Epilogue to the series of lectures by Prof. Yoel Rak from the Department of Anatomy at Tel Aviv University, November 2003 - January 2004
Prof. Dan Meler
Go to Prof.'s lecture series only on the Freedom website
The beginning of life, the origin of man and the rest of the animals and plants, in their various incarnations, were and still are a source of endless questions and perplexities since the thinking man appeared in our world. Unlike the ancient Homo sapiens (no longer the "primitive man", since we learned that the hominids that preceded man, including the Neanderthal, were not human, but hominids), the thinking man - the contemporary Homo sapiens - has tools for modern thinking and giving honest answers. Unfortunately, most of the people have been rushed by the road, and they do not have the desire, ability or willingness to invest time and effort in learning from a first-hand source, and they are content, however pleasant and easy, with explanations from the second, third and tenth tools. Such secondary tools may be true, mistaken or consciously false, depending on the personal honesty of their owners, and the intention behind the explanation. Either way, a second tool is never a fair and worthy substitute for a first tool, especially in matters whose essence or explanation is seen by many as an entity that is outside our world.
The ancient homo-sapiens, before he was able to develop explanations for natural phenomena, and he had no tools and methods at his disposal to teach him this, believed, like many similar to him to this day, that for every phenomenon there must be an understandable reason for it. That is why he created God for himself, as a hanger on which to hang the reasons and explanations for all natural phenomena. This God was embraced with great enthusiasm by most religions in the world, certainly the monotheistic ones among them, and in the lightest way of resistance they depended on him, on God, everything. Literally everything. In the absence of knowledge, this dependence is a solution of lack of choice. But when knowledge is acquired and accumulated in human culture, and it is available and accessible to every person in the world, and all that is required in order to understand and adopt it is to pick it from the tree of knowledge, and digest it - the continued dependence on this imaginary solution is nothing but the fruit of mental laziness at best, personal weakness, physiological inability to absorb and understand at worst. All of these can be summed up in a five-letter term: "ignorance".
The scientific knowledge, which deciphers, explains and teaches the north of life, was developed by the thinking man from the moment he became homo-sapiens, about 200,000 years ago. But the very interpretation was brought to the world by Charles Darwin, when he published for the first time, in 1859, the revolutionary theory about evolution, as the way of development of all creatures, including man.
Charles Darwin – 1809-1882
Faith versus science
No wonder the leaders of all monotheistic religions deny evolution outright. Darwin's theory overturns the opinion, which originates from the primitive concept of the ancient homo-sapiens, and which was later based on the Torah, that God - whom man created for himself as a hanger to hang his issues on - is actually the creator of everything, and by his mouth, and only by his mouth, will establish everything Both in the realms of time and place according to which our lives are conducted, and in imaginary extraterrestrial lives.
Two currents operate in this system: the current of belief in God and opposite to it the current of rational-scientific insight, that the evolutionary process is the explanation for all the phenomena of flora and fauna in our world. There is no third, other stream in it, no middle path, no little faith and no science, nor is there any possibility of mediation or compromise. Only these two ways are available to choose from, and each person among the six and a half billion people on earth will choose the one he wants from among them.
It turns out that it is not easy for a person, one individual out of those six and a half billion people, to decide what his view is. Most of them do not give their opinion at all to this issue, and most of those who give it their opinion are (still) locked in a religious-faith concept, and believe in one of the divine possibilities that religions offer to humans today. The others, who do not believe in the existence of God, certainly not in the sense given to him by various religions, namely - a God who has will, intentions and goals, who examines the kidneys and the heart, who sees everything that all six and a half billion human beings do from the moment of their formation until the end of their incarnations in the various "worlds" - These find it very difficult to gather courage and strength and say openly, without fear - the God that others believe in simply does not exist. The one who declares this is an atheist, and he belongs to a relatively small group of people. Others, who define themselves as agnostics, pantheists and various levels between the two extremes, swing on a virtual fence, either because of a lack of personal courage, or because this is, indeed, their way of thinking.
Richard Dawkins' books provide a good, simple and very clear answer to the questions, hesitations and doubts that many of us have about evolution. Surely there is an answer to the complete non-acceptance of the reality of life by those who prefer the world of illusions and mysticism, if only they were willing to be exposed to alternatives.
The fundamental, essential difference between the belief in the existence of God in the religious sense, and the scientific concept of evolution is the goal, the intention and the purpose that the religious attribute to God's actions. The basis for the concept of evolution as the factor that activates the animal and plant world is, as Charles Darwin defined it: "evolution has no direction, no goal and no purpose". On the other hand, the religious belief in God is based on the premise that God created the world for a specific purpose, and everything He created in the world was created for a specific purpose, including animals, and man first and foremost.
The agnostic: A person who claims to be an agnostic is essentially saying: I seek to be neutral. I do not believe that God exists, but I also have no evidence that he does not exist. I just don't know and I don't have the tools to know. To these I can reply, that running away from the decision is not a way to solve problems. If a thinking person (modern homo-sapiens) accepts the position that the animal world operates according to the laws of evolution, then there is no possibility that God - in the religious sense (goal, direction, purpose) exists, and therefore he must join the atheistic camp. And we already said at the beginning of our remarks that there is no compromise between the two perceptions, and there is no fence to sit on and continue to swing.
The pantheist: the one who claims that "nature" is "God" takes advantage of the play on words that human language allows, but here too he must answer, with intellectual honesty and without puns, whether "nature" - which he accepts as "God" - has a purpose, direction and purpose. If there is - he must still explain what is the origin, purpose and purpose of them, and how this claim is compatible with the scientific reality embodied in evolution. If he agrees that "nature", or any supreme force that moves it, or the forces inherent in it itself has no goal, direction and purpose, he joins, as a full member, the atheist community.
The lack of a goal, direction and purpose as a basis for the evolutionary processes is the key point in the ideological confrontation with the owners of all monotheistic beliefs, for whom the scriptures in the Torah are a lamp to their feet: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" - the basic teachings of religious Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. All the others - who understand that there is no purpose or direction in creation in nature, and as far as the living and plant world is concerned, development is accidental, purposeless, without a goal, and that by the evolutionary force the one who has the ability to survive will continue to live, while the others, who lack the same ability, will perish - those who understand and internalize this are not can still adhere to faith in God. And again, there is no compromise, no middle ground, no fence to sit on, even if there is a fence to make it easier for those without religious faith to justify their position.
Another mistake that must be put to an end is the position that the worldview, which holds that "God" does not exist, is "heresy". Apostasy is also a type of belief, and it is possible that its use is good in the ultra-Orthodox religious society, in its attitude towards one of its members who deviates from the "straight path". In modern human society, if it is freed from the compulsion to believe in the existence of an extra-universal force, the worldview is the positive essence of thinking, and it is not a question of heresy in another belief. A worldview as a modern homo sapiens and an atheist does not need support or confirmation by "heresy" in the believer's faith. The latter is none of my business at all, as long as, of course, he, the believer, does not invade the areas, interferes and interferes with my way and my life. In a system where there are two options of the foundation of life, I see myself as right, and the religious believer as wrong. The righteousness of my ways is a coherent matter, which stands on its own, and we must not use the other option as heresy, which is belief in something that does not exist.
Charles Darwin's book The Origin of Species
Translated by Prof. Shaul Adler
Moft Books Publishing House, Bialik Institute, 1960
The contribution of evolution to human thinking
The theory of evolution, the fruit of the genius thought of Charles Darwin and his successors and developers, is the one that forms the evidentiary-scientific basis for atheistic thinking. This, despite the fact that it dates back thousands of years before its scientific establishment. The best explainer of the theory of evolution is Prof. Richard Dawkins, a zoologist by scientific training, who is currently the head of the chair for explaining science to the public at the University of Oxford in England, and his books (1-4) give the best, simplest and clearest answers to the questions, hesitations and doubts that many of us add Nowadays ask about evolution.
The website 'Freedom', within the framework of which Prof. Rek's lectures were published, represents the line of atheistic thinking, which boldly and with full awareness, without any hesitation and fearlessly expresses the firm opinion that "God" does not exist except in the imagination of those who believe in Him, as each believer has his own God. This is also the reason why the website presents scientific knowledge that explains the processes and findings related to evolution. The transformations and innovations in this field are a matter of day to day, every year another, new paleontological or paleanthropological find is discovered, which reveals another facet, or corrects a previous mistake, in the full understanding of the origin of species and man < paleontology = science that deals with the study of fossilized animals and plants; Paleanthropology = science dealing with the study of the fossils of the hominids and man>. Prof. Yoel Rak, in his instructive explanations, compares the knowledge we have about the development of man and the creatures that preceded him - the various hominids, to a celluloid photographic film, containing hundreds of thousands of photographs, taken in sequence, while documenting a certain event from beginning to end. If we look at two adjacent images from the same long film, we will not detect any difference between them. But, if we compare two images, taken from distant sections of the film, the difference will be noticeable and visible.
Thus the evolution of species and man in nature. The more we discover finds that are close to each other in time, the more the similarity between them will increase, and vice versa: the greater the distance in time between two finds, the greater will be the morphological difference between them, sometimes to the point of the absence of any similarity. The problem with evolution is that it is a continuous process over millions to billions of years, and most of the finds that were spread over the earth have become extinct and are no more. This extinction was mainly caused by the fact that it is organic matter, the inclusion and turning into another matter after death. The tools - those creations that man created - serve us today as evidence in the study of our distant past. It is true that the first flint tools were already created by hominids - the Homo Habilis, about 2.5 million years ago - see Prof. Avraham Ronen's book (5), but the flint tools created in the Mousterian culture, according to the Lablois method, are the property of the Neanderthals and the Homo- sapiens, only about 300,000 years ago. Works of art, such as the famous rock paintings, human and animal sculptures, began to be created only about 150,000-100,000 years ago, not earlier, by the hands of Homo sapiens. No hominid before him, not even a Neanderthal, had the intellectual potential to create works of art, and subsequently - language, writing and all other works of culture.
The finds from those periods are few, and similar to the sections that are far from each other in the celluloid film, it is sometimes difficult to understand the existing connection between them. The more we reveal what is currently hidden from our eyes, under the surface of the ground or in disappearing caves, and the closer we get in time to our present day, the more images revealed in the evolutionary celluloid film will multiply, and many will understand those who do not understand, or are not willing to understand today, the amazing simplicity of the truth that stands at the foundation of the concept of evolution .
"Today, the theory of evolution is just as questionable as the claim that the earth moves around the sun," Dawkins writes in the opening of his book "The Selfish Garden" (1), as he explains to the reader the beginning of life, and how the first living particle was created. The main thing that Dawkins wants to clarify, beyond the very process itself, is the understanding that nature does not exist "for" something. When he talks about the gene, the basic feature that determines the development of the animal, he talks about the selfishness of the gene, as a feature and a basic law in the animal world. At the beginning of the explanation, Dawkins seeks to refute a common misconception: "This explanation is based on the misconception... as if evolution motivates all living things to do things 'for the good of the species', or 'for the good of the group'". This, as mentioned, is a wrong perception, which originates from the human trait of acting "for something", "for the benefit of someone", traits or intentions that do not exist in the evolutionary process. "Evolution works in the way of natural selection", continues Dawkins, and "natural selection means the distinct survival of the fittest... The individual is only a plaything in this struggle, which can be sacrificed when the broader interest of the species as a whole requires it...".
Survival is the name of the game in evolution, which operates by the force of natural selection, without the direction of any guiding hand, without a goal dictated by anyone. That creature - in our case a hominid or a person, who is able to change and adapt to unexpected living conditions, in terms of living conditions and food and water consumption - will survive, while anyone who is not able to adapt to those changes - will become extinct. In this process of natural selection there is no reward and punishment for good or bad behavior.
Reward and punishment are the fruit of man's spirit
Reward and punishment are the fruit of man's spirit, whose psychology, the result of evolutionary development in Homo sapiens only, includes part of a human trait called "will", a trait that does not exist in nature at all. Desire, along with fear, and alongside them other mental-human qualities such as the ability to analyze events, and from that a series of abilities such as understanding, comparing, organizing, evaluating, criticizing, drawing conclusions and more - all of these created mental and cognitive structures in Homo sapiens that are unique to man, and they have nothing to do with the nature in which he lives. Nature, natural selection, evolution has no will, no intention, no purpose, no "human intelligence", therefore there is no "reward and punishment" for "good", "proper", "bad" or "forbidden" behavior. In the system of nature and evolution there is no commandment from above or from any other direction, since there is no guiding hand or wise creator who created, arranged, established and constructed structures and details in nature. Everything that exists in the world, in its various and many universes, is the result of random and unintended creation, with all the difficulty that the smallest of the smallest - the human individual - has to understand this.
Failures and limitations in human perception
Not understanding the cause or the cause of any process in nature is not a reason to claim that there is another factor, external to nature, "above it", responsible for that incomprehensible process. But this fact is not acceptable to many people, whose emotional needs oblige them to receive an immediate, absolute and comprehensive answer. The fact that most people in the world today are included in this group does not make this mental need for a superior force, to the point of complete dependence, a scientific fact or a natural truth. Here another difficulty arises in approaching evolution as a process that remains incomprehensible and unacceptable to most of the world's inhabitants today: the power of the majority.
The power of the majority, which in modern times has been strengthened through democracy, is mistakenly interpreted by many as valid in all areas of life, and not it. Democracy is a regime, a way of life and governance that gives every person the right to life, the right to express an opinion and any other right in the common life system of a human society that will accept the democratic rules of the game. Democracy is not capable and is not allowed to control human thinking, belief or the type of thinking and its quality. As far as faith is concerned, democracy has no foothold, except for the permission that it allows each person to adhere to and adhere to any faith as he wishes, on the condition of course that he does not harm any other person. In the field called "faith" and "lack of faith" there is no place for democracy. Here the majority does not determine. For, the majority in our world dominates, how sad, vanity in the form of truth. In this area of heresy in belief in God, even one single person, standing alone in front of six and a half billion other people - will be justified, and all six and a half billion others will succeed. The case of Galileo Galilei, who stood alone in front of the general public in arguing that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way around, as the majority thought until his time, is the best evidence of this, as Dawkins says: "Today, the theory of evolution is just as questionable as the claim that the earth moves around the sun" (1 ).
In 1859, Charles Darwin stood almost alone in front of all of humanity, and claimed the justice of his revolutionary discovery: evolution and natural selection in nature. Today Darwin is no longer alone. With him and after him march safely human groups and societies, certainly many scientific ones, who understand what Darwin discovered, that natural selection in the way of evolution is and is the only process that brought man and all the other creatures living today on the face of the earth to what they are, and all of them, without exception, are A consequence of the survivals of other creatures, which preceded them in the infinitely branching branching split, and there is no "insult" to any creature, if its predecessor in the process was different, different, ugly or more beautiful than it. What is certain - that he was less developed than him.
The website 'Freedom', as a secular-atheist platform open to everyone, receives endless letters, questions and arguments, concerning "how" and "why" and "what will you say about" regarding the existence of life in nature. It is amazing to see that religious thinking has a hold even in the hearts of non-religious people, not to mention the religious, who are not at all able to understand, or grasp, that there is another possibility beyond their faith to explain the phenomena of nature. The members of the website team, who try to consistently answer every question, encounter a wall in a form from the religious believer whenever the word "evolution" comes up.
"So what, you mean we were born from a monkey? Your father is a monkey!” Many write to us, especially from among the ultra-Orthodox religious community. And it should not be surprising: this is the fruit of the education of many generations, who stubbornly cling to prejudices, to beliefs that have no connection to the scientific innovations of the past hundreds of years. But all these are not enough. The approach of many religious believers is not only contrary to scientific opinion, but in order to prevent every possible crack and breach, even the tiniest one, in the high defense wall and the fortress they have erected to protect their faith, they mobilize every possible way and expression to completely deny the awakening of reason and logic in their minds , with the help of pseudo-scientists, who produce pseudo-science in their "laboratories", with the aim of preserving at all costs the belief in God, for all that it implies. A typical example of the pseudo-science results we found in the letter of a religious surfer, who wrote this to the website 'Freedom':
"All the Torah and all its stories are true to the truth, from the most marginal detail to the most important. According to the Torah, of course, God created the world and He gave us the Torah. That's why you will see that in a few years, that the technology will develop more, that they will really discover that there was a mistake in their hands and the world was not created 60 million years ago. It is like many other things that the Torah wrote and all the scientists in the world contradicted it, and today it turned out that it is really true and the Torah is true to the truth and correct and there is no detail that is not true in the Torah. And as I said, only the Torah is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. I do not rely on anything that some professor or doctor said, I rely solely on the Torah, but I bring scientific revelations of secular professors for you, because under no circumstances will you believe that a certain thing is true or real because it is written in our holy Torah. In light of all the proofs I have brought before you of the truth of the Torah, how can it be said that there is not something that created all of this? The Almighty created the world and therefore knew which animals were ruminant and which were not, to remind you the Torah was written thousands of generations ago when science did not exist at all!!!! If so, how can it be said that there is no God? I truly feel sorry for people like you who run away from the truth, who try to hide the truth and say that there is no creator for the world."
The evolution of man
Any debate with such a believer is doomed in advance to failure, because of the essential difference in the basis of the approach, in the world view and in the understanding and diagnosis of basic concepts in our culture. Especially when you have a person in front of you, who is ready to distort any data and adopt any deviation, if only so that his religious position will not crack or be undermined.
A change in the positions of the religious believer will apply only through study and educational tools, which are free from any shackles, especially the shackles of pseudo-science, which produces and distributes false and distorted information, in the name of alleged divine authority. The religious woman who writes these things, as a representative of a large public of those who hold such incorrect knowledge, is in a state of mind called "cognitive dissonance" in psychology. She has only one option of the two existing options: God as the Creator of everything, or evolution as a gradual natural process, in which no external or divine force is connected because it does not exist at all. She chose the first, I the second. I am ready to learn and be exposed to everything, she is imprisoned in a metal protective suit locked and closed against the terrible fear and threat, lest something happen in her path, which would disprove, how terribly, her choice in the first option.
This attitude of those who cling to wrong and distorted knowledge is not, of course, unique to the Jewish society in which we live, and is only a part of it. This is the approach of most of the world's inhabitants - Christians and Muslims of all kinds. Not long ago, in 1925, the civilized, progressive, open and thinking world was stunned by the "monkey trial", which was conducted in the USA as a lawsuit by the state of Tennessee and the creationist establishment against a teacher, who represented the free public. In this confrontation, reason, openness, logic, and above all - the scientific knowledge and the proofs that came with it won, how wonderful. The 300 years that have passed since Galileo Galilei defeated the wrong "knowledge" held by the religious "scientists" of those days have not changed the attitudes of the religious "scientists" in the state of Tennessee of our time, who sued John Scopes for daring to teach in the classroom the theory of evolution of Darwin. It will probably take another multiple of 300 years for most of the world's inhabitants to recognize their mistake.
In his book "A World Haunted by Demons" (6), Carl Sagan wrote: "What scares me, especially on the threshold of the new millennium, is that pseudo-science and superstitions will increase their power of seduction year by year, and the siren song of ignorance will increase in power and magic. When did we hear her last? Whenever nationalistic or ethnic prejudices arose in us, in times of scarcity, when our national self-confidence or the strength of our will as a public was undermined, when we considered the appearance of our diminishing place and status in the cosmos, and when the bigotry around us stirred - or then habits of thinking that we acquired in past generations took over us. The candle flame flickers faintly. The little puddle of light it casts trembles. Alta is increasing. The demons are starting to emerge from their hiding places."
I am less pessimistic. With all the dangers involved in degenerating into the darkness of the days of the Enlightenment, even a period of hundreds of years will not change the opinion, position and approach of the modern homo-sapiens engaged in science. on the contrary. The need and duty to teach and add and learn will only increase their activity, for the benefit of human society. In doing so, I adopt the words of Dawkins in the first chapter of his book "The Selfish Garden" (1): "I know that I am in danger that those people, and they are so numerous, are not able to distinguish between an indicative sentence, which determines the way things are, and between preaching, which claims As things should be, I will be misunderstood. My private opinion is that a human society based solely on the law of the genes - which upholds general and unrestrained selfishness, is not a society in which a person deserves to live."
An age of atheistic thinking as an age of human reason. The Greeks called the ancient pagans those who denied the reality of the gods - the polytheistic deity (7) by the name "atheist". The first Christians, who followed the path of Judaism and chose to believe in one God, were also called by this name by the idolaters (8). But it took about two thousand years of thinking until the unique moment in 1865, when the scientific vision for this thinking was found. From that moment on there is no more room for "I don't know if God exists", "I think God doesn't exist" or "I don't believe God exists". Simply, one must say out loud, boldly and with absolute confidence, the only thing that is implied by the scientific foundation laid by Darwin and his successors:
God does not exist! There was neither was nor was created, but as if there was
92 תגובות
No, I'm not Shmulik.
So Avi Blizovsky is Shmulik?
What a surprise!
"Rabbi" Nachman Mazran
You remind me of a joke about a rabbi and a priest entering a confession booth.
After fifteen minutes they leave.
A friend of the Rebbe, who was waiting outside the cell, asks him: "Nu Haim, how was it?"
So the Rebbe answers him: "Okay Moisha. He is insured now."
Oh.
Listen, Rabbi, you probably don't have enough intelligence, just read the sentence you wrote in which you referred to yourself: "And so I, as a product of spontaneous evolution, was able to develop intelligence for a process that is not rational or at least does not claim to create intelligence, very interesting: how a non-intelligent process produces reason."
So first of all, let's relax. You still haven't been able to develop intelligence.
And two, a non-rational process can create another non-rational process. or that can create something that has no intelligence. And can not create at all. I mean, you probably created another non-intelligent process. But that's your problem, I have no interest in getting into the mental processes that you go through there in Tsern (I can only guess what it's like to be Rabbi Nachman in an anti-Semitic place), and you have no right to be angry with me for that either. You are welcome to be angry with yourself.
And if you already touch souls, then "according to Kabbalah theory", you should get a capa on the back of your head that will blow the streimel off your head. What you wrote is one big rant. Read again what you wrote: "Every existing object has a soul that enables its existence. That is, not only the living has a soul, but also the inanimate. The difference is only at the level of the soul and its strength." The difference is in the level of the soul and its strength? Does your computer have a soul? If so, ask him to turn off. You have a Pentium with enough power right? Just ask him, and believe that he will turn off on his own. Do us all a favor.
The rest of the things you wrote are simply the interpretation of the previous nonsense you wrote, therefore they do not require detail beyond that.
"Rabbi"
'Bina' is the talent to believe that the Rebbe lives and exists in his very body..?
Regarding what the Rebbe wrote, it is difficult to respond (Nobel Prize to those who understand) but since he has already written, then I decided to identify myself and respond with my real name and did so in the post https://www.hayadan.org.il/carl-sagan-on-the-oracle-of-delphy-150712/#comment-355830 which was written long before he responded. Since he is a regular visitor here, he must have read this comment of mine and therefore there was no rational inference here but a copy/replication and after all you have proof that in his case there was no evolution. Happens.
good week,
You noticed that when Mollik reacts then the one who reacts well does not react
A possible logical conclusion: the one who reacts well is Shmulik
Was there an expression here to use the word: "wisdom"
In my opinion yes, at least according to Judaism the word: bina" as part of Chabad (wisdom, intelligence and knowledge) means: the ability to think and draw conclusions.
And if so I, as a product of spontaneous evolution, was able to develop intelligence for a process that is not rational or at least does not claim to create intelligence, very interesting: how a non-intelligent process produces intelligence.
Regarding the subject of souls,
According to the theory of Kabbalah, every existing object has a soul that enables its existence. That is, not only the living has a soul, but also the inanimate. The difference is only in the level of the soul and its strength. The living has a soul with powers of growth and movement, and because of this the body is able to develop and move, while the inanimate has a soul that nothing but connects its parts and enables its existence as it is without the possibility of development, growth, change and movement.
Be serious, you write nonsense and want to be taken seriously. This is a serious answer and if you are not comfortable with it, go ask questions in the Shabbat square. There you will get the answers you want. Although not the correct answers, it probably won't matter to you.
come on…
Be serious mate!
There is no species that can reach a height of 3 meters with its neck like the giraffe, there is no species that knows how to hide well inside the shell like the turtle, there is no species that knows how to sting like the hedgehog. In short, each species has its own specialization. In man, in this case, the brain.
There are millions of species of living creatures on earth and none come close in intelligence or culture or ability to think to the human race. The gap between humans and all life on earth is huge. This fact requires an explanation from all those researchers who are sure that we evolved like the other species on earth.
A person,
I want to emphasize that calling any phenomenon (real or imagined) by name is not a proof as a definition, regardless of what you tried to prove.
Continuing your analogy, ice is solid and for x second it is still solid and after that second it turns into water. Hence, according to me, the ice has 'changed' (a mistake in the original). Did I prove that ice has 'change'? Certainly not, but I just defined a new concept and by the way, I added mystery where there is no need for mystery.
I would like to point out the fact that individuals are considered to be alive just like us and therefore the reason you think that a bacterium does not have a soul (according to you) points to the problematic nature of your definition of a soul. Note that you yourself use the word "to define" and this is how you write: "It seems to me that something that distinguishes the developed animal from the inanimate must be defined..." and in the process misses the fact that you never defined what "developed" is in this sense and why not include less life forms "developed" and not to give them a soul.
In conclusion, a definition is not proven and in any case, I find it difficult to see how you will prove the existence of the soul here, in light of the fact that for hundreds of years everyone who has tried to do so has failed. You are still welcome to try to convince physicists to look for the existence of the soul
"ancestor_man"
You talk about things you don't understand.
What is this nonsense you wrote:
"Just electrical signals (according to many opinions) or part of that complexity that I called "soul"?"
And when exactly did you say that the "soul" is "complex"?
To me it seems more like an effect, of previous comments from previous discussions, on your mind. And without you being aware of it.
What you talk about and call a soul is nothing more than a collection of electrical signals.
A collection or group (or groups) - which at the atomic level - the particular organization of those atoms in the brain creates/causes phenomena at the micro and macro level of the body. The fact that, for example, an animal developed as a human, is able to be aware of itself and its environment - is not proof of the existence of a soul, even if the complexity of the arrangement of the atoms is very high.
The fact that man discovered that the use of electrical signals on the brain can cause, even in a body that is still alive, to raise the right hand for example - this is confirmation that electrical signals make up our decisions, our thoughts, and probably even our consciousness (what you called "soul ").
Listen to Professor Idan Segev:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0AR1cUlhTk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP-dJNYTrg8&feature=related
I agree with you that the topic is fascinating..
And if we have already touched on the subject, it is only the tip of it and many sages dealt with it and did not get to the bottom of it and certainly not to an explanation that would be acceptable and understandable to everyone.
What are the feelings? What are the thoughts? What are the desires? Just electrical signals (according to many opinions) or part of that complexity that I called "soul"?
Fascinating, but it already goes beyond our topic... or isn't it?
I gave examples of proofs for the existence of a soul as something that distinguishes between dead and alive or alternatively as something that gives the possibility to decide, understand and choose. Of course, it is possible to debate the correctness of the proofs and arrive at better ones. It is clear that the issue is complex and difficult to prove and define.
In my opinion, a dog and a cat have a "simple soul", a monkey certainly does, a plant can have one (perhaps very different but decides the direction of the roots according to the light and water), and a bacterium - I don't think so...
It seems to me that it is necessary to define the same thing that distinguishes the developed animal from the inanimate (stone, water and sand apparently do not have a soul) and then continue to delve into the subject, and this is as the researchers and scientists do with regard to any subject in physics, biology and mathematics.
Dualism assumes the existence of a soul as an axiom (belief), but this is insufficient.
The human being is so sophisticated and unusual compared to all creatures in nature that it in itself requires a unique component that the rest do not have. At the moment I call it "human soul" and the proof of its existence is the necessity of the existence of this unique element.
"Does a monkey have a soul, a worm, a bacterium? "
exactly,
When Craig Venter creates life in the lab, and 'blows' life into the 'corpse' of a bacterium using completely artificially synthesized genetic code, is that also a soul..?
It is impossible to know what will happen in ten thousand years, certainly not in a single trait - even if it is controlled by several genes, like skin color that has changed several times. For the sake of abstraction, I did not go into the issues of resistance to radiation, genetic diseases, etc. But they also have an effect over time.
Although in all of Europe not one black person was born for hundreds of years. They all came from Africa.
Another thing is happening today. The Arabs, Africans and Asians are invading Europe en masse and the color of the people in Europe is getting darker with a tendency to yellowish. But if we assume that what the researchers say is indeed true, i.e. the origin of the white Europeans is from Africa, then what will happen in the distant future is what happened in the past according to their assumptions, that is, the invaders of the present will also become more enlightened and in 20 thousand years they will be white as snow and their eyes are as blue as the water of the Mediterranean Sea!
A person,
I'm sorry, but these are not proofs of the soul.
You defined the word randomness as a soul, and alternatively, you defined everything that lives as having a soul. This is a definition and not a proof of the existence of a soul. And hence you did not keep your promise to prove the existence of a soul.
And in your opinion, does a monkey have a soul, a worm, a bacterium?
I invite the readers to judge whether the fact that someone suddenly decides to perform some action or alternatively dies is proof of the existence of a soul.
As time goes by the variation increases. What can also be a situation where a certain tribe throws all the too bright babies into the river and thus it very quickly becomes dark. This is what an Israeli anthropologist who works a lot in Africa once said.
Who can guarantee that the opposite did not happen in another tribe, and we happen to be his descendants?
What you write is indeed true.
But you still won't find that a white-skinned or blue-eyed person was born into a Kenyan or Ethiopian tribe... and it certainly didn't happen that everyone would become white...
Not only in Europe, but also in North Africa there are representatives of the white race - those Arabs who live on all the coasts from Egypt to Morocco. And if you take them into account, you can see that there is a broad spectrum in which some of the features you mentioned are more present in the southerners - residents of North Africa and Southern Europe, and less so in the northern Europeans. But of course this is not accurate because in all these places there were connections and population exchanges, so for example there is a huge Moroccan Jewish branch of the Weizmann family whose name originates in Eastern Europe.
Avi,
Indeed it is possible. But I still make it difficult and ask: how did it happen that there was not one black person left on the whole island? One thick lip? One curly hair? Where did the brown eyes go?
I would expect at least some Europeans to remain African in their build and color.
Shmulik,
I will give you an example of evidence that a person has something else besides the body. I will call that something a soul.
Example 1 A machine cannot decide that it gets up and goes to the park for a walk to breathe fresh air. A machine does not go into depression. A machine does not dream. That is, man has a soul.
Example 2 A young man was injured in the battle of Has and Shalom. He died peacefully. In X second the person was alive and a second later nothing. What exactly happened here? Why can't it be "fixed"? All the doctors in the world will not bring him back to life. I explain this as a soul. When it is missing there is no life. In this case it cannot be returned.
Which examples of course.
Adam wrote:
"The matrix argument does not hold because it is contrary to the axiom that man exists and the world exists and is not virtual. This axiom is the basis of all sciences. On the other hand, the argument that man is not only tangible material is an argument that can be disproved or proven"
1. What exactly does the argument mean that man is not only tangible material. do you mean soul
2. If you meant the soul, how exactly can this argument be refuted, that a person has a soul?
3. Since I don't see how you will be able to refute the soul argument (again, if that is what you meant) what is the difference between a soul and the matrix argument? These two arguments cannot be refuted and that is exactly why such arguments can be ignored.
And in conclusion, the argument is that an argument that cannot be refuted and given without evidence is an argument that does not need to be addressed and this is exactly the sentence that the Rebbe wrote, which you described as a matter of reason. bitter taste.
No, because they need the starting genes, but this is true for a few generations. In many generations there is variation and in every such family lighter and darker children were born. If by chance some of the lighter ones survived the transition, and then reproduced, their offspring would be white.
Blizovsky, I will explain it to you in a different way.
Take a tribe from Kenya and move them to a small, isolated island in the North Sea.
Do you think that over the years they will be similar to the Norwegians?
Ancient man you are a racist. The differences between a Swede and an African are as great as between the Zulu tribes and the Kho-San tribes (which were mistaken for pygmies). The Zulus are invaders from the north - that is, from central Africa, just like the white man in South Africa. But the difference is not in the color but in other features. Color is probably a fairly simple and really unimportant feature. In general, humans are very similar to each other genetically.
All the excavations showed unequivocally that the origin of man is from Africa. What's more, it's possible that the transition between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens was continuous and that the Chinese, for example, find Homo erectus in a separate lineage from ours, this has no meaning, as explained to you, there is no real boundary from which it is Homo sapiens and before it was something else. It's just a sequence.
And the visible differences are sometimes random as a result of the isolation of small groups that later grew in their place of residence.
The matrix argument does not hold because it is contrary to the axiom that man exists and the world exists and is not virtual. This axiom is the basis of all sciences. On the other hand, the argument that man is not only tangible material is an argument that can be disproved or proven.
Regarding the development and origin of man, I can ask for example: if the origin of the European man is from Africa, then why is the European white-skinned and blue-eyed and with a European facial structure that is so different from the African structure and color? Why isn't there at least a slight resemblance between a Swede and an Ethiopian?
It is clear that the researchers answer the question in a certain way. But is the answer good enough?
There was a theory that man originated from Asia and many researchers sided with it and today it has been replaced by the majority opinion with the theory of origin from Africa. Will this also be replaced?
A person,
Yes, something like that with one simple difference: evidence.
Try to disprove the following argument: we live in the Matrix and the beings who run the simulation are responsible for every aspect of our reality. Now, in any debate on any subject, I can throw out this argument and there is not a single person in the world who can refute my argument. What exactly does this argument advance us on and what evidence is it based on, who cares the main thing is that these are points of opinion.
This is exactly the subject of the article: reality versus a system of illusions.
Too bad you don't understand. It's quite simple. Reality does not consist of tangible material only.
Regarding a generic sentence, what do you mean? Do sentences like those often used supporting the natural distribution of species through one-way random mutations?
I absolutely do not understand what this sentence means and even if I try to understand, I still do not understand what evidence it is based on. It's a generic sentence for rackets
here:
"That there is a reality beyond matter both at the level of the still and the plant and also in the space of the room I am in"
A person,
Give an example
Rabbi Nachman in quotation marks says things of taste and it's just a shame that he is here in a minority and in a hostile environment
People will say, what the Rebbe wrote, is it serious?
Success and failure are measured by who survived and produced offspring and who didn't, simple as that. Does he really not understand that?
The same researchers I brought (Professors Hawking and Krauss) describe a process opposite to the one described by the Jewish religion. They, based on evidence and physics, claim that the universe could have formed spontaneously (Hawking even claims it had to happen) without the help of a creator. Here is the quote from Wikipedia again:
It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going
For those who want to enjoy Lawrence Krauss's lecture on the subject, following which he composed his story:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
Eric, the man is in a panic and this is how he reacts, therefore, there is no need to get excited. By the way, his panic level went up a notch, when Sarn scientists announced that they had discovered something in the data, which was consistent with the Higgs boson.
"To Eric:
Maybe the essence of the whole dispute is that you are not looking for a purpose in your life.. ”etc..
Since your tone is condescending and seasoned with completely patronizing and subjective sentences ("heresy" .. "meaning in your life" .. "maybe" etc.) I have no real reason to answer.
but still..
'Spiritual meaning' has nothing to do with questions concerning reality.. as we know: objective and not dependent on the human factor..
And the values of the modern era are precisely those that distinguish us from Iran and Saudi Arabia..
To one who responds well:
Reporter:
"The question "Why is he learning" is nonsense just like the question of what the number 5 is thinking about. Hebrew allows such a syntax but the question is nonsense."
That is, given success, you claim that there is no purpose, but I cannot agree with this demagogic claim.
Because how can success be recognized if there is no failure and the ability to distinguish between success and failure, why would a process produce success and not continue to produce failures.
Finally, you "disparage" the Hebrew language for allowing nonsense, when the syntactic formulation I brought is suitable for any language in the world.
Regarding the scientists you mentioned when they talk about something from nothing, this is exactly the concept of creation according to Judaism that the world is
It was created out of nothing, is it possible that science is repenting? Referring to the change from the ancient version of the claim that the world is ancient and not created.
To Eric:
Perhaps the essence of the whole dispute is that you are not looking for a purpose in your life, it may be a purely evolutionary genetic problem, for a certain population that is looking for a spiritual meaning in life compared to another group of atheists who simply live to live and I feel sorry for them, because a spiritual meaning to life can enrich their lives in a world of new values and joy A life like no other in the materialistic world, but I can't come to you with complaints but only
To open your eyes that there is a reality beyond matter both on the level of the still and the plant and also in the space of the room in which I am.
At the end of the week, we will read a parashat: "Ecob"
which is a continuation of the words of Moses, which combines words of rebuke, mention of the sins they committed in the desert, words of encouragement for entering the promised land and a heartwarming description of the special nature of the land
Shabbat Shalom and Blessed
May you absorb a pinch of Moshe Rabbenu's grace and the confusions will disappear
And if we take a one-year-old baby today and transport him in a sophisticated and padded time machine to 60 thousand years ago and place him in some tribe in Africa, will he be their king when he grows up? Will he teach them something that he inherited here and today from his father and mother? Will he have a mental or physical advantage over the company that will grow up between them?
Well, my brother, I'm mad.. It may be an 'antique', it may not be.. Let's go together, my brother, and ask this 'antique' creature.
The answer is yes, provided you teach him everything we know. Because even today there are enough ignorant people.
If we take a person from 20 thousand years ago and transfer him as a baby to our time, will he be like us? Will he be able to integrate into Facebook and the world of smartphones and we won't be able to tell that he is an antique? Can he be a chess champion?
For the ancient man - superior technology does not indicate superior intelligence but better utilization of human potential. See what happened in India after they started educating them in engineering instead of risk management. Today they are a technological powerhouse and serve as a development house for the whole world.
As for the differences between humans, there are several reasons for this - one of the most famous of them is the small group and genetic drift. When there is a small group of humans that moves to a new place, they will carry the accidental traits of the people of the group and strengthen them in future generations. If these traits happen to give them any advantage, even a small one, they will spread in the population quickly - for example, the ability to digest lactose that occurred in Europe 10,000 years ago allowed people to diversify their food sources, and thus survive better, and therefore this trait spread quickly.
And besides, don't underestimate the diversity of people in Africa itself, even today.
By the way, when the Spanish conquered Easter Island, there was already a law that forbade them from taking blacks or Asians into slavery, but what could be done, and the residents there were lucky to be white - even though genetically they were not much different from the other Polynesian tribes, in the event that their skin color was lighter, probably from genetic drift. This figure allowed the Spaniards to take them as slaves. By the way, there is also a tribe in Japan that outwardly looks like Europeans, but upon a comprehensive examination of the genes, it seems that they are not far from the other Japanese. As Camila said, sometimes a trait that is visible on the outside - a phenotype requires a very small change and sometimes very large changes in the genome do not affect the outside.
I suggest that we concentrate on the subject for which we gathered here: Homo sapiens.
Are all groups of people living today the same in terms of thinking ability? And if so, then why is the western technological culture much more developed than the African or Arab one? And if we came from Africa then why are the Europeans pale and white and the Chinese yellowish?
Friend, give answers to the matter!
is funny,
The process is not someone or something and when I wrote that he is learning, it does not mean that he is the one who is really learning. The word "learning" in this sense is the narrowing down of the process that genetics is based on and the whole meaning of the theory of evolution is to claim that this process has no predetermined goal and therefore, as I have already written numerous times, the question "why does he learn" is nonsense just like the question of what he is thinking The number 5. Hebrew allows such a syntax but the question is nonsense.
The atheist can be educated, ignorant or averagely intelligent but what the atheist is asking for is evidence. that's it. Meanwhile, the only method that works with evidence is the scientific method, which was able to explain our existence here even without a creator. The scientific method is also the only method that prides itself on revealing new evidence that contradicts what was previously known. Here are two scientists, who are not cane killers, who have written books on the subject, risking all their professional prestige.
1. Stephen Hawking in his book the grand design. Here is a quote from Wikipedia:
The authors write:
Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.
2. Professor Lawrence Krauss in his book: universe out of nothing
Could it be that they are wrong, sure, but at least they are based on evidence and not wishful thinking.
By the way, the response was not written for "the Rebbe", but for others who enter the site. People like the Rebbe should not be allowed to have the last word, not on this site.
Nachman..
Evolution expresses a principle without a goal, that's the whole idea.. It's a scientific theory that serves as a basis for understanding the life sciences today in every university in the world. And certainly there is no room for arrogance of the kind you or others express.
Regarding Einstein
This is not a scientific topic, but if you insist Einstein also wrote:
"The Jewish religion, like any other religion, is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions." ..
"The Bible is a collection of respectable but still primitive legends - and nevertheless childish."
If you are so eager for Einstein quotes
For the respondent who thinks he is responding well:
Reporter:
"Could it be that there are people in the world who do not understand the difference between a progressive and learning process and a process that has a goal in advance?"
So you claim that in the process of progressing and learning there is no order and planning or no intelligence, so why does he learn? to survive?
Why survive? No purpose?
On the one hand you claim that the atheist is enlightened and educated in his way of thinking and those creationists are primitive, but when you see order and planning you ignore it and with most of your "intelligence" you claim lack of reason. So who is the fanatic and permissive here?
For the last Camille:
I will not answer the rhetorical questions, but I will support my argument about Einstein with some nice quotes:
1. "All our science, when measured against reality, is primitive and childish, and even so, it is the most precious thing we have."
2. "Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous."
3. Reality is only an illusion, but a constant illusion.
And let's say:
4. My religion consists of submissive adoration for an unlimited supreme spirit, which reveals itself in the trivial details that we are capable of grasping in our fragile and feeble minds. This deep conviction in the presence of a higher intelligent power, manifesting itself in a universe that cannot be understood, is my concept of God.” ~ "The New York Times" newspaper, April 19, 1955, "As Einstein Said", page 142.
Superior intellectual power!!
borrowed
I assume that the hesitancy to answer your questions is expressed in Proverbs XNUMX, as opposed to Proverbs XNUMX..
I'm probably dealing with a gang of serial rude and fanatical ignoramuses more than any religious I've ever known. Instead of giving an answer, they engage in personal attacks under the guise of names like Camilia the first or Ruach in the field.
A bunch of laymen Zevi Hotam
Run to the blonde Camilla to wipe your nose
good night kids
the angry,
After all, by writing that you ignore the comment, you referred to it... surely you are not that stupid. As I wrote to you, the way you asked your questions determined the nature of the answers you received. In my response, which was not very short, I tried to answer you matter-of-factly, whereas you chose to address my sting at the beginning of your words about your unnecessary bragging about titles, there was no disrespect on my part in this sting, I'm sorry you understood it that way.
Your questions reveal more and more your true face, you don't really ask, you ask and immediately answer, incorrectly. You repeat the question of the first person who was "like us" (whatever that means) and then state with unclear determination that there was one. This sentence for example: "Everyone agrees that the human brain has not changed at all in the last 50 thousand years and therefore will not change in the future either." Not only is it not true, it is also incredibly stupid, both in terms of the "facts" in it and in terms of the accepted opinions of the scientists on this subject. In fact, almost all of your last response is a series of assertions that, apart from displaying great ignorance on the subject of evolution in general and human evolution in particular, there is no expression of a desire to learn, to know, to know, to understand these issues. When you want to do one of these, I'm sure you'll know how to find the mental strength to ask questions in a polite manner and in the form of a question, rather than statements and assertions that lack drunken foundation, the purpose of which is to serve the preservation of the worldview you currently hold. Believe what you want, just don't tell me you're writing here to learn something new.
borrowed,
It is really incomprehensible why you decided what you decided with such decisiveness. Here is an article that suggests the human brain has never stopped evolving:
http://ieb.uni-muenster.de/data/bioinf/teaching/courses/tut/storage/papers/balter-human-brain-still-evolving-S-05.pdf
Here, not everyone agrees with your claim.
Also, there have already been at least 3 references here as to why the question of how the first human who was like us was created, is not a question that can be answered, or even a logical question. You did not refer to these answers, including a blatant lack of reference to Camila's detailed answer, which is impolite. You want a reference, please refer to other posts.
I say again, who said that there was an exact line after which it could be said that here, the human being was created and why only one of them? How can you even define a human being? When do you draw the line? And even according to your opinion, you wrote that the Homo sapiens race has existed for at least 200 thousand years, but who said there is no proof of changes in the race???
There is a very strong claim that, for example, the white man learned to digest milk only in the last 10,000 years and not before.
In any case, you want to answer the question of how the first man was created, first define man. It's on you.
By the way, in one of your posts you asked why the Neanderthals didn't survive and we did. Saying in advance, there is nothing certain here, sorry, science takes time, but still a nice article:
http://www.haaretz.co.il/magazine/1.1792160
"Saul the Angry"
Sorry we belittled the master's degree for your ramblings.
You must have another degree, a BSC in bullshit science.
Where did you get them, at the Poznitz Institute?
Nachman,
Your logic is really pure. It's all wrong.
See that you are confusing the word logic that is used on a daily basis (for example in the sentence: "It seems logical to me") and logic, which is the basis of rational thinking. Faith by definition is based on a gut feeling, however strong it may be. Religious belief by definition does not derive from information nor from rational thinking, the opposite is true, holding a religious belief usually requires considerable amounts of ignorance and also always requires irrational thinking in order to "solve" contradictions and logical fallacies that inevitably arise from a worldview that contradicts the facts of nature.
The only one who clearly has set goals for himself is you, when you allow yourself to distort everything, starting with Einstein's opinions and beliefs and ending with the way the laws of nature (whether biological or physical) work, whether out of ignorance or "just" out of misunderstanding, but it can also be If only out of malice and fraud, this would not be the first case.
Can you explain the mechanism by which your imaginary friend renews his goodness every day of Genesis? Does he turn a large key that is attached to a spring? Or maybe add some planks to the fire that heats a water boiler and thus increases the vapor pressure in every breath of his creatures? And does he perform this action once every day? Or every second? And if an event occurs that is not good, such as an unfortunate baby who suffers from Treacher Collins syndrome, or an entire family of ultra-Orthodox that also includes toddlers who could not yet sin even if they wanted to get stuck on a track and run over by a train, is this also an act of Genesis that Hod Tovo did?
To be clear, these are rhetorical questions, I don't really expect you to answer them.
I will ignore the disparaging comment about the degrees.
The question is how the first human was created who was like us - and there was one. No accidental gradual or mutative change will create a man. The Homo sapiens race has existed for at least 200 thousand years and there is no evidence of changes in the race. Everyone agrees that the human brain has not changed at all in the last 50 thousand years and therefore will not change in the future either.
And it must be remembered that changes - if they happen - are rejected and rejected and destroyed and do not create a new race or subrace.
The assumptions and theories are too many and the proofs are few and insufficient
.
Again people, tell me, is what the Rebbe wrote, serious?
Could it be that there are people in the world who do not understand the difference between a progressive and learning process and a process that has a goal in advance?
Delicious
With Gershiim, of course I'm not a rabbi, what does a rabbi have to look for on such heretical sites.
But I can represent the view of Judaism no less than rabbis who accept the faith without question.
My faith also stems from pure logic which cannot attribute the whole miracle of creation to coincidences but to reason (or a higher power as our friend Einstein claimed - without reference to religion at this point)
And if intelligence was created by chance, as a result of evolution, we will discuss it
It's the same lady in a guise, it's still intelligence that evolution brought her to our reality
That is why evolution with the mechanism of natural selection has set itself goals and objectives out of a learning and learning process.
You get it: evolution is a deliberate rational mechanism whether we like it or not, the facts speak in the field
Starting with the function of a single cell and ending with the laws of the universe and the atom that maintain a permanent legality in order to sustain life in God's Word, as it is said in the morning prayer every morning:
The last Camilla
It's good that you joined, but I'm afraid that your answer to 'angry' will lead to more questions about Molecule and unbreakable clocks. ))
He removed the letters from the Rabbi, so apparently she is not serious..
Camila, Nice!
It's time for heavy guns (cannon in this case) to make their voices heard on this site.
Nice
to get angry
https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-and-atheist-thinking-260804/comment-page-1/#comment-354537
Your question has no meaning in the light of evolution and therefore it is likely that you will not receive an answer to it, but not because there is any flaw in the theory of the common origin of the species but because the question is not well defined. The category "human being" or "person" etc. contains many variables, such as height, eye color and in short body features. There are many thousands of such features. It is enough to examine a little the huge variation in the body features of people from different cultures, and sometimes even within the same culture, to understand how ill-defined this category is. On the other hand, it would be correct to ask when a new trait appeared, either at the genetic level only or whether it also has a phenotypic expression. If, for example, an accidental change in the genetic code resulted in the creation of an additional pair of eyes to the one that normally exists, it can be said that the individual carrying this mutation is the first of its kind. Most mutations do not create large enough changes for us to assign a different name to the instance of the parents and the offspring that carry the new mutation. It is easier to give a different name to creatures that have accumulated several mutations that result in a phenotype (for example, the shape of the skeleton) that is significantly different, even if not completely different, from the original shape. There is no certain number of mutations that will cause a sufficient phenotypic "distance" because there are mutations that do not result in a phenotypic change and there are mutations, especially in genes related to control processes during embryonic development, that result in many changes at the same time (usually changes that cause the embryo to die). The sorting into different categories, such as series, genera, species, etc.) is based on methods that have in common the assessment of the "distance" between different creatures, usually based on their physical characteristics or their genetic similarity, and grouping them into groups (see more information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification). Since during evolution there is an accumulation of relatively small changes, the question of when an individual from a certain taxonomic group first appeared is not so significant. As commenter B wrote, there is no first whale and no first chicken (just as there is no first human), there is a first appearance of certain features, such as a mutation that caused the branching of skin scales in the Baltic Sea, on the basis of which the development of a feather-like organ became possible through a gradual process. When exactly will we call this organ a feather and when will we call it a branched scale? This is a not very important technical question and usually arbitrary, just like the threshold between low and high, or the threshold between a small pile of sand and a large pile of sand or the threshold between the period of childhood and the period of adulthood of that person.
Regarding the distribution of "races" from ancestors, there are many well-documented examples in farm animals (such as sheep, cattle), in pets (such as dogs and cats), in animals for laboratory use (such as mice, rats, flies, worms, bacteria and even viruses). In all of them, the same evolutionary principles are observed with slight changes when the human being is the one who activated selection (instead of the mechanism of natural selection) or made proactive genetic changes (instead of the mechanism of creating mutations or genetic mixing as a result of normal sexual reproduction). The changes in their essence operate within the same principled legal framework of creating genetic variation and activating deliberate selection which gives a reproductive advantage to those who are suitable. In all cases, the formation of new "breeds" is observed. There is no reason to think that the dynamics that took place among what we currently define as humans (or any other organism for that matter) were different.
From the things you wrote, as well as from the other questions you asked, an aroma of disdain and condescension emanates. You should not be surprised that you receive a corresponding treatment in return.
Regarding the reasons for the rise of the Sapiens at the expense of the Neanderthals, at least that's what it seems from the collected evidence, there are several opinions. Not every scientific question can be answered with the same level of certainty because of the magnitude of the findings. I don't know enough about this specific subject, but assuming you don't have a problem with the English language (after all, you have 3 degrees, right?) the information exists and is accessible via the Internet.
People will say, is this reaction of the Rebbe serious?
I will just rewrite the last sentence with the letter "R" omitted:
"And here you encounter a dead end that requires you to recognize when you are retreating from ignorance relative to that field."
To one who responds well:
Bush and everything!
When you encounter a lack of knowledge, you claim that you should be very experts in that field and are not willing to continue the discussion even based on a simple logical argument, as presented by the angry Shaul regarding entities such as space and time that are beyond the laws of evolution and being, and here you encounter a dead end that requires you to recognize when you withdraw Back from ignorance relative to that field.
I don't understand what this attack on the angry Saul is.
The person politely presents reasonable claims or questions about which there are big and unresolved arguments and you act like thugs that a passer-by enters their neighborhood. You have no answers? Let someone else answer and don't lower the level of the forum to a mess of chatter.
Angry Saul Click here: http:\\www.gugul.elohim.tanah.il
Showing two more results:
1: Spaghetti monster.
2: Imaginary friends from your life. Including angels and angry angels.
To return click here
"Angry Saul"
Take a glass of water and relax..
Nervous and stupid answers of rude children who do not understand anything.
And I thought to Tommy that I was dealing with educated and wise intellectuals!
Not bad kids…
Go back to Facebook and iPhones and have a good night friend!
Shaul, if you want to translate the Discovery Institute website, please open your own website, don't litter the science website with questions that have already been answered a million times, only that the Discovery Institute and its Hebrew translators, such as Amnon Yitzchak, ignore them.
"Saul the Angry"
No one has an explanation. This is you win.
Ask your God for explanations. You can contact him through the Tanach. Maybe he'll suddenly answer you if he doesn't rest in between making spins like you
A little question for my father:
How exactly was a new race of humans created?
We have existed in our current form for at least 50 thousand years (according to the skeletons that have been discovered) and almost certainly 200 thousand years according to other skeletons that also belong to Sapins. So what exactly happened when we suddenly appeared? Then there was the Neanderthal man (he existed about 350 thousand years ago) who was no less intelligent and strong and maybe even more so. He was already in the field. And suddenly - who suddenly appears to him? The Sapins! How exactly were the new creatures created? And why did the Neanderthal let them breed and not exterminate them?
I will ask for explanations.
The proofs regarding the origin of man and his development are based on the remains of the skeletons that were discovered and much more on the assumptions and theories of the researchers that changed with each additional skeleton that was discovered.
According to researchers, man in America originated from Africa after migrating through Asia and Siberia and using a land bridge in the North Pacific Ocean to cross to America. The same land bridge sank into the sea afterwards.
It's an interesting theory or actually an interesting story that has no serious evidence.
Saul, I wish every religion had evidence like the 'religion' of evolution.
The stickiness of the followers in "the theory of evolution and the origin of man from Africa" is not different from the fanatical zeal of the believers of Islam. Please try to criticize and ask questions, try to separate the straw from the chaff and you will find that there are many arguments and disagreements and conflicting versions even among the scientists you trust blindly.
Surprises await you on the subject.
reagent
There are no holes in the theory of evolution. The "core" of the theory of evolution is intact. The holes are in the understanding of the questioner (both the angry and the not angry).
To the question what is the "kernel"? There is an answer like "...the fittest survives..." and explanations like "given a certain set of resources, (at least) two bodies that consume the same resources in order to survive - there will always be a war over those resources, on the part of (at least) both bodies, in order to survive." And there are other explanations in examples of definitions of concepts and formulation of formulations, all of which "wrap around the solid core that is at the base of the theory of evolution".
Hope the explanation is not too vague.
borrowed,
There's no way you're going to explain how a computer works in one page, and that's coming from someone who studied an entire degree on the subject. And even if you are in the field (or especially if you are in the field), I will question you on each and every point, and someday we will reach quantum mechanics and then I will ask you why a proton is attracted to an electron and you will answer me because of the electric charge and then I will tell you that it is just a word and I will insist on understanding why the proton is attracted per electron and it will take much longer than one page. I am convinced that one page level answers about evolution have failed to convince you. In this sense, a post on the science website will not convince you either.
The point is this: in order to truly understand a complex field, the accumulated knowledge of which is hundreds of years old and not just decades, you need to be a super expert in the field and even then, it is assumed that you will not be able to understand everything and will have to rely on other experts in adjacent fields. That's why I asked if you have a degree in biology.
But that's okay, that's how science works. Science consists of countless people whose only desire is to contradict each other in order to become famous and this wild process produces an arrowhead that led us to landing on the moon, developing vaccines and genetic engineering.
Following on from what others have written, do you think the last Neanderthal took the first Homo sapiens from his wife and embraced them lovingly (don't argue with me about whether the Neanderthal is our ancestor, that's not the point)?
Just as b. Reporter, your question is equivalent to the question of when a collection of grains becomes a pile. Is it after two grains, three, thirty?
Since there is no absolute definition of the Homo sapiens species, there is no answer to the question of when the first man was created. There is a loose definition for the splitting of species, it is when one species can no longer breed with another species, but this is just a loose definition, in any case, I assumed that is where you are aiming, that is, the evolutionary process that led to the creation of the species and, among other things, to the human race. As mentioned, there is a very good answer to this, without internal contradictions, maybe if there are holes, but we are working on it, and that is the theory of evolution.
The story of the monkey or the pot from which all the other leases branched off is beautiful and interesting and at every stage that this theory fails it is very easy to insert words like "mutation" "evolution" "XXXX years" "development" "natural selection" and everyone is satisfied. A collection of unproven and sometimes ridiculous assumptions, such as the migration of evolutionary primitive man from Africa to Asia and from there to America through the same land bridge in the Arctic North that seemed to exist and disappear over the years. If evolution is so smart, why didn't it also work in America and create a smart person from a stupid Kofiko?
Every time there is a problem with evolutionary theory, another dubious assumption is added. Also the matter of the gradual development from creature to creature and the idea that a chicken will give birth to an egg from which an eagle will emerge is funny and baseless.
Scientists once thought that the world was flat and the Earth was the center of the universe and that was not long ago. The theory of evolution will make room for something else. I'm sure.
The truth is that it is very easy to disprove the logic behind evolution. The argument of evolution is simple: something as complex as a clock can be created by a natural process, given replicable material that is subject to change. That is, according to this logic, a replicating clock can be created by itself. impressive.
Angry Saul:
"The first person" is nothing but a definition created in the mind of some person. Because the chain of development is very long and it is impossible to point to a point from which the creature is called "man".
It is not only characteristic of man.
characteristic of any type of animal.
There is no animal that is first except in the sense that someone defined it as first.
There is no "first whale"
There is no "first chicken"
There simply is not.
From a certain point of development the creature is called a "leviathan"
Starting at a certain point of development, the creature is called a "chicken"
Previously there was a creature similar to a Leviathan.
Before there was a creature similar to a chicken.
Aryeh Seter
I think people like him are angry because they feel like they are being forced to live in shame. After all, they are ashamed of the fact that they were created from a poor animal like a monkey.
Maybe people like them are just ashamed to live in this world, what do you think?
Saul, what are you angry about? It is hard to believe that an educated person like you has not read the explanation of evolution about the origin of man.
About six million years ago, there lived in Africa a monkey-like creature from which, during the evolutionary development (you know - successful mutations), both we and the chimpanzees developed from it in various branches. Moving back in time, we will meet ancestors of more and more creatures that live or have lived on Earth.
The human species we belong to appeared on the scene about two hundred thousand years ago; As you can understand the explanation of evolution - oh not created. He evolved into a different kind of person.
I have three degrees of which two are masters.
In our case, according to your way, ("there is a good explanation, believe me") we will not reach any understanding.
There is no one in the university who knows how man was created.
The knowledge "of hundreds of years" was accumulated only in the last decades.
Regarding the computer, if you ask nicely, I can explain to you on one page how it works and you will understand even without a degree in computers.
So please, try to answer the question.
to ask,
Do you have a background in biology (degree for example)?
I'm sorry, but there is no way to give an explanation for this in the post, on the knowledge site. The above requires too much knowledge, knowledge gathered over hundreds of years.
In the same way, I could ask for an explanation here of how to build a modern computer: starting with the creation of a silicon layer, continuing through understanding x86, hashing, cache memory and ending with an explanation of quantum mechanics, tunneling, holes and electrons, and get angry and decide that a computer works because God wants it to work, if they don't provide me with an explanation , immediately.
Know that such an explanation also exists. Is it closed, are there no holes in it? No, there are holes in it, but the explanation is very good.
Will that convince you? Of course not, but nothing prevents you (if you don't have a degree in the subject) from enrolling in a university and studying the subject in depth.
I asked the evolutionists who do not believe in the Bible.
Did you understand?
Why are you asking us? You have all the answers in your book
What are you disbelieving in yourself?
I did not understand one "small" thing from the theory of evolution:
How was the rational man created? Can we finally get an explanation?
A basic question that evolutionists must answer before we move forward on the path of evolution.
I will ask for an answer if you do have one.
R. H.,
great idea
By the way, I have no problem with them disproving evolution scientifically, the problem with all those pans, is that they are able to copy/paste the claims of the Discovery Institute, some of which are logical claims that science must answer, but they are unable to go to the next level. After they demonstrated logic (well, let's call it logic) in their attempt to embarrass evolution, they don't try to look for an answer to their claims, but give up, throw up their hands, wave a white flag and jump straight to the simplest answer: a creator
pathetic
reagent
It's nothing more... Read here (I think it's the same missionary):
https://www.hayadan.org.il/from-now-on-we-stop-looking-for-higs-we-measure-its-attribute-0407129/comment-page-3/#comment-354349
I thought I'd send this material (in its original form) to the Comedy Club Labs.
I have an idea for the researchers there, for the next experiment in Sarn: the search for the particle that makes up his mind. It is supposed to be smaller than the Higgs particle, and with the ability to disappear faster than Doss meets a military policeman.
R.H. Rafai.M,
It is indeed outrageous and it is not clear if he did not understand the meaning of the name, but it is a level. The text he wrote on your behalf is embarrassing in its awkwardness and it's all one big mistake.
In our day and age, it has become awkward to believe in God, in the form that Doss represents. Doss brings an attempt to defeat science, from within science, with a terrible irony (the first sentence that he wrote is delusional. It also mentions the "law of time". What is the "law of time???, space is something that has consequences???). Religious people who are not paranoid like Doss (whom I assume is Rabbi Mezran), who is probably armed with less than 12 years of study, as his idiocy teaches us, will not degenerate themselves into contradicting evolution, but will let science speak for itself and believe in God who created the world so that it appears as if there is evolution .
This is the reason, by the way, that when you talk to religious people who are not stupid, they do not interpret the story of Genesis as an archaeological historical account, but as a metaphorical story.
R.H. Rafai.M,
It's certainly outrageous but it's a lift. The text he wrote on your behalf is embarrassing in its awkwardness and it's all one big mistake.
In our day and age, it has become awkward to believe in God, in the form that Doss represents. Doss brings an attempt to defeat science, from within science, with a terrible irony (the first sentence that he wrote is delusional. It also mentions the "law of time". What is the "law of time???, space is something that has consequences???). Religious people who are not paranoid like Doss (whom I assume is Rabbi Mezran), who is probably armed with less than 12 years of study, as his idiocy teaches us, will not degenerate themselves into contradicting evolution, but will let science speak for itself and believe in God who created the world so that it appears as if there is evolution .
This is the reason, by the way, that when you talk to religious people who are not stupid, they do not interpret the story of Genesis as an archaeological historical account, but as a metaphorical story.
Dos (sitting guy)
The above was written on your behalf.
You must have taken things out of context, here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/longest-talkback-0111079/comment-page-6/#comment-351636
And why are you signing my name? Do you want the site editor to block you?
. Evolution contradicts the Torah and if we put it in the Torah, something small will come out that is not worth believing in or investing in Stars that do not hold themselves... c. The laws of nature, for example the law of time... gravity and the other three forces are things that do not belong to be created by evolution because they contain themselves on it d. Space is something that has consequences and it is not possible for it to be created by matter which is a finite thing and space is infinite. Science has no knowledge of what 2 percent of the universe is made of and how it is even possible to create such a theory. I think that faith also stems from mental purity and not just intellectual knowledge [I have a lot more to write, and I would be happy to receive comments]
R.H. Rafai.M
July 23, 2012 at