a scar in memory of this matter...)
But build us, either you will arrange for us some miracle or a clear and unequivocal revelation or you will leave us alone. It's not that I don't respect your belief but I'm just fed up.
All those who write for the sake of some holy truth and listen to the rabbis
They have the right to interpret it according to their narrow world of values.
Your creationism is unprovable gibberish without circular arguments that are more dizzying than logical. Evolution is too obvious to the eye and even if parts of it are still in the fog they will eventually become clear. Tired of being nice and apologizing in the name of logic and cleverness.
Maybe for a change you will offer us an alternative and you will defend it?
RAM,
Duplications of DNA segments are a chromosomal aberration. That is, the chromosomes, groups of DNA, were twisted in such a way that caused the duplication of a segment. Such replication can be caused by a mutation or "mistake" of the enzyme that copies the DNA, DNA polymerase.
Replication has no function, and it may harm the organism that carries it, because a duplicated gene that codes for some protein may over-code it and thus damage the entire organism. It is possible that the replication contains segments of DNA that do not code for genes, called "introns". Their replication probably won't cause significant damage (although encoding a longer genome without any benefit would waste the organism's resources in vain).
The duplicated segments usually remain contiguous to the original segments. For example, if the original sequence is:
AGTCCTTTA
And from it the sequence "AGTC" was duplicated, so the new sequence that will be obtained is:
AGTCAGTCCTTA
Like any mutation/aberration/change in DNA, replication is usually harmful but may also bring benefits. For example, a gene that codes for growth hormone. If this gene is duplicated (in its entirety), the organism will code for double the amount of growth hormones and its body size will increase. Give him an evolutionary advantage, he will survive and most likely pass on the "improved" genome.
to someone:
You wrote: "I'm sure you'll agree with me that it makes more sense that a molecular machine needs a creator, rather than not needing one"
If you are honest with yourself and persistent, you will be forced to apply this logic to the "creator" and so on and so forth. This path leads nowhere, and is of no use.
It's time to drop this argument once and for all.
someone or something
It is good to doubt any theory, but it must be accepted from proof. On the other hand, there is no doubt that doubting a so-called molecular 'theory' requires a creator, is more logical than not doubting it, especially since said creator 'theory' requires even greater doubt.
Mendelssohn - I doubt every theory. You claim that there may be more than 2 options for the formation of animals and plants, but this is a logical fallacy because there are only 2 options possible - intelligent or blind. You will surely agree with me that it is more logical that a molecular machine needs a creator, rather than not. Like all A machine from everyday life.
As I have already suggested in the past - that scientists should try to create a functional enzyme with an active site and an enzymatic reaction that are beneficial to the organism as long as an average enzyme (like Doc Tofik's research(?)). Let them check what is the chance of finding that enzyme in a Darwinian way.
Someone: Raising doubts is a necessary trait for a person looking for the things that drive reality, especially when this skepticism works on all levels. The statement "I believe that the theory of evolution is wrong and hence that man was created by God" does not meet the criteria that you (for that matter), as a skeptic, have set yourself. Besides, quoting a sentence from an article about an article and drawing conclusions from it is not serious. You need to understand the research, the new questions it raises and perhaps continue on and try to solve these questions, using scientific tools.
As for the claims about "tautology" - there are indeed areas in the life sciences (such as behaviorism and its derivatives) which do not meet strict philosophical criteria. At the same time, many new diagnoses and research tools have emerged from such incomplete theories.
Even in physics, basic theories such as quantum theory are probably incomplete, but their contribution to physical thought, as well as technological contribution, is enormous.
someone:
I wrote my response as I wrote because I know from your previous responses what your goal is and in light of this goal I saw that you simply repeated one of the constant arguments of the evolutionists that are said not only in connection with this specific sentence.
Of course, when there is a mechanism that has already been seriously confirmed (and evolution is a masterful example of such a mechanism) people tend to look for a solution based on this mechanism.
Since they are scientists - unlike the clergy, they also bother to say that this is something they have not yet proven.
This is indeed the requested assumption, but not for the purpose of proving it, but only for the purpose of presenting the assumption. It's totally legit.
No. As written-” Eichler believes that genes that have not yet been characterized, or regulatory signals in the duplicated regions must create some types of reproductive advantage. "I believe that the negative selection of these duplications was covered by the selective advantage of these new genes, but this has not yet been proven." That is, something that seems seemingly puzzling and negative (a cause of diseases, etc.) has taken over the population. Of course this is a belief and of course this is the desired assumption. Reminds me the tautology of the principle of respect.
Another tautology - how do you know it's good to look left and right when crossing the road? Because he who behaves like this survives. A non-serious argument that refutes the traffic laws.
I suggest you, someone, to act according to your own logic and stop looking left and right in the middle of the road.
Why the refutation, after all if it was only harmful and caused in some way the person carrying these genes not to survive and reproduce, these genes would not be with us. This is not a tautology, this is a fact. Apparently creation from dust is a simpler explanation according to Ockham's Razor...:)
Another tautology - how do you know that clones help? Because they survived. Not a serious argument and a refutation of the alleged natural selection.
What it means: "Segments of the DNA in the genome began to duplicate copies at a greater rate than before." What are these copies, undergoing replication? What is the role of replication? In what way does it affect? Where do the duplicated sections go?
Sorry for the questions arising from ignorance, and thanks in advance if I get an answer.
Life
It's because the gorillas are in the fog
How come gorillas are not mentioned in this study?
Chimpanzees, not chimpanzees. Thanks.
The proof that this reorganization had an advantage is actually its survival. Now we need to find the exact reason. But the fact that this or that item was not directly proven (but circumstantially), still does not disprove all of evolution.
I thought the Darwinian theory was correct and the creationist theory was not.
Of course it's all nonsense, - both are unprepared theories
I quote from the study:
These duplications have created a region in our genome that is prone to large-scale reorganizations. This architecture is responsible for the repetitive deletions and repetitive duplications associated with autism and schizophrenia and a wide variety of other diseases," Eichler said.
But still these regions show signs of being under adaptive selection, meaning that some of the reorganizations must benefit the individuals who inherit them. Eichler believes that as yet uncharacterized genes, or regulatory signals in the duplicated regions must create some type of reproductive advantage. "I believe that the negative selection of these duplications was masked by the selective advantage of these new genes, but this has not yet been proven." said.
I was convinced it was a chimpanzee but it seems you are right, probably the orangutan Jenny.
Father, isn't that an Orang Uteng in the picture?