Key concepts in the theory of evolution

112 תגובות

1. Go away, Yotam, there's no way I'll understand you.
   Especially after you showed that even when you understand that you are not understood, you still do not find it appropriate to explain.
   Morality of moral law.

2. Michael:
   Or I understand that you want to know my intention, this is already progress, you could have asked from the beginning instead of inventing types of monsters, and speaking sarcastically, I expect an educated man like you who loves knowledge, to know a little morality, but I don't blame you, it is impossible to develop two things together with the same investment of effort And time, explanation: mind, and spirit.
   I suggest that the next time you lead a discussion you learn to lead it so you can reach a level of understanding and maybe both sides will gain knowledge..by the way I imagine you are an adult or close to it, but I am 24 years old and this is my first time on this site..I have been on a lot of sites but I did not manage A very crowded discussion. (sorry if I offend, this is my opinion)

3. Jotham:
   Ah! Have you tried writing fiction? Sorry for the interruption! I was just confused and thought you were trying to say something.
   When someone tries to say something, he is also ready to clarify his intention to those who don't understand it, but if he doesn't try to say anything - of course he can offer the readers to waste more time on his words because wasting their time was his goal in the first place.

4. Michael:
   Your misunderstanding of my response does not make you a literary critic.
   Maybe try to understand what I meant. Instead of getting up, I suggest that you come down to us and maybe you'll find a place. (Maybe in your meaningful language you might understand...

5. Michael:
   Your misunderstanding of my response does not make you a literary critic.
   Maybe you'll try to understand what I meant. Instead of getting up, I suggest that you come down to Orion and maybe you'll find a place. (Maybe in your meaningful language you might understand...)

6. Jotham:
   Just because something is mentioned here doesn't make it true.
   In fact, my experience shows that if something is mentioned in the comments here, the chances that it is not true are actually greater.
   But sometimes the situation is even worse and the statements made here are "not even wrong" because they are meaningless.
   For example, the statement that "eternity cannot be measured" is meaningless. Likewise the statement that "it is possible to assume eternity". The same goes for the suggestion "to be true, rationally and truthfully".
   All these phrases are meaningless mumbo jumbo.

7. Michael:
   As already mentioned, "eternity" cannot be measured, it can be assumed...
   I suggest that you choose soon to be right, from a rational and true point of view.

8. Jotham:
   And why should we remember "that science does not and will not solve the riddle of life"?
   Just because you said so?
   After all, you yourself said that you don't know, so really - why do you expect us to believe it?
   And what operative conclusion exactly do you propose? Do you believe in the flying spaghetti monster?

9. Well, you have thrown a large amount of information here, each one expressed himself and now he could sleep well, because there are some others who agree with him... but it is important to remember that science does not and will not solve the riddle of life! And as mentioned above, we may be like a fish in a stream and that's what he knows... so maybe we'll try to imagine for a moment that someone is peeking at us from outside the stream and sees us exploring what exists, they'll never find out everything! It's impossible to explore eternity, of course I'm careful with the word "impossible" in a forum of geniuses and full of knowledge like you... but at the end of the day everyone is left with a dark point of doubt that throughout life we ​​cover it with all kinds of layers in order to move on in life and not fall... but it's a shame to come In the state of faeayyyyyyyus of life and everything just to add more "the letters".

10. I was also born into an ultra-Orthodox family and I don't fully believe in evolution
    Believing in God is something else
    But to believe in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam
    These are people who want to believe it and the arguments will not help
    Because they will stick to it even more with an even more absurd claim
    Maybe because if there wasn't a Torah telling them not to fuck their sister
    And not to steal and such
    They would not be able to submit to their creator
    So they need it
    And who are we to be deprived of them
    Likewise, who are they to tell us not to open a parking lot on the seventh day of the week

11. Hey!!!
    Haven't you noticed yet that there is no point in arguing with religious people?!

    When some commenter like 7 succeeds with multiple efforts to connect ten complete words and create a clear sentence, with a beginning, middle and end, and also add an exclamation point at the end (and say:) "People - go out and read the Holy Torah - only there you will find answers to your questions!", I think it is really Worthy of appreciation and one should go and ask him for a blessing!

12. Brael:
    Regarding the first answer that you "cite" indeed - the situation of this factor is like that of the flying spaghetti monster whose existence is also not ruled out.

    Regarding the second "answer" - in your question you did not talk about every generation but about every person. You probably don't understand the difference but there is a difference. You also didn't talk about millions or trillions but trillions trillions.
    In short - you have no interest in what they tell you. You just want to force your religion on others.

13. I received an answer. Two answers are more correct:

    1. The possibility of another evolutionary factor besides natural selection has not been ruled out.

    2. Millions or trillions of genes are not created every generation that will lead to mutations, that will allow natural selection.

    Thanks to Oren and Michael R.

14. By the way, Barel - I have personally picked up the glove that you throw away several times.
    You just decided to "forget" it.

15. Brael:
    No.

16. So, in order to create a reasonable amount of random mutations that will meet changing needs, even minimal ones, there must exist in our body at any given moment trillions of trillions of completely unnecessary genes, which will create trillions of trillions of meaningless mutations between generations, so that a billion of them will meet a changing need or be supplemented An advantage for the organism.

    Is the assumption correct?

17. The simple answer - no! Every creature (especially humans) has the ability to adapt to different environmental stressors. But stress does not cause any change in DNA. final…
    DNA does not change during your lifetime (perhaps only as a result of radiation, etc.). Only when a new generation is created does its DNA differ because it is built from those of the father, mother, and the mutations that occurred in the rewriting of its genes.

18. little But in the whole process the element of coincidence has not yet been proven beyond any doubt. The example of Down syndrome is not a proof of coincidence but a theological argument. A religious person will answer that God (or whoever it is) for his own reasons caused a certain person to be physically damaged, just as for his own reasons he did not prevent wars and murder. According to this anti-theological argument, the fact that there is poverty in the world is proof that there is no God, because if he existed he would make sure that everyone was rich.

    My question, and I still insist on returning to it, after my true face has been revealed as a primitive creature masquerading as an enlightened man of culture, is:

    "Has scientific research ruled out any possibility that the development of mutations or the development of genes was due to a factor other than randomness, such as a natural response of organisms resulting from an innate ability to adapt to changing conditions."

    The question is not related to God, intelligent design or belief in angels and fairies, but to proper scientific research.

    Will someone pick up the gauntlet?

19. Brael:
    One last attempt to overcome your opacity.
    When it is said that the same signals are acting on someone, it does not mean what you are trying (with real religious fervor) to conclude from it. The direction from which the various signals come (and especially the signal of the pressure of the neighboring cells) is important.
    Two people jumping from a springboard at two antipodes of the earth have the same signal of gravity and yet they fall in opposite directions.
    Get out of it - yay….

20. And just to give an example that a large part of mutations in our body do not necessarily contribute - Down's syndrome (lacking the ability to take care of oneself, at least for many years) and other genetic diseases that for example raise the fear of diseases in the future (such as cancer and others).

    Did a deliberate hand care that an innocent baby would get this mutation? No... mutations happen, what to do. As I said, every generation has one or another degree of mutation compared to the parents.
    In the old days, the percentage of survivors from that segment of the population was indeed lower, without the intervention of modern medicine.
    If those mutations gave us all a higher survival and culture advantage, then most (if not all) of the world's population would have those genetic markers that we generally consider undesirable.

    How will you explain to me these mutations that occur as part of something not accidental but intentional?

21. Barel,
    You again look like you're really trying not to understand.

    Did you read what I, Michael, Aryeh Seter and the entire article I sent you? (the second mainly)

    Because otherwise you wouldn't continue with the same line of claims. It seems like you only read the parts you're interested in and cut the rest (while skimming without reading those).

    The articles I brought you state the same thing we were trying to tell you. On the contrary - the coincidence of having a head and a tail is unusual, not the fact that there are 2 limbs on each side - symmetry.

    The uniqueness is breaking the symmetry!

    "Each of us will interpret this according to his own view from the beginning of Dana." Why do this if we can simply analyze and reach conclusions by evidence and proof?
    We are not Tanakh, Gemara, etc., where the number of interpretations is according to the number of "sages" who interpret. If you came to another conclusion that supports the existing evidence then you might be right. But you just repeatedly ignore what we have stated.

    And yes, we evolved as a result of random mutations when, at various stages, the creatures with the beneficial mutations survived, and the ones that were harmful to themselves died.

    Explain here:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_1.html
    And more expanded here (recommended to read the whole thing!):
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/

    If you quote a sentence, I ask that you refer to the entire section cited in the article.

22. To pine

    From the link you provided:

    A person's left eye (normally) is exposed to the same development signals as their right eye, so the two eyes grow alike.

    parable.

    I never claimed otherwise, but claimed that it was impossible otherwise. The only question is whether this indicates coincidences or exactly the opposite of coincidences, and probably each of us will interpret this according to his own view from the beginning.

    Good Day.

23. Aryeh Seter:
    I have already clarified what you wrote to Barel, go back and clarify in many responses and I have no doubt that overall I have reached a level of clarity that allows anyone who wants to understand - to understand.
    The problem is that Barel does not want to understand and therefore

    Brael:
    We are not conducting a dialogue of the deaf here, but only a dialogue of one deaf person.
    I have nothing more to say.
    For me, the matter is closed to the point of nausea.
    Good night.

24. Barel,
    I invite you to read here:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB751.html
    And here:
    http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/pinkoski_again/

    By the way, the site itself is excellent and addresses all creationists or believers in a "directed hand" in the process of evolution - answers your questions.

    If you did not understand something in the articles, I am ready to explain

25. The last comment is mine, of course.

26. More to Oren

    You write about creatures that have been and gone extinct, which are proof of accidental mutation gone wrong. It is very possible. But it is also possible that they are proof of other conditions that prevailed, to which certain forms of life adapted, and did not adapt to a change in conditions. There can be many reasons for the evolution of creatures and their extinction. It must be taken into account that all organisms that have ever lived (and are alive today, including primitive creatures) are perfect, because otherwise they would not exist for even one minute.

    The appendix - we don't know if it was used in the past and what it was used for. But we do know (or at least surmise) that it has not changed for at least the last two thousand years, which means that either there is no intelligent planning - and the view that there is an unnecessary organ, or there is no natural selection - and the view that a completely unnecessary organ has not degenerated for thousands of years, and neither does it today makes signs that he intends to do so.

    The second fundamental question I asked (and not out of a desire to tease) is whether the possibility of the existence of an ability to adapt and compensate for organisms that is not carried out through random mutations (a certain process of natural selection exists in any case) has been ruled out, an ability that has hints of its existence in the functioning of organisms today.

27. Explanation of the symmetry. I've read a lot of Dawkins and others and I'm not an expert specifically on this subject, but as far as I understand the symmetry developed right from the beginning. I think that the first ball-shaped multicellular creatures evolved into worms - an elongated tube with forward and backward from which the right-left symmetry developed. There are genes that supervise the specialization of the cells in embryonic development and this is dependent on the location and orientation in the initial embryonic block. It is not difficult to imagine how they operate on both sides. Any mutation that brings about a change - the aforementioned genes bring their results to both sides, therefore everything develops together on both sides. When I read what I wrote, it seems vague, but I understand it, but it's hard for me to articulate. Maybe an expert like me would explain better.

28. To clarify the matter:

    If we talk about spatial symmetry of organs, it is clear that we must talk about symmetry in the process of their formation, otherwise we reach an absurdity. That is, we can only talk about the simultaneous production of the two eyes, the two kidneys, etc. Is this the evolutionary assumption?

    I am not asking this to attack the Darwinian theory of evolution, but to understand it.

29. Friend, I hope we are not having a dialogue of the deaf.
    I will try to simplify the question.
    Richard Dawkins brings the eye as an evolutionary development of natural selection. Beautiful and great and impressive. Now Dawkins only needs to repeat the whole explanation once more, for the second eye, which is a perfect mirror image of the first eye.

    Namely: we explain how one eye was created from random mutations, which natural selection, and only natural selection, and nothing but natural selection, left it intact due to the evolutionary advantage of the organism carrying it.

    And what about the other eye?

    We have two options. Or assume that there is no connection between one eye and the other, and then the whole process started again, or that there is a connection between them. Is this question unimportant? Doesn't the answer have consequences for the entire evolutionary process? Shouldn't the fact that the phenomenon is a general phenomenon in the organism be of fundamental importance?

    I want to say that it is impossible to talk here about "symmetry" in a general sense. There is here the development of a complex organ, which is not only morphological but also functional, connected to many other systems in the body (blood, nervous system, brain, muscles, tear glands that are essential for the operation of the eye, and so on), and then, separately from it on the exactly corresponding side of the body, An organ that has nothing to do with him but looks exactly like him and functions exactly like him, with only one difference - that it is reversed in direction, and this after two legs, two hands, two kidneys, two lungs and thirty and some teeth have already been built in a similar way, arranged exactly in the symmetrical structure of a mirror image .

    In my opinion, the very presentation of this image presents a question. If we build an evolutionary model based on random mutations and a process of natural selection, the basics of statistical probability inevitably enter here. If the question of what is the statistical probability of the formation of two halves of an organism that form a perfect mirror image is irrelevant - so be it.

    In any case, thanks to Oren for his eye-opening clarification regarding the mutations that I have and that my parents do not have. Until today I thought I was an alien. Now I have calmed down.

30. They also talk about symmetry and entropy?

31. cedar,
    I recommend you read Darwin's "Origin of Species" and "Almost Like a Leviathan" by Steve Jones.

32. It is possible to recommend books on entropy, symmetry and evolution
    sounds interesting

33. By the way - for all those interested in additional testimony to the correctness of my words, it is recommended to read about flatfish And to see how true the claim is that symmetry is the natural state and a lot of developmental "effort" is needed to break it

34. Friends, please be brief and concise in your responses, this may (also) contribute to the brevity of evolution and (also)
    to save my time. Thanks in advance.

35. Brael:
    As it also appears from the beginning of Oren's words - everything is a matter of wanting to understand.
    I guessed it in your first response and I was completely convinced of it when in response 71 you wrote that it doesn't seem to solve the problem, but you'll dig deeper.
    It reminds me of the reaction of a major who first says "I don't have it" and only then goes looking for it, but it also betrays the motivation.
    As you should have understood from what I have already said - every mutation occurs naturally in a symmetrical way.
    To break the symmetry, special mutations are needed to break the symmetry and such mutations have indeed occurred in many organisms - starting with the mutations that separate the face from the back to place the mouth in front and ending with the mutations that differentiate between "up" and "down" to deal with the constant forces of gravity and lift.
    All other mutations in DNA necessarily affect symmetrically, if you tried to apply my advice from response 74 you would understand this.

36. Barel,
    I don't understand what you insist on - it's as if you're not trying to understand Michael's words.
    There is no symmetrical development - there is asymmetrical development. We started with the symmetric cell culture, which is very logical (in the beginning there is no preference for the direction of the tumor). Mutations occur randomly (yes, every generation - including you, who has a certain number of genetic mutations compared to his parents).

    One of the (random!) mutations that turned out to be advantageous, and therefore increased the survival ability of those offspring, was asymmetry in a certain direction - for example, the growth of sensory organs that would allow progress. For example, a tail at the back that allows you to navigate - an advantage only if it is present on one side, it is possible that there were also mutations with more than one in several directions but they did not have as high a survival rate as with one tail.

    Here, for example, the first symmetry breaking began (I give a possible evolutionary example). The second development was, for example, the development of legs... here came the breaking of symmetry in the same way, but in a different dimension - up down / back-stomach. Here, too, there is a clear advantage to the high survival of those with legs in one direction rather than in several directions.

    From here the evolutionary development is the breaking of the asymmetry in light of certain advantages that evolved tools constituted an advantage. And all this from mutations of trial and error - those who gave those "mutations" (as I said, we are all mutations, but depends to what extent) an advantage over their friends are the ones who survived more and reproduced more and therefore survived. Evolution is based on the fact that it is based on random mutations (as opposed to "directional"/"quantized hand"). For example, an advantage that existed in the past is not always necessary in a more advanced stage of evolution - it was a "trial and error" that turned out not to be really necessary and did not give a real advantage to survival anymore - the appendix. There are many more examples of organs that are no longer "functional" because they no longer provide an advantage. There are many evolutionary directions that lead to a dead end. A simple example of this is all naturally extinct species. It is a fact that the human race split several times and only the Homo sapiens exist today. If there was a "directed hand" and every mutation was intentional, then there would be no reason for them to exist, and no reason for them to become extinct.

    To emphasize evolution from symmetric to asymmetric, you can see that most single-celled organisms, as simple as possible, are completely symmetrical, and as they become more complex - mussic bacteria, for example, developed "directionality" (ie symmetry breaking) when the same mutation turned out to give an advantage.

37. To Michael

    And I still don't understand why the mutations are considered "random", when they can be predicted in advance (like symmetrical development itself). It is clear to us from simple logic that the description I described, in which one side of the body develops first and then the other side, is not correct, and both sides developed symmetrically at the same time. That is, we cannot in any way talk about the evolutionary development of "eye", "ear", kidney", "leg" - but only about the development of "two eyes", "two ears", etc. Now, as far as I know, the development of two organs that are a perfect copy of each other is only possible if their formation was preceded by the development of suitable genes. It therefore follows that genetics necessarily preceded morphological development, or in other words, first the particular genetic code was created and only then were the organs that were its consequence created. I emphasize again that I personally cannot explain the simultaneous development of double organs with any other explanation (unless we are talking about intelligent planning), and your answers also do not provide an explanation for this - what is more, the problem is fundamental and not particular, and the existence of a gene One or the other in itself does not solve it.

    And as for the adaptation of organisms, you claim that there is no such mechanism. But we know that the body compensates itself for a loss and responds to new needs. For example, intense strenuous activity causes an increase in muscle volume, loss of a certain sense leads to a sharpening of the other senses, and more. I have heard, albeit from a qualified source (a heart specialist), but I am looking for further confirmation of this, that in the case of continuous exertion of the heart and a continuous state of lack of blood and oxygen supply to the heart, the heart itself develops bypasses similar to those implanted during surgery. All these cases occur in the same organism itself and not in its future generations.

    You can see the other side of this feature, we will call it adaptation or compensation for that matter, also in the fact that organs that no longer need them degenerate. A person who enters the process of dialysis, his kidneys begin to degenerate relatively quickly and within three months or so stop functioning completely. There is no evolutionary reason for this degeneration, since the survival of the kidney is not **directly** related to its function and the benefit it may or may not bring, but indirectly, only as a result of the evolutionary advantage of the owner of the kidney. I hope my meaning is understood. In the process of natural selection, survival of a mutation derives only from the evolutionary advantage it gives to its owner and not as a direct result of its function, because otherwise what does the term "natural selection" mean? (For example, one can describe the formation of an organ that secretes a certain odor. If the secretion of the odor does not help the organism carrying the mutation, the mutation will not survive even if it functions and works perfectly.)

    The question I asked is whether in all the cases studied about the evolution of organisms it has been proven beyond any doubt that the source of the changes is random mutations, and not an immediate reaction of organisms as an adaptation to changing conditions.

38. Brael:
    Another thing you might want to understand.
    Also in the sphere the symmetry between left and right is a symmetry of inversion, therefore the right side is convex to the right and the left side is convex to the left.
    This is the most natural situation.
    I'm tempted to draw you a diagram that explains it even more but I don't know if the site's editing tool will keep its shape so I'm still avoiding it.
    I will try to explain to you how to make such a graph yourself.
    For the sake of simplicity, we will err on the side of simplification and describe to ourselves a two-dimensional creature whose cells occupy part of the cells of a matrix.
    Think of a primary spine of different cells (say A, B, C, D, E, F, Z, H) going from front to back (the direction where the symmetry was broken) and a set of rules (written in their DNA) that dictates whether to grow a neighbor in the vacant places to their right and left or not to do so.
    Consider also a collection of additional laws that tell a cell how to differentiate (what type of cell to become - is it a type A cell? a type B cell? a type H cell? a type Y cell? a type L cell? etc.) according to the identity of its neighbors at the moment of its formation (also laws These are stored in DNA).
    Now run the rules on the system every time anew - that is - run them on the initial avenue and then on the collection of cells that will be created in its neighborhood and then on the collection of cells that will be created in their neighborhood and so on.
    The shape you get will necessarily be a shape with bilateral symmetry.

39. Brael:
    I think my answer regarding the symmetry is perfect.
    I don't think you understood her because you tried to attribute things to me about having symmetry between the face and the back when I actually said that there is no such symmetry as there is no symmetry between the stomach and the back.
    Of all the symmetry that existed in the beginning of things, only the symmetry between left and right remains.
    I pointed out that symmetry is the natural state and that breaking it requires an explanation and not the other way around - as you are trying to claim.

    In relation to adaptation - restoring adaptation to organisms is not within my authority. If you want to return it to them, you have to ask Mother Nature. In the meantime - such examples have never been found, nor has a mechanism been found that would allow this.
    I am not claiming that what happens to an organism will never affect its offspring. After all, we all know what happened to many of the people who survived the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the deformities that were discovered in their children were not the result of adaptation but of multiple mutations that resulted from radiation.
    There are other interesting cases in which what the organism experiences affects its offspring in a way known as epigenetics (for example, rats that were fed methyl-enriched food), but here too it is not an adaptation but a (usually negative) change that is passed on to future generations.
    The type of evolution you are talking about is called today (not entirely rightly because Darwin also believed in its existence) "Marxism" (after Mark) and to date neither evidence of its existence nor mechanisms that would enable it have been discovered.

40. To Michael

    Regarding the question of symmetry.

    I think the problem is more difficult than you describe. The symmetry of a mirror image is not between forward and backward but between left and right, and is common to all living beings. Symmetry of a sphere - as in the single cell - is a completely different structure. It is possible to describe a physical vortex that, given its movement, will create spherical shapes, even perfect, and it can be deduced from this to some extent also regarding biological formations. The ball is a perfectly symmetrical shape no matter how you look at it. This is different in relation to two shapes in opposite mirror image, when each of them in itself is not symmetrical. Even when it comes to a simple scribble of a drawing in two dimensions, the prospect of creating the same drawing exactly as a mirror image of the first one is problematic, especially in complex and complicated three-dimensional structures, which in addition to their morphological pattern is not disconnected from their functional structure.

    The breaking of the spherical symmetry in an initial way indicates a bifurcated direction rather than a centralized one. The correct one is that the final result consists of both elements, with the spherical tendency and the splitting tendency both working. But still the two sides, left and right, are not symmetrical each by itself, and the symmetry exists only in their existence as two sides that complement each other. The striking fact is that even in cases of dominant splitting tendencies (e.g. limbs of arthropods) the sharp and jagged forms of each side receive an exact opposite complement on the other side.

    But the problem is much more fundamental. If we label one side as A and the other side as B, we can assume for the start that side A is undergoing an unintended evolution based on a random element, with natural selection, etc. So far so good. We may assume that that party A reached a good functional configuration that allowed it to survive. Now we are allowed to make 3 assumptions: a. This functional configuration was good. B. This is the best configuration for the particular function, or - c. This is the only possible configuration for that particular function.

    The fact that B will develop exactly as a counter-image to A still does not necessarily rule out any of the three possibilities, although it greatly strengthens the third possibility in relation to the first two. But the fact that this happens in all the organisms known to us without exception, completely excludes the first two possibilities, if we want to stick to the development based on statistical probability based on natural selection.

    With or without connection to the above three assumptions, the fact that is not in dispute is that if we encounter the right half of an organism we can know with certainty that the left half will develop exactly as a mirror image of this right half. Therefore, there is no escaping the statement that the development of side B is a deterministic development, since we were able to predict in advance exactly how it would look. Now we return to A, and state without any choice that since the development of B is a deterministic development, and since A is an exact copy of B, then the development of A also turns out to be deterministic in retrospect, since we cannot imagine that two forms are the same, one is the result of development deterministic and the other is not.

    Paradoxically, if the double organs in the body were only completely identical to each other, it would still be possible to somehow explain the phenomenon with the combination of some pattern theory (patterns), even if the explanation was somewhat narrow. But the fact that in all cases the two organs are not only completely identical but also opposite to each other, seems so intractable that it calls into question the very fact that the organism is a typical model for statistical probability. am I wrong?

41. To Michael

    Regarding the question of symmetry - on the face of it, it seems that your answer does not solve the problem, but I will delve into it.

    Regarding the second question, I will clarify my intention.

    When the theory of evolution uses the term "adaptability of organisms" they actually mean this ability in a borrowed sense, or for convenience of speech, since the ability to adapt is subject to natural selection and not to the organisms themselves. They themselves, according to the theory, are passive and indifferent to what will happen to them, and it cannot even be said that "they" carry out the mutations, because they have no voluntary part in this and the mutations occur within them in a process over which they have no control. My question is whether there aren't any findings of organisms changing in evolution (or perhaps all findings) that can be attributed to the direct adaptability of the organisms and not to "adaptation" in the borrowed sense, imposed on them by the force of an external factor.

    For example, why is it not possible to attribute the lengthening of the beak in Pharisees in response to climatic changes, to a direct response of adaptation and compensation of the organism, but only to an indirect (and prolonged) process, which requires millions and billions of mutations, followed by a long process of extinction of the unfit, etc., until it comes to the point that all The species received the new characteristics, a process which, as far as I have read, did not occur in the Pharisees in the Galapagos, nor in the English moth that changed its color.

    That is, my question is why not return the ability to adapt to those to whom it literally belongs (the organisms), and whether all the possibilities of having a coherent mechanism in the organisms were investigated before the default (which should be determined only in the absence of a more reasonable possibility) of statistical probability was established.

42. Brael:
    Your first question is smart.
    The mathematical models of evolution do not deal with it because they deal with the very existence of evolution and adaptation and not with the form of the creature that will develop.
    It is possible, however, to raise reasonable hypotheses regarding the origin of the symmetry.
    The answer should, in my opinion, start with the opposite question, a question that has been researched a lot - but not in this specific context.
    The question is how the body loses the spherical symmetry it had when it was a single cell and at the beginning of its journey as a multicellular organism.
    Those who know the material in evolution actually know the answer to this question quite well. The answer lies in the fact that even though all cells have the same DNA, they undergo specialization that qualifies them for a certain function. This specialization is mainly the result of silencing certain genes and leaving others active.
    In order for there to be specialization, a mechanism is needed to determine the way each cell specializes.
    The most natural mechanisms imaginable are reliance on the cell's immediate environment and perhaps on cumulative information about the number of divisions required to create it.
    Neither of these two mechanisms will break the spherical symmetry by themselves, but as soon as evolution created a preferred direction (head-tail) there was already a "motivation" to break the symmetry between "forward-backward" and between "up-down" and therefore there are special genes whose function is to break the This symmetry. These genes are called "homeotic genes" and they are arranged along the genome in a way that will determine the order of development of the body's organs.
    The "discovery" that evolution made when it created these genes is an extremely important "discovery" and therefore also the earliest. Therefore it turns out that there is a lot of similarity between these genes in all animals. They also have a common "language" and a uniform way of separating belly and back genes throughout the body (which shows, among other things, that these genes likely evolved as repeats of a single primordial gene).
    So what is the answer to your question?
    There was no "motivation" to break the symmetry between left and right, so it remained the same.
    And why did I say that the question is smart?
    Because this is a significant question that I had never considered before hearing it from you.

    I did not understand your second question.
    The fact that a certain organ has an ability that allows it to perform a certain function may indeed contribute to the organism, but this is not enough to cause this ability to actually be fixed to the organ (for example - it would not be harmful at all if my hands also allowed me to fly and yet - they did not develop this ability). A mechanism is needed to make the necessary changes happen. The only known mechanism today is the mechanism of mutation that you call "blindness" and the only mechanism that compensates for the blindness - at the overall level of evolution is the mechanism of natural selection. Can you suggest other mechanisms? If you offer we will check.

43. The question is over

    Do the mathematical models of evolution take into account the creation of forms of inverted symmetry (two halves that are an exact mirror image of each other), a form that is an inherent element in every form of life on Earth? I can understand the statistical chance of the development of an eye, a kidney, a hand or A leg - in other words, half of a body. It is difficult for me to describe a statistical model that would give a chance for the development of another half that is an exact replica of the existing half. This seems unlikely even in terms of simultaneous development, and even more so in successive development in time.

    Another question - is there an evolutionary phenomenon that cannot be explained by the adaptability of organisms, which is part of their essential functional structure, as opposed to indirect adaptation that results from an external factor (natural selection), which performs selection through blind and purposeless mutations? Is there an evolutionary phenomenon that cannot be explained by any other factor (coherent adaptation) but has been shown to be explained only by random mutations?

    Thank you very much.

44. fresh,
    Again you bring examples without source and proof. As far as I understand your story is incomplete. There were a large number of cases that lowered the severity of the punishment because because of the defendant's background it was determined that the damage he suffered in the past led him to mental instability, one of the causes of his crime was the environment (especially in his childhood) and thus determinism is expressed. And not because "the world is deterministic" and everything is predetermined or any other philosophizing attempt. After all, it is known that abuse, poor education and various deprivations in childhood can lead to various mental problems.

    Here is an example (and source) of what I claim:
    "Smooth Tablet (John Locke 1704-1632) -
    The child's mind is a smooth board. John Locke was an English philosopher and physician. His approach defies the class concept - there are no innate differences in terms of abilities and potential, children are not born good or bad but are shaped by the environment. Engaged in philosophy education and egalitarian politics. He considered the period of childhood very important to the point of determinism (determines the future). In childhood, the child is shaped according to environmental conditions - society should encourage and invest in the development of children (economic and political consequences - ie exploiting and employing children) responsibility. He emphasized the importance of encouragement on an emotional level - compliments. This concept affects the teaching method - the children's knowledge needs to be practiced in order to develop them. Learning through imitation - children need to be exposed to positive models. John Locke saw childhood as an important period, but did not believe in children's ability to acquire knowledge by themselves (he later discovered the innate differences between babies).
    "
    מקור:
    portal.colman.ac.il/users/www/16492/שנה%20א%20סמסטר%20ב/למידה%20התפתחות%20וחברות%20ב%2005.doc

45. In my opinion, the desire to kill others and rob them of their resources is a natural human instinct of biological origin and not of religious origin.

46. Obviously, in general evidence proves things, I was only speaking philosophically.

    By the way, there was really a trial in a court once in England, I think, about a boy who murdered someone, and he was expected to receive the death penalty because that was the accepted punishment for this act at the time, but the boy's lawyer claimed that because our world is deterministic, the boy was actually not guilty in the murder because the murder had to happen. The judge thought that because he could not rule out the possibility that reality is deterministic he gave the boy a life sentence instead of the death penalty.

47. fresh,
    If science did give us the knowledge from which tools can be built to destroy humanity, then religion long before there was science created the reasons and the desire of nations, beliefs and people to use this knowledge as a weapon to destroy humanity.

    The same knowledge gained with the help of science brought us clean nuclear power plants. Science has brought medicines, doubling the life span twice what it was until about 2 years ago. I can go on. It is the people who choose to abuse things. Like the spear that was meant to get food can be used to kill other people. The desire to use killing has always been in religion, science has never called for killing.

    If you see the chimpanzee using a hollow stick designed to remove ants from their burrow, using the same stick to remove the eye of another chimpanzee - who will you blame - the horrible hollow stick that was developed, or the chimpanzee with instability of her emotions and a tendency to violence?

48. I agree with you as you wrote that "once you limit the field of existence of a certain theory, it can be said with almost absolute certainty that it is true." Only I am bothered by this artificial restriction and you probably live with it in peace, which is legitimate.

49. fresh,

    Your argument is equivalent to "There may be a matrix, so it is impossible to prove that nothing really exists."

    Let's imagine that a robber enters my house and steals my furniture. I take him to trial, and he claims that - "Maybe we're in the Matrix, so I didn't really steal anything realistic." It is clear that the onus of proof is on him, that we live in the Matrix. For the same reason, when you raise the possibility that there is a matrix, it is certainly possible, but you must provide strong proof for such a large claim. As long as you don't provide the proof, I allow myself to treat this universe as if it is realistic and true.

    Now come on, enough with the nonsense that evidence doesn't prove anything. When I throw a stone and it falls to the ground, doesn't that prove that there is a force pulling it to the ground? And if so, then the evidence just proved something. The fact that you write about a computer that transfers the data to the website - is this not evidence that the idea behind the computer is indeed applicable and acceptable? The fact that close to a billion people are tapping on computers at the same time and sending their data through the power lines - is this not evidence that the physical ideas work?

    And don't say it's not proof, because it's self-evident and we've already agreed that there are no XNUMX percent certain proofs on a theoretical level ("because it could always be that we're in the Matrix"). But as long as you can't bring counter-evidence, you also can't argue in the court of reality against the advantage of science over religion - that it works.

    We concluded the discussion with this.

    Roy.

    ------

    my new blog - Another science

50. fresh,

    Another note regarding your previous comment, you wrote:
    "In trillions of years each galaxy will be so distant from each other that whoever lives then will not see stars in the sky and all the *evidence* for him will indicate that he is alone in a universe with an infinite void, which of course will not be true."
    Your closing statement "and of course that wouldn't be true", is simply not true.
    After all, according to the data you presented, ** it is not possible to know in any way whether there are additional entities or not **
    (It is possible that after the expansion, all the other bodies were destroyed and no longer exist, except in the form of residual radiation).

51. fresh,

    Your arguments are getting weird...

    You are repeating an argument irrelevant to the discussion. Science is better than religion as a tool for gathering information about reality and understanding it.
    Beyond that, it is a matter of personal preference whether to live according to the religious imperatives or not, or who is more important to humanity.
    It's a shame that every time you bring it up again for discussion on the wrong site

    The example you gave is not suitable: if there are no measurements that will show the existence of additional bodies, it means that we are alone for any need and interest.
    Science deals with physical reality, and if in physical reality there is no trace of other bodies, then we are alone.

    We also need to put in proper proportions the claim (which I obviously do not dispute) that a scientific theory can only be confirmed or disproved.
    As soon as you limit the field of existence of a certain theory, it can be said with almost absolute certainty that it is true.
    A good example of this is Newton's theory.
    If we limit the use of Newton's theory to low speeds and large (non-subatomic) particles, the theory serves us with fantastic accuracy, certainly much more than any religious theory.

52. In trillions of years each galaxy will be far from one another so that whoever lives then will not see stars in the sky and all the *evidence* for him will indicate that he is alone in a universe with an infinite void, which of course will not be true.
    So what about having evidence Evidence doesn't prove anything. And so your claim that science is better than religion just because it has more evidence does not satisfy me that much, evidence can mislead us and science has created a force that can destroy humanity. And if humanity were to be destroyed, would you say that science was better than religion with all its shortcomings? But I really don't have the strength to enter into a long philosophical-political discussion because I'm also in favor of science myself, I'm just raising questions.

53. fresh,

    No one disputes that we may be living in the Matrix, so that's not what the discussion is about. Philosophers have long since come to the conclusion that we may be a brain in a box. But again - that's not what the discussion is about.

    The discussion is about you comparing religion and science. In the reality (or the Matrix) in which we live, there is very much evidence for every scientific argument and theory, and very little evidence for the existence of God, whatever it may be. Science deals only with reality, therefore science is much stronger in understanding reality.

    When you claim that there is no way to know these chances, you are basically saying that we should ignore any experiment conducted in the reality we live in, because maybe the reality is not completely realistic. If you really believe this, then you are welcome to exit the Matrix any time you want, as I have already explained to you in our Elijah experiment.
    If you haven't decided to leave the Matrix yet, then you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. In the meantime, reality is reality, and the test of the result is decisive. It is all well and good to say that the result test is irrelevant because the reality may not be real, but until you bring conclusive and serious evidence that the reality is not real, there is no reason to consider your argument.

    ------

    my new blog - Another science

54. send it to me I do not know such a message in the system.
    Maybe it's an unfamiliar part of WordPress, which tries to check whether the person who sends a lot of comments is a human or a bot.

55. I had a message earlier that said to slow down the comments or something like that.

56. At first it really doesn't make sense so I will explain. I do not claim that the possibilities of religion and science are equal, I claim that there is no way to know these chances at all. Because the reality we live in can be a kind of dream/matrix. And everything that science claims may be true for the matrix, but the matrix is ​​not the real reality. In my opinion, it is most likely that we can sense things only about a very small part of objective reality, just like the fish in the stream knows only the water world.

57. What censors? None of your messages have been censored yet.

    ------

    my new blog - Another science

58. Maybe enough with the censors!

59. fresh,

    Your way of drawing conclusions is somewhat strange.

    You wrote: "The moment you realize that there is no certainty, you realize that you believe in science just as religiously believe in God."
    That is, you give programming an equal chance to religion and science.

    You remind me of someone who got into trouble, whose chance of winning the lottery is 50%: there are two possibilities - either he will win or he won't...

60. fresh,

    Let's do the Elijah test: I will call my God (scientific laws tested in millions of experiments), and you will call some religious God.

    I predict that when you jump from the tenth floor in the Tower of the Prophets, you will fall down.

    You may pray as much as you want, then jump.

    When you land, maybe you can tell me about the difference between believing in laws of nature whose reliability has been proven by many experiments, and believing in God.

    ------

    my new blog - Another science

61. It changes everything because once you realize that there is no certainty you realize that you believe in science just as religiously believe in God. And this insight has consequences of weakening faith in everything, including in science and weakening the motivation to defend scientific positions by talkbacks on the science website for example.

62. Gentlemen, much of the success of those who attack evolution lies in the following
    Referring to the theory, there are various theories that explain evolution, the most successful of which to date is Darwin's, but evolution is a fact
    or a process that can be explained in different ways but as a fact or a process
    Arguing about its existence is a pointless discussion

63. four sons.
    I realised. Nothing can convince you, it's a waste of my time. It is very limited at the moment.
    Shabbat Shalom.

64. fresh,

    You're absolutely right, and it still doesn't change anything.

    ------

    my new blog - Another science

65. I'm sorry

    But also probabilities and chances that a true/false idea cannot be proven.
    That the laws of physics are correct in millions of experiments still doesn't increase the probability that we got the laws of physics right, because maybe all those experiments are just a dream/matrix/or some other illusion.
    Therefore all we can do is only *believe* in some probability and not *know* that probability.

66. fresh,

    You can't prove anything with certainty, but you can prove probabilities and probabilities that ideas are right or wrong. Evolution right now has a shockingly high probability of being true, and that's good enough. The laws of physics are also true with a shockingly high probability, which is good, because otherwise we wouldn't be flying airplanes. Therefore, in the end, we treat these theories as true, and rely on them in everything we do.

    Just because I can't prove anything with certainty, doesn't mean I have to believe that nothing is true.

    ------

    my new blog - Another science

67. You are an amusing creature.

    At first you claimed that evolution is invalid because it has no mathematical models.

    So we showed you that it has mathematical models.

    you ignored

    You argued that random changes cannot create meaning.

    We showed you they can.

    you ignored

    You argued that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.

    We have shown you that the law does not apply to systems like the Earth.

    you ignored

    You claimed that evolution is not practical in the field.

    We showed you that it is.

    you ignored

    You challenged us to show evolution in artificial systems, without the use of biological raw materials.

    We have shown you that they have already done it.

    And... you ignore it again, with a lot of meaningless and senseless word combinations. You can summarize what you wrote in the last paragraph with "There is no proof of anything, nothing and there never will be. Just because the laws of physics are true in millions of experiments, doesn't mean they are always true. Let's stop flying in planes, driving cars and leaving the house, because they may fail someday, just like startups."

    Oh, oh. Very reasonable.

    So now that we have finished playing, you will answer the question that was asked of you from the beginning: what is the better and alternative theory that you propose for evolution, and that meets the same tests that you require of evolution?

    ------

    my new blog - Another science

68. Roy Tsezana:
    The model you provided is merely a use of interpretation and is not proof of a theory.
    This is because there may be a computational analogy to the model they performed that shows that the algorithm is actually inferior compared to other possible models.
    The fact that something works through experimentation and confusion or wondering is not proof of a thing. A lot of money has been invested in start-ups of the above type in all possible fields. And they always fall into this mine that something works but they don't know exactly what. They know that it is similar to something or a theory, but usually the failure came when the money was not yet there. ends at the beginning of the practical phase, for example in clinical tests or in adapting the product to an industrial scale.
    Academic models of the above type are suitable for the academy and remain there to acquire degrees, they have nothing to do with the practical technological reality in most cases.

69. To Roy Tsenza
    Don't bother trying to prove the correctness of evolution. The people here don't even understand terms they themselves use like entropy etc.
    And besides, from a philosophical point of view, it is impossible to logically prove anything, and there is nothing and no proof that can be true for us with certainty and no matter how good and unambiguous the proof is, it is all beliefs and beliefs only. Therefore, it will never be possible to prove things that are self-evident to be true, such as evolution (see the entry of the famous philosophers Descartes, Kant, etc.) The claims of these philosophers are very reminiscent of Godel's incompleteness theorem and perhaps they are the same thing only in human and not mathematical language. Those who see the correctness of evolution prevailed and those who did not lost, that's all.

70. I must say that so far you have misunderstood every possible interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics and its implications for entropy.

    And if that's not enough, you also avoid every question that is put to you, and pose challenges along the lines of "Show me that evolution can work, but don't bring biology into the business."

    Come on, get it. Evolutionary programming - a finished product that reaches perfection thanks to a collection of random processes, which are determined through the environment each time:

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolutionary_programming_020808/

    ------

    my new blog - Another science

71. Avi Blizovsky
    Apart from that, they still haven't succeeded in building a processor that doesn't emit heat that interferes with the processing operation, i.e. with decreasing entropy.

72. Avi Blizovsky
    This is not an innovation and certainly not a use of the theory of evolution according to the requirements.
    As we know that there would be a pretense to artificial intelligence if it existed, it could be argued that it is an application of biological computing, but as we know, there is no applicable theory of the way biology thinks, no one knows how the brain thinks. So there is no artificial intelligence other than simple software of the above type. I happen to be an expert in the field by profession.

73. Four boys - please

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/reproducedrobot-150505

74. A more correct formulation for entropy:
    In closed systems entropy can only increase. In open systems - like the Earth for example, entropy can also decrease, by investing energy.
    Machine manufacturing is an example of lowering entropy

75. the four boys

    Entropy, symmetry breaking, who else will you try to enlist in your arguments?
    Entropy increases only in a closed system - that is, a system without the entry of new energy.
    By the way, creating cars also reduces entropy, and this is of course possible for the same reason.
    It seems to me that someone is throwing all kinds of terms at you that are not clear to you, with the aim of hitting the evolution that is stuck in your throat like a bone, but alas, the use of these terms reveals a lot of your lack of understanding.

    In the meantime, you are constantly avoiding a simple question I asked you:

    How do you explain the origin of species?

    Try not to dodge this time

76. Roy Cezana
    Nice explanations to make up your mind but they only represent interpretations and beliefs
    For a simple reason there is no way to imitate this theory using other mechanisms such as devices and machines that would work in this way
    Entropy in closed systems is complete nonsense because all technological equipment such as engines and computer processors work in open systems just like biology and anyway the entropy there keeps increasing. Whereas in biological systems it almost always decreases over time, there are cyclical increases such as death, etc. but on a large scale of time and space there is development and not degeneration.

    Avi Blizovsky
    Rather, please present experiments that are characterized by the use of evolutionary theories within artificial physical systems made by man. without using biological origin materials in the first place. I don't think there is a practical example of this. And I would be very happy to hear if you could point to one that meets the above criteria, thank you.

77. four sons,

    In the meantime, I have provided a full explanation of your every claim, and answered why it is incorrect. I don't see that you responded to what I explained. You are merely rummaging for other complaints, but once again the things you wrote are full of misunderstandings about evolution, not to mention the laws of thermodynamics.

    Let's go step by step:

    1. Entropy does not always decrease in evolution, and species do not always become more sophisticated. There are many cases in which complex organs that were not needed degenerated, such as the eyes of cave fish.

    2. Even if species were to become more sophisticated over time, entropy has no control over evolution on Earth, because the second law states that entropy increases only in a closed system. This means that the chaos increases over time, but only if the system does not receive energy from the outside. Every minute the earth receives a huge amount of energy from the sun, which sustains life on earth, and also enables evolution.

    3. There are many practical predictions derived from the theory of evolution. In agriculture, in medicine, in biology research laboratories - in each of these fields, the idea of ​​evolution and mathematical models are used to understand many developments.
    A simple example of this is in the creation of genetically modified varieties of crops, which contain poison against insects. If we gave the insects enough time and enough fields of such crops, they would evolve and become immune to the poison (proven fact). To prevent the rapid evolution, farmers plant fields of crops with and without poison, thus preventing such evolution, because the insects that have developed resistance mate with those that remained exposed, so their offspring do not acquire the resistance.

    Shabbat Shalom,

    Roy.

    ------

    my new blog - Another science

78. If experiments with independent methods give the same answer, then really either this is reality (evolution) or all researchers together have an intuitive problem.
    What is the correct answer?

79. Roy Cezana
    Pay attention to your own words. You are convinced of an attitude because you are used to thinking that way and it has become a kind of basic belief so obvious that you wonder how others are unable to see it.

    As a matter of fact, there is not and does not exist a mathematical theory that explains the collection of preferences as a result of the theory and not as a result of an interpretive point of view convenient for the compatibility of the phenomena.
    One of the laws of thermodynamics that determines preference is entropy. Preference here is the arrow of time and as it increases the entropy also increases. There is no theory that explains why in evolution entropy always decreases and species always become more sophisticated. There are explanations and there is interpretation.
    Because if there was a theory that explains this we could, for example, build engines with decreasing entropy. or electronic chips and computer processors with decreasing entropy. You don't need to be a scientist to understand the enormous significance that would have opened up to the human race.
    But in fact there is no mathematical theory but only an interpretation.
    The requirement of any theory nowadays is the possibility to assimilate and adapt it to diverse environments and make practical predictions. And it doesn't exist, what exists is just an interpretation that has no value other than a sentimental value to the past and that there is an answer for you that puts your mind to rest and nothing else.

80. What is the purpose of the debate? After all, those who do not believe in evolution will never be convinced by the evidence.

    I read in a certain book (not necessarily in this context) two examples of this.

    1. Take a paranoid person who is sure the FBI is after him. Give him all the evidence in the world that this is not true and you won't be able to convince him of anything. The only way is (if it is within the law) to put him on medication that will show him the reality. When he is more sober, he can understand his situation and stay on the medication even without a close argument.

    2. You are sitting in the library and next to you is someone who wears glasses that magnify everything he sees a hundred times, but he is not aware of it. As soon as a fly passes by him, he starts screaming in panic and running everywhere. All attempts to convince him will not help, because he does not know that his view of reality is distorted.

    In short, I think that all attempts at persuasion are just attempts to convince ourselves. Those who do not believe in life will not believe. Most of the false beliefs in the S-W-R-D-W-T religion by the hypnotic effect they create. (Which again, apparently the existence of hypnosis was/is some kind of survival component.

    From me, a guy who does what he sees fit whether it's related to religion or whether it's against it.

81. four sons,

    Symmetry and symmetry breaking are fascinating and complicated topics, but they have nothing to do with evolution, and I find it hard to believe that you didn't figure it out yourself.

    Let's try to examine a simple case:

    Imagine an antelope, which due to an accidental mutation was born albino.
    Do you think her chances of survival are equal to normal antelopes?
    Do you think her chances of reaching maturity and producing additional albino offspring are equal to other antelopes?

    Do you need a superior force or aliens to understand what is expected?

    Let's stop here, give this some thought, and have your say.

82. I'm just a question,

    Try the following link, to Professor Yoel Rak's instructive series of articles on human evolution:

    http://www.hofesh.org.il/articles/science/skull_444/skull_444.html

    Shabbat Shalom,

    Roy.

    ------

    my new blog - Another science

83. boys,

    I have a three year old cousin. He claims that there are monsters in the world, and in order not to be seen in bed, he closes his eyes, because then he only sees the dark. So that they don't hear him, he sings aloud to himself (to the parents' detriment), because that way he doesn't hear anything but himself.
    It might not make a lot of sense, but that's his thought process, and I'm starting to see similarities between him and you.

    I have shown you in the links and explanations that many mathematical models of evolution take into account the preferences within a collection of random changes. These preferences are natural selection and genetic drift, and without them evolution cannot be described. But you don't even refer to my explanations and links. You close your eyes on purpose and continue to declare that because you see nothing, there is no evolution.

    I explained to you that there is no real connection between mathematical models of evolution and mathematical models of the stock market and others. You don't listen - but you keep singing to yourself out loud. Because the most fun is hearing only yourself.

    So what can we say? Enjoy your singing and closing your eyes. Most of us get out of this stage at a certain age, and recognize the existence of reality, and that if we close our eyes, it does not mean that it is really dark all around us.

    Shabbat Shalom,

    Roy.
    ------

    my new blog - Another science

84. Arya Seter, you corrected but still did not answer my question, on what basis can we know that the human mind has not changed during this entire period? After all, we do not have brain tissue from the aforementioned period that can be checked, the size of the skulls that were found can perhaps provide evidence regarding the size of the brain, but a change does not necessarily have to be in the size of the brain, but can be a change in the internal structure of the brain, and this can also have a decisive effect on the function and abilities of the brain This... (for example the rate at which neurons form connections with other neurons)

    still waiting for an explanation,
    Thanks.

85. Roy Cezana and Avi Blizovsky
    A theory that has meaning and a real basis is based on computational means, the ability to create a mathematical model that imitates the process and test various predictions.
    Using models entered with parameters biased in a certain direction does not constitute proof of any theory.
    The basis of every theory is the absence of preference, i.e. absolute symmetry.
    The laws of physics are tested according to these properties the fact that there is no preference between gravity here or light years away as there is no preference between the wavelength of a certain atom here and in the nearby galaxy.
    As there is no preference between right and left in the acceleration of a body with mass.
    When the symmetry is broken there are reasons for this that receive a mathematical expression.
    It is the same in the theory of evolution which claims the existence of preferences within a collection of random changes
    There is no evidence for this kind of symmetry breaking.
    Because there is no mathematical theory that describes how this happens.
    If there was such a theory it could be used to solve many problems in different fields.
    Therefore, all that remains is to say that it is a convenient fit of the observations to the theory without any reference except the phenomena themselves. And in the same way, non-local forces that influence the way in which the symmetry breaks occur and the preferences chosen out of the chaotic mixture are formed.

86. I'm just correcting a question please - not only the brain but all homospines have not undergone significant changes in the last 200 thousand years, all of us - all humans and also our ancestors until about two hundred thousand years ago - we all belong to one species. One of the insignificant changes is that in the beginning they were all black skinned and now most of them are light skinned.

87. Hello everyone, I don't want to push myself like this in the middle of the heated debate, but I wanted to ask a question on the subject, I recently heard a claim that the human brain has not undergone significant (genetic?) changes in the last 100 thousand years, I wanted to know if this is true, and how can I know this? Do we have gene samples from humans who lived during this time? Or does this conclusion derive solely from the size of human skulls found and the measurement of their internal volume?

    Thanks in advance.

88. Four boys think about normal mathematical equations, the kind that give unequivocal and non-statistical results, hence the confusion

89. Genetic algorithms are very common in solving complex problems

90. For four boys, in places where it is possible to useSoftware that simulates the evolution model doing so

91. four sons,

    Since the XNUMXs, there have been many mathematical models that underpin the statistics of evolution. But since there is no real connection between evolution and the stock market, they are not used in these directions.

    I would be happy to continue debating the subject of the mathematics of evolution, but I would prefer that you review some of the existing material on the subject first. Below are several studies that may interest you, all about the mathematics of evolution. This is, by the way, only a few of the studies in the field, and you are welcome to search for more on your own.

    A Mathematical Model for the Co-Evolution of Obligate Parasites and Their Hosts
    http://www.jstor.org/pss/2406026

    A model for the evolution of self-fertilization and vegetative reproduction.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/957687?dopt=Abstract

    Deducing the consequences of evolution: a mathematical model.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5497460

    Shabbat Shalom,

    Roy.

    ------

    my new blog - Another science

92. The four boys

    In your response #8 you wrote:
    "However, if this is a theory, that means that there are mathematical equations that describe the development from one phase to another between a random collection of changes"

    In your response #17, you already put the issue of equations in Roy's mouth:
    "Roi Cezana, according to your words there are some kind of mathematical equations that describe such a process.."

    And then you continued and stated that there are no such equations...

    Is this your way of arguing? Is this your way of trying to understand?

    And as for me, I tried my best to explain to you, in the simplest possible way, and you, lacking the ability to deal fairly, determined that I was "scrambling in the kettle" and "confused my mind" without giving reasons of course.

    Oh well...

93. Noam
    Instead of confusing the brain try to adopt at least one brain cell to the matter in question

    And maybe also improve the use of the language

94. four sons,

    Your last response, both what I tried to explain to you and what Roy tried to do, apparently represents the maximum of your thinking ability.

    You should go to another site, it will surely cause you less frustrations.

95. Roy Cezana
    According to your words, there are some kind of mathematical equations that describe such a process
    And if so why don't we use them for a lot of other needs such as energy medicines and even the stock market
    I suspect that such equations do not exist because it is impossible to write them according to the existing theories, therefore your theory is also not a theory but a guess based on intuition
    Equally you can say that there are aliens that influence the formation and elimination of good matches
    Bad matches from the complex process of the change collection

    Mr. Noam
    Stop rattling the kettle

96. Each change is random in itself.

    The harmful changes are extinct.

    The beneficial changes are saved.

    After many random changes, only the beneficial ones are preserved, we get a collection of changes that is not random, but represents a good adaptation to the living environment.

    ------

    my new blog - Another science

97. the four boys

    Indeed, you are not a mathematician, and you did not listen to my advice to think before you respond.

    No collection of random changes here!
    There is no random accumulation of changes here!

    The environmental constraints mean that the accumulation of changes is not random at all.
    .
    I can continue to chew on the explanation for you, but the chance that you will really understand will increase, I hope, if you use your brain and think about what I have said so far...

98. Mr. Noam
    Your quote below…..
    "The changes themselves are random, but ** the collection of changes (ie their accumulation) is not random at all **"
    Without being a mathematician if there are random changes a larger collection will be much more random.
    Therefore what you wrote is a random collection of nonsense in the juice

99. Haim,

    It's hard to believe, Menachem Ben is capable of more.

100. It is clear that the person behind 7 "Shomer Shabbat" is Menachem Ben.

101. Father, I disagree with you, if you listen carefully to the creationists and pay special attention to the way they make sounds from their mouths, you will also agree with me that there was no evolution.

102. And if I wasn't clear enough:

     The click of the lock in the example above is equivalent to the environmental constraint "notifying" if the random change brings a survival advantage to its owner.
     As a result the accumulation of changes is not random at all!

103. the four boys

     Of course, it is advisable that you read a little before you draw wrong conclusions, and maybe it is also convenient for you...

     Evolution ** is not a random collection of changes! **

     In short, and maybe a bit oversimplified:

     The changes themselves are random, but ** the collection of changes (that is, their accumulation) is not random at all **, but depends on the adaptation of the changes to the constraints of the environment!

     A nice example from Dawkins - read carefully and think before you answer - unlocking conjunctions:

     The chance of opening a 100-digit number lock, without knowing the code, is 10 to the power of 100, which means the chance of success is zero (= a random collection of molecular changes / mutations).

     Now suppose the same number lock makes a slight click every time the correct number is dialed. In this situation, unlocking (= a collection of changes whose success depends on the environmental constraints) is a simple matter with the greatest chances of success!

     Think, understand, and don't listen to the evolution deniers who are looking for reasons under the carpet to make innocent people think that the theory of evolution is stupid

104. The title "Key Concepts" is not appropriate for the continuation
     Where did they go? Is this the puzzle that needs to be painted nicely and sent.
     I will try to guess the first concept:
     Maybe that... evolution is a random and continuous collection of molecular changes that yield from time to time a collection of meaningful relationships that result in a new living species or subspecies.
     Correct me if I'm wrong.
     If this is a theory, it means that there are mathematical equations that describe the development from one phase to another between a random collection of changes. That is, there is a mathematical way to describe transitions
     Among a random collection of changes.
     but…. As far as I know mathematics moves away from randomness like the fire of mathematics
     can only describe averages.
     So maybe someone is willing to explain where the theory is here.

105. BDS
     As usual - an article full of nonsense detached from reality.
     There is not, was not and will not be evolution.
     Whoever thinks that our ancestors were monkeys and that the world has existed for millions of years is ignorant.

     People - go out and read the Holy Torah - only there will you find answers to your questions!

106. Guys, get out of the movie! I also came from a religious background and believe with complete faith in evolution and science. I also do not believe in all the other stories that run about heaven and hell (at least not according to the interpretations people have given them) when there is not even the slightest proof of it.
     But these are the mistakes in my opinion (which appear in at least some of the comments and articles I've seen):

     1. In science, as long as we do not have clear proof that something does not exist, it is possible that it exists. The fact that part (it's clear to me not all, the question is what percentage) of the ultra-Orthodox/religious public religiously believes in many things that have scientific proof that they are wrong, such as the time of creation and most of the stories in your book, (to religious people, don't kill me... if you try to think about things logically without fear that you are about to dive into the depths of hell for all eternity as a result of heresy you will probably reach the same results...) There is still no scientific proof that everything they believe in is wrong!

     For example: suppose a person comes to you who believes in beliefs (which are wrong according to science) and tells you that the spirits of the souls of dead people roam in the sky (it is also possible that he will add details from the fruit of his good imagination) still a-y-n-n-h proof that this does not exist ! This is fundamentally wrong science! I wouldn't change my life based on that, but that's because I think the mind of a human being (who survived evolution in the most intolerable conditions on Earth) is sober enough to judge that even if such a thing exists, it doesn't matter what my way of life is Earth's surface. In my case (again if everyone spreads their religion before the whole community, then why not me?). I believe that I must act with the tools I was given which are: 1. Thought and intellect. 2. Desires ("lusts" in Hebrews XNUMX) of the body.

     1. Intellect and logic: Logic tells me that the intelligence I received is a wise tool like no other, and therefore I must absolutely believe everything it says.

     2. The desires of the body. What does my desire want? (no complicated philosophies). to get the most sexual satisfaction I can get, to eat delicious food, to feel healthy, to be relaxed, to feel physically comfortable, to be exactly at the temperature I want, to feel very good (I'm not talking about drugs and addictions, it's usually a failed attempt to fix bad feelings, therapy Psychiatry is much more effective). Not being depressed, being in contact with others, laughing, joking, traveling in a beautiful place, listening to good music, smelling good perfume and the list is long.

     I don't rule out the possibility of God, but it seems most logical to me that assuming he exists in any form (and to tell the truth I don't have enough intelligence to know how and what) what he wants is for me to use my tools which are the mind and the will.

     In short, those who do not trust their own logic are welcome to trust any opinion that seems right in their eyes. On the other hand, I have no fear of all the prophecies of wrath that exist because my belief is that time holds only improvement and not retreat.

107. Leave the question of whether the theory is true or not.
     To hell with everything - science VS religion...

108. Go further and see that religion is endlessly evolving. After each discrimination she makes against science, she undergoes a change so as not to completely contradict the logic of the assaspan and thus the control continues.

109. Not true, there was also evolution in their arguments. They used to call themselves Beraitans and today, in order to circumvent the decisions of the US courts, they call themselves the intelligent planning movement. This is exactly an example of evolution - a response to environmental pressure that prevented creationism from continuing to thrive in its original form, and in order to continue to thrive they changed the name and some of the emphasis, not that it helps them to be right of course. By the way, this is an evolution where memes take the place of genes.

110. And indeed the creationists succeed in their craft. After hearing their arguments and misunderstandings, I am filled with doubts and doubts as to whether there really was no evolution after all.

111. I wonder how long it will take to respond to this news from commenters who call evolution nonsense and what the length of the chain of those who will argue with them will be...

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