Roi Kishoni from Harvard at the EVO-DEVO conference at the Technion: it is possible to turn the wheel in everything related to bacterial resistance to antibiotics * Prof. Avitar Nebo from Uni' Haifa: the river of evolution and Prof. Doron Lantz from the Weizmann Institute spoke about the evolution of the sense of smell
The Darwin to EVO-DEVO conference at the Technion continues to provide headlines of interesting research. Some of the lectures dealt with a painful area - the adaptation of bacteria to antibiotics, which is one of the most prominent examples that evolution continues even today.
Roy Kishoni - a professor at the Harvard Medical School asked two questions in his lecture. The first question was how it could be that in some cases the joint effect of two drugs is smaller than even one of them individually. And a second question: what is the effect of such combinations on the development of antibiotic resistance.
"The answer to the first question is that we were able to identify the genetic component that causes a situation where one drug neutralizes the activity of another drug and show that this is due to a non-optimal reaction of the cells to one of the drugs.
The answer to the second question is that there may be a situation where the fact that you receive two drugs but are resistant to one of them will result in a situation where there will be a reversal of the selection from preference for resistant bacteria to preference for sensitive bacteria.
"We think of it as a way to take the evolution of resistance back in time and that where resistance develops - sensitivity develops."
Prof. Doron Lantz from the Weizmann Institute spoke about the evolution of the sense of smell: "We compared the genes for the sense of smell and discovered that there is a large variation that reflects a general variation in the genome between different people. There is variation between people, each person has his own private nose and this is a reflection of what happens in the genome in general - that each person has his own private genome with all the mutations and small things that can cause both diseases and good things such as intelligence." Prof. Lantz says.
"We also discovered that it is possible to lose some of the genes, 10-40 genes and then you can't smell certain substances, but still, by and large, the sense of smell functions well.
We are currently working on developing a barcode for the part of the genome that belongs to the sense of smell that will be a reflection of what is happening in the subject's genome."
By the way, humans have about 400 genes related to the sense of smell, monkeys - 600, mice 1,100 genes. Rats are the animals with the most developed sense of smell 1,500, dogs have 3 times more genes for the sense of smell than humans dogs about 1,200 genes. Fish, on the other hand, only have a few dozen genes because they have a different strategy to sense the smells.
Another lecturer was Prof. Avitar Nebo - head of the Institute of Evolution at the University of Haifa who described the Evolution Mall in Nahal Oren in Carmel (and three other places in Israel: in the Negev, the Galilee and the Golan Heights) as a microcosm of Darwinian evolution.
"A provocative question that 99% of humanity has no answer to is whether evolution continues now, in humans in bacteria, etc. As you know in the most technologically developed countries - the number of people who believe in evolution is decreasing and this is a bad stigma on evolutionary ideas.
We can show evolution in action in terms of adaptation, diversity, adaptation from bacteria to humans. The natural laboratory in Nahal Oren is very important. It is as if we have two continents - Africa and Europe separated by a depth of 100 meters at the bottom of the stream and 400 meters up the mountains on both sides.
The geology and microclimate are the same on both sides with the exception of one factor: the only influencing factor is that the sun radiates from the south and the temperature and radiation are higher on the northern slope and that is precisely where we have an African environment.
Nevo and his team over the years examined the entire variety of flora and fauna on both slopes - and it turned out that from bacteria to insects to mammals, separate populations exist on both slopes. Migration between them is also low - only about 10% from the African slope to the European one and XNUMX% in the opposite direction. Also in plants - on the African side there are bacteria in the soil and small bushes, while on the European side - pine forests. Every organism that arrives in the area has to decide whether it arrives in Africa or Europe and very few decide to live in both areas. In principle the diversity within each species is greater on the African slopes.
A comparison between Nahal Oren and the other three streams shows that the genetic diversity on the African slopes compared to the Europeans is greater than the diversity of life on each slope in a comparison between streams, and an identity was also found between the species inhabiting the two slopes and their counterparts in Africa and Europe (respectively). The conclusion from the field studies is that evolution continues to take place even today, despite the influence of man.
199 תגובות
Another meaningless response from the pen of Israel
Michael
I would really suggest you read Professor Shimon Giami's book on evolution
You might come out of the movie you're living in.
Israel:
You repeat and rely on the topic of chances, which apparently you have not even a faint idea about.
Although the whole argument that in order to "explain" the existence of complex life one can rely (without any explanation) on the existence of a living creature (and if it is already alive - its life does not need to be explained?) is much more sophisticated than those whose existence they are trying to explain (God the Creator compensates Great and alive and all is by definition much less logical than all the things that they want to explain with it and for some reason they offer us to accept it without explanation. Brilliant!) But let's leave this collection of nonsense for a moment and check if when you use words like probability and chance - you even understand what you're talking about Speak.
I will ask you a question based on the ability to calculate chances.
Consider the following game (which involves a participation fee):
There are 100 people who each received one of the numbers between 1 and 100.
There is a room inside which is a thick wooden surface with 100 holes arranged in a row and covered with lids.
Inside the holes are written the numbers from 1 to 100 in random order.
The job of each person is to identify the hole where their number is written.
For this purpose he is allowed to open the lids of 50 holes of his choice, look into them and close them back.
Then he must go to the game managers and say in which hole he thinks his number is.
After telling the managers this he goes home and cannot have any contact with the others.
After everyone has gone through the room checkers who manage all the people's guesses.
If everyone guessed correctly, they distribute a prize of NIS 1000 to each.
Otherwise they don't share anything.
Before the people enter the room they are allowed to discuss among themselves and make any decision they want.
How much is it worth to them - if they are smart, to pay for participating in the game?
To check if you trust yourself answer the following practical question:
It was said that I and 99 of my friends are willing to pay 10 shekels each to participate in such a game that you will finance the prizes distributed in it.
This means that for each cycle of the game you are paid 1000 new shekels.
Do you want to commit to playing with us, let's say, twenty such games?
Noam.
You did not understand me. There can be no such statistics. My intention was that the statistics of the formation of something unintentionally is impossible in statistics. Against this there is the possibility of an intelligent creator which is more logical for several reasons but not for a statistical reason.
Israel,
Really ???
And how did you calculate the statistical chance of the creation of the world by an intelligent creator?
Please specify
Noam.
The incompatibility between evolution and Judaism is that if everything started by absolute chance or by someone intelligent. The chances of someone intelligent creating the world and evolution are much higher than if the world was created by nature.
By the way, this is also true for Hawking's bang theory.
Israel,
I would appreciate it if you could explain to me what the statistical chance is for the existence of an intelligent creator.
By the way, I didn't understand the connection between ephemeral and rational - please explain
Noam.
It's not as simple as you describe. I need not repeat the statistics of cell formation and the simplest.
There is no doubt that there is evolution in the world. The only doubt is whether it is temporary or intelligent.
caltech,
That's it, did all your arguments close so quickly? You are really disappointing.
So like that, I'm also ugly, with a wooden leg and bald. And after we have summarized my shortcomings, maybe you will still try to deal with simple and factual arguments?
To remind you, I asked you to try to contradict one of the fundamental assumptions of evolution:
"Evolution simply claims that those who are better suited to the environmental conditions produce more offspring than those who are less suited to the environmental conditions"
What do you think, could you handle the argument objectively this time?
caltech,
"The probability sewn into the story" is a baseless invention of someone who does not understand what he is talking about.
Don't underestimate Noam, the understanding he shows is much greater than yours. If they classify the age of the respondents according to understanding and level of expression, you probably won't be older than one year...
Michael, you have no answers to these problems of the probability sewn into the story. You have a lot of insults and humiliations.
NA - How old are you still in high school? No, yes
After all, in pingpong where one of the parties never has to think about things and the other still tries to understand what is clear to that one (when the motives of that one are not to find out the truth but only exhaustion) - it is clear who has it easier.
Personally, I would have blocked him, but I didn't suggest it so as not to arouse the wrath of all kinds of "beautiful souls".
Noam:
That's why I bothered to say that he didn't say anything and therefore doesn't leave any unanswered questions/questions.
caltech,
For the second time I ask you - tell us how ** in your opinion ** the universe was created and everything in it.
Please help us wait…
A troll - and not one of the wisest trolls...
On the other hand, ignoring the trolls may be interpreted by the less informed of the site's readers, as if science has no answers to their nonsense.
The comments are for those who are really confused and want to understand, and not for a fight with this or that troll.
Friends:
After all, it is clear to all of you that BMW (Caltech) is a troll.
Maybe we should just stop wasting our time on him?
From the beginning of the discussion, he didn't say anything either, so I don't think there's any point in any of us devoting even time to reading his responses.
caltech,
Let's try one more time:
"Evolution simply claims that those who are better suited to the environmental conditions produce more offspring than those who are less suited to the environmental conditions"
What do you not understand in this simple claim? Can you contradict her?
Where do you see the luck in the main role here?
After you answer - we can move forward.
my father.
You replaced the word "strong" with the word "suitable" but luck is the same luck that acts on both the suitable and the strong and is the only one that determines. The problem with the theory of evolution is that it tells the story and adjusts it and the various probabilities according to the wild imagination of its creators. There is no real reason to claim that certain events are rare and others less so just to fit your story.
Does anyone know Shimon Giami's story about evolution?
Indeed the strong preying on the weak is a myth and not true evolution. There are also neutral properties and the prey are also lucky (otherwise there would not be prey but only predators). This is a misinterpretation of evolution, which unfortunately was used by those who wanted to harm humanity.
In true evolution, the fittest survives, not the strongest.
caltech,
The myth that the strong prey on the weak is your myth, not evolution's.
Evolution simply claims that those who are better suited to the environmental conditions produce more offspring. Not strong, not weak, not big and not small.
Can you refute this simple claim?
It's a bit ridiculous to criticize a theory that you have zero understanding of, and so is probably your desire to learn it.
And now, please tell us how you think life began, and how species evolved.
The myth of evolution that the strong prey on the weak has no long-term foundation. Luck is the main influencer. The "powerful" in quotation marks, in most cases end up in the historical dustbin. The same luck according to which 17 physical parameters match with such great precision and allow the universe to exist.
That's why any story you like can be attached to this sign. Evolution, aliens and also the creation story.
The rest is a matter of choice.
caltech,
If evolution is a fantastic story, what about the creation story???
What is the probability of such an event??
What do you say about the story about some supreme power that no one has ever seen, and there is not even one confirmation of its existence???
The theory of evolution relies on probabilistic situations tailored precisely to its story.
At certain points the probability tends to zero and at others to one. What a beauty.
The story itself is consistent with fantasy plots. The main claim that the strong prey on the weak does not hold water in a probabilistic test. Because in the short term this is true but for the long term where evolution pretends to be a joke.
The only ruling force is luck and not the strong. The strong perished due to misfortune and it was the weak who rose and ruled.
So you want to tell me that probability is like a prophet who predicts in advance where you should invest.
After all, according to you, 65 million years ago all the strong animals became extinct and for some reason evolution decided to gamble and continue to produce smaller animals that avoided eating the strong ones. It's a fantastic story. But he is not the only one because in the long run luck rules and no other force. So your evolution needs a lot of luck or something to direct that luck. And here we go back to the beginning. If the evolution invested in the small animals should have continued to produce the first progenitor cells from basic materials in the same way even today.
Come on, there are people here stupider than me - I'm shocked!
There is another delusional theory that says the world is round, while the Indians long ago proved that it is a hemisphere resting on 3 elephants standing on a giant turtle... and of course this theory is scientifically supported by the fact that we are at the center of the solar system on all five of its stars...
caltech,
If the theory of evolution seems silly to you, I wonder what you would say about a doubly silly and delusional theory:
According to this theory, the universe was created only about 6000 years ago (when it is known that the universe was created about 13 billion years ago), by a virtual entity that no one has seen, for which there is no evidence of its existence, in short - complete nonsense.
Also according to the theory, that imaginary being created all the animals at once (ie: the bacteria, the dinosaurs, the humans, etc.), and since then no new species has been created.
It's hard to understand, but to this day there are people who believe in this nonsense, just because it says so in some old book written by people who at the time knew very little about what was going on around them.
They thought for example (as most people believed at that time) that the earth is the center of the universe, that the sun revolves around the earth, and that it is even possible to stop it from time to time ("Sun in Gibeon Dom").
You won't believe it, Caltech, but there are people who believe that at a certain point, they chose a couple of all the types of animals that exist on the planet, inside a box, and there was enough room and enough food for everyone, even though the size of the box does not allow this under any circumstances.
There is a lot more nonsense associated with this strange belief, and if you are really interested in the delusional theories, I would be happy to expand.
Caltech:
I invented a new phrase - ShBM (which means an unidentified rabbit).
This is the nickname I will use to address you from now on.
If you have complaints about the world, about the laws of nature and about the fact that things do not happen at a pace that seems appropriate to you - direct your complaints to the one who you think created it.
The fact that life took 300 million years to form is a known fact.
Explain to him that such behavior is simply out of the question.
By the way - I directed you to another link that you ignore like every piece of real information you receive.
It is written there - as I also explained - that most of the species that live on Earth today are unknown to man.
In fact, according to estimates, we only know 2-4% of those who share the planet with us.
Beyond the fact that this points to the difficulty of discovering microscopic creatures, this means that it is definitely possible that between the remaining 96%-98% there are creatures that arose separately from the creatures we know.
In fact, since even the creatures we know are not all familiar at the molecular level, there may even be creatures we know that do not share a common origin with us.
In this context, it is interesting to remember the Hebrew text that is pumped up many times about the fact that a fish with scales but without fins is not possible.
This says something about God's familiarity with the animal world (which you claim he created).
See about it here:
http://www.daatemet.org.il/articles/article.cfm?article_id=14
And also the letter from the Smithsonian Museum on the subject:
http://www.daatemet.org.il/images/smithsonian_letter_re_monopterus_cuchia.jpg
By the way, Chevrolet:
Do you have rumination?
Will you identify yourself?
Well, when you don't have an answer, it's also an answer. It is very strange that the most important things to confirm the theory of evolution are the rare ones and the ones that cannot be found. Just like it happened hundreds of millions of years ago. Why not billions?
My last response for tonight:
I have explained why dozens of times. what? Did you really not understand?
There is probably no point in trying to explain to you and all that is left for me is to continue to demand that you identify yourself.
By the way - on this occasion I think I can ask you an interesting personal question:
Do Spaniards really rummage as it is written in the Torah?
Actually, this is not a personal question but a "Japanese" question, but if I only wrote "a Japanese question" you wouldn't understand and I'm not sure you do now.
Why only a few dozen times? Where is this number from? This stupid theory chooses for its convenience the critical events for its existence at all. They are the rare ones, all the other changes are common, only the rare ones.
It's like saying that one set of wood chips is rarer than another when you toss a coin a million times.
So now you create a theory of probability that suits your personal taste.
By the way - do you know that the estimates are that most species of creatures living today on Earth have not yet been discovered?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20109284/
Caltech:
A fool remains a fool.
When there are many billions of organisms that are constantly evolving it is much easier to discover new developments.
When there is something that could have happened several dozen times during the entire life of the planet and it had no chance of surviving because others were here before) the situation is completely different.
Maybe you'll recognize yourself already?
what? Are you afraid that your child will already grow hair on the forehead?
When you want to tell fabric stories, that's what you do, you move the story back millions of years.
Then they say you can't find anything because it's so far away.
It is interesting that so many evolutionary phenomena occur in the world and they are not rare at all like for example this article about the whales.
But for some reason, alas, these decisive cases on which all life is based later simply evaporated and disappeared. It makes just as much sense as growing hairs on your forehead and going back to your roots.
What is bad is your response (that is - all your responses but also the last one).
I didn't count exactly.
I simply estimated how many times a period of hundreds of millions of years (actually today we think of something like three hundred million years) is included in the age of the earth (in reality - not according to the Torah), I added a little to be large and wrote twenty.
You can continue to ignore logic (in fact, you probably can't do otherwise at all).
Maybe you'll recognize yourself already? rabbit!
You counted exactly! Only 20 times every billion years. and and a a a a a and. What a lame excuse.
This was supposed to keep happening all the time. Shame on you for using the argument that the green aliens are shy and therefore only you have seen them.
And regarding identification, this is also already written with Haaretz, he hates and says, "Whoever will give me XNUMX and I will live as a donkey. And there is a good reason why as a donkey and not as a dog for the same reason as in the previous source.
Caltech:
It is difficult to impossible to find traces of microscopic creatures that may have been created some twenty times during the history of the earth.
They don't have a skeleton, they don't have skin, they aren't even eukaryotic cells.
Even if they left some mark (and apparently they couldn't leave a mark - what trace remains of an archaea eaten by a sandalworm?) it would be twenty microscopic points on the surface of the entire planet.
A great deal of evidence for evolution has been found and there is no point in repeating anything you choose to ignore.
There is one testimony that I like to use because it is presented by a religious person and therefore - although I have already presented it many times - including in this discussion - I will present it again for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMj_45epINM&feature=player_embedded
Simply so that you can continue to ignore me as you do, I asked to identify myself.
What is going on with this matter? Are you afraid to identify yourself? Are you ashamed of your words?
This hatred for the Talmud is the clear sign of the people of Haaretz. Pretending that you understand the Talmud better than Rashi and the first and last is another sign of the people of Haaretz. You don't understand anything in what is written there. Be satisfied with the knowledge of the seemingly exact sciences that you claim to have and show off your feathers.
Regarding evolution, this stupid claim is well known. All those extremely discounted cases where things changed like the creation of the first living cell, the creation of the first man from the monkey. These are very rare and impossible to find. But in between someone comes and finds a piece of bone and announces to the whole world that here he found the remains of the first ape that became a man. And it's clear because he conjured up the bone and asked her. So why did none of these scientists find the remnants of the rare events of the first living cells. And why are these events as rare as green people from Mars. All these arguments for the theory of evolution are one stupid rant.
Caltech:
Of course, any sane person who sees such a thing tries to make all kinds of excuses.
Just like they say a day is millions of years.
There are all kinds of "explanations" for this expression and some talk about the fact that it is indeed a murder but that it was said in the way of exaggeration and sailing - as an expression of disdain and not as a commandment to do.
Anyway - I ask you to identify yourself.
Thank you, Miriam:
I hope one day you too will start looking for the truth.
See Rashi and the interpretations where it means that it is permissible to be ashamed.
To Michael
I really appreciate your search for the truth.
I think you are a good Jew!
Avraham, our forefather, also started this way when he made atonement for all the inheritance of his ancestors. Only thanks to this heresy we exist.
I wish you all the best!
I know the source and I know that people of different countries are allowed to snore on Yom Kippur which falls on Shabbat.
Regarding your reference to my argument - you continue in the way I requested and prove that indeed stupidity can be infinite.
I said they are eaten to explain why they are not found even though they may have been created.
I never said they were Christians all the time but since you tried to put such a claim in my mouth I explained to you that you are wrong.
And I have no need to humiliate those who are vile on their own.
Now who - why do you change your taste because before your excuse was that it was eaten.
So now it's a rare event. It is interesting how all these rare critical transitions from which life arose suddenly suddenly disappeared. How lucky this beautiful story of yours is. It happened once and then nature for some reason forgot.
It takes a lot of brains to come up with such an excuse. I think I've heard similar fantasy stories from those who believe in aliens and wizards such as Harry Potter.
And regarding incitement, I will stop and ask how you learned the matter, do you know the source.
Like the people of the land, you do not understand at all what was said there in the original. See Rashi there.
Caltech:
I didn't put any condition in the system, but since there are many like you, someone really put such a condition in it.
In the end, all your comments (none of which were worthy of publication) were published, therefore your claim that this prevents the possibility of arguing with me is a false claim.
I still ask you to identify yourself because now I am considering not only a lawsuit for incitement to murder but also a libel lawsuit.
Miriam:
I have nothing to deal with sources.
I deal with claims and facts.
When idiotic claims are made, I don't care at all what their origin is.
There was an interesting movie that aired a few years ago, it was called "Pie". It's a movie about a scientist trying to find patterns
Certain things that repeat themselves in everything he sees and try to explain them.
There was a segment where he meets a rabbi and the rabbi explains to the scientist that according to Judaism (or in Tanach, I don't remember exactly how it was) the name of God consists of 256 letters (or something like that) and explains to him how Tanach has anything to do with science.
An interesting movie. recommended.
By the way Miriam
Note that apart from these stupid excuses, Michael makes sure to humiliate those who argue with him.
And also introduced a condition in the system that whoever writes his name in the normal way goes on hold so that they cannot argue with him.
Caltech:
Just so you know that I'm still debating whether to see your response 126 as incitement to murder, so in the meantime I'm asking you to identify yourself with your full name so that I can sue you if I decide to do so.
Besides - since you don't know how to read - I'll make it clear to you that I never said that Christian lives come from nothing all the time (I'm not one of the sages who claimed this).
On Earth it took hundreds of millions of years for them to form for the first time, so in any case it is an event that happens once every hundreds of millions of years.
Please continue to respond. I want to see if the claim that human stupidity is infinite is true.
Michael
In 139 you talk about the end, about mature evolution, you don't refer to the zero point at all.
If you run your arguments on this point you are ridiculous!
I brought you enough sources from Judaism in which the reverse evolution is explained, you don't have the courage to deal with them.
In my opinion, you come across rabbis who are remnants of early Christianity (Jesus was Jewish and ultra-Orthodox!). You must defend that they actually control Judaism today - free yourself from them and the sediments they have made you!
Mary
Regarding the matter you brought up, the glyphin carvings must be understood before what comes out and why it came out in the first place.
Pay attention to his poor excuse. You don't find primary cells because they are eaten before you can catch them.
Miriam
By the way, the point is to understand the glyphin carvings before what comes out and why it came out in the first place.
Pay attention to Michael's lame excuse... you don't find primary cells because they are eaten before you can catch them.
Caltech:
It's not luck.
This is where an element that is surely mysterious to you called reason comes into play.
Israel:
Of course I did not "conclude" with anything he said.
Some of them I agreed to and some I didn't.
It was about thirty years ago and I don't remember the conversations we had that far.
I only remember the general impression.
Michael
intriguing You said you spoke to a man named Zvi Inbal. I happen to know him. What did he say you didn't make up with him?
Fortunately, the scientists manage to capture rare species of particles that only exist for a millionth of a second before they are eaten.
He will be eaten! really! So according to your opinion, living cells are created all the time from primary ingredients and before the agile scientists are able to catch them, they are eaten. Therefore, it is also impossible to create one like this because it is eaten with appetite by the hungry researchers. I have never seen such a stupid and lame excuse.
By the way - I must point out that I really like the expression Miriam uses all the time "the reverse evolution of Judaism".
This is the evolution that enables the existence of people like her and Caltech in a society that has managed to develop beyond Judaism.
Caltech:
You were right about one thing.
There is no point in arguing.
The beauty is that the Sages believed all along in creating an inanimate object.
They said that lice are created from human sweat, mice are created from mold and much more.
Have you ever heard of evolution? Does the word sound familiar? Let me expand your horizons a bit:
In evolution, organisms compete for resources and those who manage to use them better survive.
What would happen if suddenly a new organism was created out of nowhere?
After all, he has not undergone any evolution, he has not learned to deal with the environment and others and it is likely that he will simply be eaten by others before he succeeds in reproducing.
Miriam:
You just don't stop talking.
Tell me - (outside of the brain) is your size today the size you were the day you were born?
Did the law of conservation of matter allow you to grow?
According to you it is impossible because you ate inanimate matter and living cells (in all colors except gray) were created in you.
The law of conservation of matter has nothing to do with the nonsense you are trying to make us laugh at.
Apart from that - the law is known as the law of conservation of mass and energy (because the law of conservation of matter that was previously believed in is not true) but all this is already way over your head so we will leave it here.
Caltech
I think you will understand. The reverse evolution of Judaism is not degeneration or adaptation. This was true in a world without a higher power.
The evolution of Judaism is the 10 sefirot from Aila to Alul.
This is what the Kabbalah says: "Brish Hermanuta Damalka carved glyphs in Tahiru Ilaa and Mago pushed her dakaets a sharp emanation - Bucina Dekardinuta (a strong spark - the big bang?)..."
Miriam,
One thing is certain - you don't understand the law of conservation of matter, and it's a shame you're making a fool of yourself. It would be better to learn first that you publish your lack of understanding in public.
And by the way, your "proof" of the existence of God is simply ridiculous.
caltech,
It is not clear to me where you derive your strange self-confidence, when you state that evolution is completely stupid. Anyway, I didn't see much wisdom in you.
The creation of a primary living cell is defined by science as an extremely rare event, so it does not happen every day. The environmental conditions today are also completely different from the conditions that prevailed about 3.5 billion years ago (and not 6000 years ago - which is a completely stupid number).
Creating a life from life is an extremely common event, as we know, so it happens every day - what is so unclear and difficult to understand?
Evolution is a well-established scientific theory, with countless confirmations, and precisely because of its success, it is like a bone in the throat of those who still believe in a higher power, an intelligent creator, etc.
Miriam
By the way, starting from scratch and evolution. Something simple that evolutionists have no answer for.
Why does the creation of a primary living cell from components such as carbon, hydrogen and simple molecules not occur at all today?
Living life happens all the time, but living life is still in the sense of not being seen and not being found.
They will tell you a hesitant doll that nature made only one of these and that was enough for him and then he forgot to do it.
For those believers the most basic evolutionary transition is rarer than finding a monkey with two heads.
This is of course completely stupid.
Miriam and Israel.
And that you didn't understand that it was the people of the country to anger. The argument is completely unnecessary.
In the XNUMXth I will explain:
The difference between direct and reverse evolution is - if you start from scratch or pay in reverse.
The law of conservation of matter does not allow starting from scratch!
I thought you understood science - I was wrong!
Miriam:
What nonsense!
The law of conservation of matter means that the amount of matter is conserved. He says nothing about simple situations.
You make a whole vegetable salad (it turns out not from screws but from concepts).
You must have heard something about the second law of thermodynamics, you didn't understand anything about it, you gave it the name of a law you once heard existed and started trying to confuse our brains with the concoction you concocted.
I also showed you clear facts that exactly contradict the stupid idea of reverse evolution, but you simply ignore them with (in)elegance.
Israel:
It was you who talked about probability.
To talk about probability (which is a mathematical concept) you need numbers.
If you don't have numbers you don't have probability.
I'm sorry, Israel, but your words so far don't show judgment, who knows what, and I'd rather choose my teacher myself.
In any case, I have met people of the type you are talking about (Zvi Inbal, Shalom Sarbarnik) and I was not impressed.
Michael.
Again I cannot prove God numerically because it is not possible, neither in reality nor in Judaism. But the evolution you are talking about is already the result that the Torah has no problem with.
The only problem is whether it is all a coincidence or is it calculated.
And when I said "refer to those who will give answers" these are to people who have been involved in Torah and science for many years and have the answers to all your questions. And more.
The "law of conservation of matter" means that everything strives to return to its simplest state. This is what drives all the processes in the world.
This exactly corresponds to the opposite evolution of Judaism!
In order for there to be a straight evolution, a higher power needs to flow energy into it under private supervision - this exactly means that there is a G-d, etc.!
There are several ways to understand the fact that the sun shines during the day and not at night.
The simple way to understand was the way the ancients saw it.
Apollo or whoever drives the chariot and drives it around the world.
Israel thinks this is the right way.
Israel:
This is, of course, bullshit.
How exactly do you calculate the probability of there being a God?
Chances are calculated based on the number of times the event happened divided by the number of opportunities it had to happen.
On how many occasions have you seen the creation of God?
I ask this because evolution has been seen to happen so many times that it is a certainty.
Teni knows this method of "referring to those who will give answers".
Why do you need it? What do you know the things without having the answers?
Michael.
When there are two things, the simpler to understand of the two is the correct one.
The chance of natural selection, evolution or whatever you want and the chance of having a statistically superior power God is simpler.
Now to explain everything to you why and how and how much will take a lot of time and is not possible here.
To reach a decision about this takes a long, long time. If it would interest you to know what I'm talking about, I have no problem referring you to someone who will give you answers. If you don't want to have all the best and success.
Miriam:
The argument is unnecessary as you know there is a convert to appetite and a convert to anger. And there are people of the country to be angry.
And it is only allowed on Yom Kippur, which falls on Shabbat.
Miriam:
No
Why is it not scientific because it is not written in English?
Miriam:
Good to know what you call "scientific".
I'm starting to think that your "vegetable salad" is made of screws.
The conclusion of the article "Does memory reside outside the brain?"
26/10/2008 Leonardo Vintini - Epoch Times Argentina
"From this point of view, the brain does not function as a storage facility, but only as the physical link required to connect the individual's thought with his morphogenetic field."
A few more links (out of thousands):
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-we-really-use-only-10
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html
http://www.rense.com/general16/myth10.htm
http://ask.yahoo.com/20011025.html
http://ezinearticles.com/?Do-We-Only-Use-10%25-of-Our-Brain?&id=1682041
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp
Miriam:
Did you check?
I wonder how.
Can you point to a scientific article that proves this?
Do you volunteer to undergo the surgery I suggested?
I checked - the partial utilization of the brain is a scientific fact. This has also been studied by analyzing the brains of great scientists.
The problem is that it proves the reverse evolution of Judaism, therefore the secularists try to deny it with all kinds of untested claims, such as - "the rest of the brain is needed for the functioning of the body", as if the human body is different from the rest of Israel.
Israel,
Please try to explain to us what the meaning of Shabbat is thousands/millions of years long
Is it possible that the one sitting on high (the intelligent creator?) worked so hard in creating the world, that he had to rest for several thousand years?
Israel:
Do you know what a logical conclusion is?
A logical conclusion is when you take data that everyone knows in advance to be true and show step by step, using small steps that everyone knows to be true, that the conclusion follows from the data.
Now - if you claim, as you said in this response that "it is certainly possible to logically conclude that there is a God" so please: show us how!
And this sentence you wrote in the same comment:
"I don't know what the Rebbe of Lubavitz said. What I do know is that many others and no less good than him said other things that are based and not things in the air"
Already written on this site Special article that explains him
Obviously the flying spaghetti monster exists, I have a proven logical way to show that it is indeed true.
And anyone who doesn't see this way is a heretic because it is the divine atria and we must drown them in the sauce of salvation!
ramen
Israel,
There is no logical way to conclude that there is a God!
Legal.
This does not mean that there is a God but it is certainly possible to conclude logically that there is a God. Secondly, I don't know where I get the knowledge that science contradicts the Torah.
Lenaam
I don't know what the Rebbe of Lubavitz said. What I do know that many others and no less good than him said other things that are based and not things in the air. And these are the things I said already.
Nick,
The Lubavitcher Rebbe referred to the claim that the days of creation were not ordinary days, but lasted for ages and ages, and he strongly rejected this explanation.
The reason: such an explanation makes the meaning of the Sabbath absurd.
It is not possible, he claimed, that the Sabbath lasted for thousands or millions of years.
Later, the Lubavitcher Rebbe stated that the days of creation were normal days of 24 hours, and the world has existed for a little less than 6000 years - exactly according to the Hebrew count.
In his opinion, science is simply wrong!
Israel,
True, it is impossible to prove that there is no God. But this does not mean that there is a God: in the same way, it is impossible to prove the non-existence of demons, spirits, witches, aliens, the flying spaghetti monster, freaks, trolls, fairies, jujus and other delusional imaginations that humans have (and do not exist in reality) .
And you are right: science does not contradict religion because it has no interest in it, it does not interest it! On the other hand, religion (or Digla subjects) tries to contradict science, because it leaves the ground under its feet!
Nick:
And maybe "yum" even means "crate of oranges"?
As soon as you start giving words different meanings from what is customary in the language (yes - even the one used in the rest of the Torah!) you can do exactly what you want, but then you don't see what is written in the Torah but only what is written in your fantasy.
Nick
Its goal I strive for is not to reach absolute knowledge here or there. It is impossible to prove that there is no God. But on the other hand it is possible to prove that science does not contradict Torah. And this is something that is not understood here hundreds of times in the debates. That's why I thought maybe to make some kind of confrontation about it here
Why is the Torah contradictory? Does it say that a day is 24 hours? Maybe a day is billions of years of evolution? Or maybe it was created in 6 days but the processes looked like they were carried out the scientific way? Perfect divine forgery?
In addition, according to Judaism, there can be no contradiction between religion and science! Science says big bang - religion agrees with him! must! And this is the so-called principle of free choice. If there was solid proof of the divine existence - there would be no free choice! Everyone was religious! Therefore, there is no unequivocal proof in either direction, and this debate is fruitless and pointless.
and my father
Maybe on this occasion I can offer something.
How would it be if we were to conduct an in-depth discussion regarding Torah and science here?
Just about that. I think that after all this time that this issue has been raised it would be interesting to start a discussion of this kind. What do you think?
my father.
I don't know if necessarily the comparison you made.
It is very possible that science and Torah do not contradict each other.
Israel:
The evasion attempt is that you have not explained even one of the contradictions.
Instead, you accused me of not knowing how to read the Torah (and I pointed out exactly this method of evasion in advance even before you started using it).
Israel, there are two options. Either your words are true and then you have to throw out all the achievements of science in the last hundreds of years based on evolution (antibiotics for example), or the arguments of science are right and then you have to simply repeat the question and that is what you are afraid of.
What exactly is an evasion attempt?
But I already understood that it is impossible to have a serious discussion with you. Everything I don't say you won't accept not because it's not true but because it's not suitable for you to accept it.
And by the way - man has existed for at least tens of thousands of years.
Israel:
The Bible is written in Hebrew.
I can read Hebrew.
As I said - most of the evasion attempts are exactly the kind you do and you can see in my previous response that I predicted it in advance.
Waiting for a response, have a good day
If we come to try to understand the Bible, we first need to know how to read the Bible.
It's that you don't understand what is written, then you will learn. Don't make false plots.
Second thing. The age of the world as you understand it was created in six days. There are many other sources that the word day means something other than 24 hours. It is also known in Kabbalah that before our world there were worlds before us. Another thing is the matter of counting the time of the world.
We count it from the creation of the first man. This does not necessarily mean that the world was created at the same time. And the opposite already at the beginning were trees whose age was already several years old.
Israel:
What is?
Three consecutive comments with the same name?
No exaggeration?
Or maybe you realized that nonsense will shut you down anyway.
You are welcome to try to answer the things. I have already seen many such failed attempts.
Most of them rely on giving other meanings to the words in the Hebrew language - something which is of course extremely nonsense because it assumes that God did not know how to write the things so that they would understand him or that he misled the Petaio community on purpose.
But feel free to try.
There will be entertainment.
And by the way to the questions you asked.
If you want I will answer you and even with great joy. But only if you want to.
I understand that you had some trauma in your past on the subject of religion or something like that, all you do every time is try to vilify and blame anyone whose opinion differs from yours.
simply incredible.
Haha you really are a clown
Israel:
But keep asking and for my part, keep doing it under different names - as you have done so far - because the more times you ask - the more people will be exposed to contradictions and stop believing nonsense.
Israel:
You prove to yourself that there is no "once and for all" in this matter!
I have already written long lists of contradictions many times and I pointed out some of the contradictions in the last two days as well.
I will point out some of them to you again:
1. According to the Torah - the world (including all living creatures) was created in six days.
2. According to the Torah - the age of the world does not exceed 6000 years.
3. According to the Torah - the rabbit ruminates.
4. According to the Torah - the Euphrates and the Tigris originate from a common source.
5. According to the Torah - Cain married a woman who was never born and never created.
Want more?
Search the website "Deat Emet"
http://www.daatemet.org.il
In five minutes will you again ask me to point out the contradictions?
Will you do it under another name?
Michael.
Do you mind writing to everyone once and for all what contradictions you think there are between science and the Torah?
Miriam:
But you show that even they did not believe in development but only in degeneration.
So the overall situation is this:
1. The majority of believers in today's religion do not believe in evolution (even if some of the rabbis believed in it)
2. You yourself say that it caused the sages a problem with religion, which means that it doesn't exactly work out in your opinion either
3. You bring their decision which is a wrong conclusion - literally. They think that there is only degeneration and it works out perfectly for you with the hoax about partial utilization of the brain - even though you have not pointed out to me someone who claims that the whole brain is not used and therefore he is ready to undergo resection of the unnecessary parts.
You must also take into account the facts and not only what people wrote thousands of years ago.
The facts are - among other things - that the brain is the biggest consumer of energy in the body. If he is just burning energy without doing anything, then cutting out the unnecessary parts of him may be really helpful!
Another fact that can be proven from DNA tests is that man evolved from the monkey and not the other way around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMj_45epINM&feature=player_embedded
Another fact is that contrary to the claim of degeneration - bacteria are becoming more and more resistant to drugs and this without losing their other abilities.
There are many more facts.
Read for example here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/lizard-fast-evolution-230408/
This is not about degeneration either.
And all of this of course joins the other pearls of sages that are related to a variety of topics and not just evolution.
Dear Miriam, if you are not interested in a crisis of faith, it is recommended that you do not return to this type of website or at least do not read articles on evolution.
You have emotional problems realizing that you are wrong, and that's fine, if humans didn't have these kinds of problems, concepts like radical Islam and terrorism would not exist. Not all humans understand reality, and luckily your lack of dealing with reality doesn't hurt anyone and even helps you get through difficult days. That's why you are invited to live a lie (apparently), like 1.5 billion members of the Esau religion do.
And just so you know, in terms of the amount of knowledge, the knowledge that the Sage had compared to the knowledge today is like the knowledge that a newborn baby has compared to an old man.
After all, there is an explicit source for the reverse evolution of sages:
Shabbat Kyiv/B
If the first are the sons of angels, we are the sons of men, and if the first are the sons of men, we are as donkeys.
Regarding your proofs - Sages did not deal with science. They cited the accepted practice of their time.
You will be surprised, evolution was known in their time, they really faced it because of the religious problem it creates. Whatever didn't make a religious problem, accept it as it is without confronting it!
Miriam:
It is not true that we use only a small part of the brain.
This is a legend that anyone who understands anything about the subject knows is not true and it was invented precisely to sell the lies that were sold to you.
I'm interested in whether any of those who claim this is the case are willing to go for surgery to have the unnecessary parts removed.
There are some simple proofs that the Sages were often Tzal.
They thought that lice are created from human sweat and mice are created from mold.
They thought that the trachea of the cow splits into three parts, one of which reaches the liver.
They had a lot of other pearls and you are welcome to visit the "Deat Emet" website to have a little laugh yourself
http://www.daatemet.org.il
I mean the following passage above: there are some simple proofs for the Sage. For example the proof from the structure of the brain. After all, if the direction was from the bottom up, the brain would have to be very limited. After all, we use zero part of the marrow. Hence we used to be very developed and have deteriorated.
Sages call this "the descent of the generations."
That is: not the man from the monkey, but the monkey from the man!
According to Sages, today we have degenerated into a kind of monkeys!
Sorry, according to my mouth and not to my mouth
To Miriam, adaptation is not evolution but more suitable for the term natural selection.
According to the nonsense of today's rabbis, it does not seem that evolution is appropriate
To Judaism, because from time to time I hear their ayols, it seems to me that their minds are getting smaller and smaller.
Regarding response 82:
I'm fine. and yours?
Miriam:
And because saying "what nonsense" is not a confrontation and because I try to show patience even towards nonsense talkers - I also explained why it really is nonsense.
Do you think that the fact that your argument shows that the Jews are the ones who excel in not knowing the "secrets of Judaism" doesn't make your argument nonsense?
What about the structure of the brain?
Miriam, this fact is well known, but when you compare the number of sayings of this type by rabbis with those who reject evolution, unfortunately Michael is right, because you don't feel this support.
What's more, the generation is fading, the rabbis of Shas and Amnon Yitzchak are themselves ignorant of both Halacha and science, look at the lynching they did to Rabbi Aviner who dared to say that skipping the Torah is not science, even though many good people in the religious community claim that for them it is a method that works for discovering any ciphers. They tried to delete his quote on Wikipedia and only my attention and the restoration I made prevented the deletion, supposedly to protect Rabbi Aviner's honor.
Of course, I personally don't need rabbis to confirm the existence of evolution, but as someone who lives in Israel, I would like the rabbis, there are many who listen to them in every little thing (for example, I heard on Kol Hai radio a discussion about whether it is permissible to put a kettle of water on the stove after the Sabbath), it's a shame that today's rabbis return the Sheep from their pasture and unfortunately they also pull us together with them into the 17th century.
There is a letter by Rabbi Kook ztzel (cited in the book "Parts in the Thought of Israel") that evolution is very suitable for Judaism.
The technique of saying "what nonsense" is not coping!
What a gag.
Evolution in Judaism is such a well-kept secret that most believing Jews go out of their way to the point of humiliation to convince people that it does not exist.
The logic of the other things doesn't work either, but if you believe in evolution - mine.
I won't pressure you to get sober all at once.
Evolution is one of the foundations of Judaism - see for example the following source:
Shabbat page no/a
Why are the heads of Babylonians oval? My son asked him a big question. You asked because they don't have animals (the midwives call them animals, from the language of life, happy animals. They would have caused this through an improper birth process, which is why they developed an elongated head - because only those survived the birth process) cleverness.
He went and waited for one hour and came back and said who is Hillel who is here Hillel wrapped himself and went out to meet him said to him my son what do you want he said to him I have a question to ask he said to him ask my son he asked why the eyes of Thermodyne Tarutot said to him my son a big question you asked because you are running between the sands.
He went and waited for one hour and came back and said who is here Hallel who is here Hallel wrapped himself up and went out to meet him he said to him my son what do you want he said to him I have a question to ask he said to him ask my son he asked why the feet of Africans are wide he said to him my son a big question you asked because Darin is between the feet of the water ( in the mud).
Sages call this process "adaptation". It goes from the top down, compared to science which goes from the bottom up. The data fits the methods and the same.
There are some simple proofs like sages. For example the proof from the structure of the brain. After all, if the direction was from the bottom up, the brain would have to be very limited. After all, we use zero part of the brain. Hence, we used to be very developed and have deteriorated.
Sages call this "the descent of the generations."
Dear Dos,
Population biology and evolution courses are usually taught at 2-3 years in university. It means that students learn before it general biology, chemistry, biochemistry, genetics and math
Since you are Ponovitch alumni, you probably do not even have a High School Diploma. So, how did you understand these books in evolution? It's the same that somebody who never learned even Humash wirg Rashi will claim that he understands Gemara with Tosafot.
My father is right!
This attempt to compare "holy writings" with science is pathetic, delusional and pitiful!
To dear "Doss".
Like you, I have a strong attraction to science from the age of 0, in my childhood I was busy reading books that would explain to me the contradiction between science and religion, when I grew up a little I found out that I was being worked on, and when I grew up a little later I saw that quite a few uplifted ultra-Orthodox understand the difference between religion and science and do not make sick mixtures between them, One of the examples of a Torah observant and an exalted mitzvot who lived science a little more than you, and was very God-fearing is "Isaiah Leibovitz" who is called "Isaiah the Third" and is quite understandable.
If you are fair enough, you must agree that despite your deviance to science, there are people for whom it is not a deviation but science, and they study it and are well versed in it, and they understand much more than you and they are not biased to explain a religion that contradicts the findings, so the assumption is that they judge them more justly.
How does a religious person deal with the contradiction, there are many ways, visit the important forum "Stop here thinking" under the "Hyde Park" platform, and maybe there you will find an answer.
Successfully.
Elohist:
Tell me - did I get to see you define yourself as an idiot or do you have a theory behind the supernatural?
For Michael, this is not a stupid evasion, because as long as there is no natural theory, I believe in a natural being because I have no possibility of leaving the basic premise, and in the meantime, the stupid is the one who speaks with complete confidence when he doesn't even have a theory behind him
Elohist:
It is very small wisdom to release the creation theory from any demand you make towards any other theory.
I didn't say that proteins are created all the time (although that is also true, but it didn't confuse anyone) I said that genes are created all the time that encode the creation of new types of proteins.
I said this so that people would know what the truth is, since Doss was trying to sell the lie that evolution does not produce such genes.
I don't have a theory based on the formation of existence from nothing, but contrary to the wiles of God - I am looking for such a theory and am not satisfied with a stupid evasion in the style of "there is - from a definition - there is and a situation in which it does not exist is a contradiction to the definition and therefore there is no such situation" (which is the main argument of the believers in the Creator - If you just replace the word "is" with the word "creator")
To Michael for response 17
Your claim that in any case there is a problem with the beginning is wrong because of your very perception of the creationist side because according to this possibility then the beginning is God who is something completely different and on him he is a spirit belongs to say he is an ancestor what does not belong to say about DNA or RNA where we must arrive In the beginning there is nothing
I didn't understand what you wanted from the fact that proteins are created all the time. Today the world is in a completely different state than it was then. You probably lack the understanding of what absolute nothing is. In absolute nothing, there is nothing that will cause something to be created.
If you have a theory based on the creation of Yesh Mein I would love to hear or receive a link, it will solve many problems in my life
We also read your comments in all the articles, well done!! that you make an effort and answer so that they understand
Your time is greatly appreciated
Students - chemistry + medical sciences.
67:
Evolution does not decide anything and has no consciousness.
The "decision" is made through the process of natural selection.
In nature, there are occasional "mistakes" in DNA replication.
These mistakes give the new organism created from the same DNA properties that are somewhat different from those of its parents.
These properties can be beneficial, harmful, or ineffective (where the word "beneficial" does not speak here of any moral value but of benefit to the organism's ability to reproduce).
If they are useful - the organism reproduces more and more of its kind are created.
If they are harmful - the organism reproduces less and eventually disappears from the map.
If they are ineffective, their fate is up to chance, but there is almost no chance that they will become public domain.
There are also intermediate situations in which a trait can be beneficial under certain conditions and harmful under others and then it tends to remain in part of the population - especially in areas where the conditions in question are more common.
In situations of cultivating plants and domestic animals - the person who determines the suitability of the organism is the person - simply by multiplying the organisms he likes and preventing the culture of those he does not like. In these cases - it is clear that consciousness is involved, and this is the consciousness of the person.
In fact, the human consciousness has already learned to increase its involvement even more by no longer relying entirely on random mutations, but initiates in certain cases and genetically engineers the mutations it desires.
To Michael Rothschild he wrote that now I know it's you
All the reporters will be responsive and explanatory like you.
Thanks also to Abi Blizovsky who answers and responds to the questions
Indeed everyone enjoys this study
And from the website and all your articles
Thanks for the explanation. I understood that this is evolution, but at what point does the consciousness of evolution come into play? I mean like she decides sometime over millions of years that a clementine will have segments?
And something important: why isn't there a background article about the field of study and research next to each one
And in what areas is he knowledgeable? Where did he study, where does he teach, etc.?
I read your article on mathematics like the other articles are excellent!
And Alon is right, keep responding, your responses are very helpful to understand
I see you have a lot of knowledge and that is important.
oak:
Yes, it's me. Thanks.
And regarding the clementine - my father-in-law, peace be upon him, was a gardener and cultivated new varieties of oranges.
Most people don't know that most of the citrus industry is based on…. Freeze of evolution!
In fact the citrus trees that are in mass use are all clones!
This is because it is feared that trees created from seeds will not produce tasty or beautiful fruits or clips or have a long shelf life like those in use.
That is why the mass production is always based on clones, but behind the scenes - in agricultural laboratories and among gardeners with initiative - they always also try to grow some trees from the seed in the hope that a new variety will be discovered that is better than its predecessors in some way.
My father-in-law did manage to cultivate a new variety of smutty oranges that was sweeter and ripened earlier.
You deny science, deny correct data and distort scientific facts
So don't go to sites like the science just to influence us, it doesn't interest anyone
What you say. Be busy with your Yeshivas Poniwitz and all the other Yeshivas
The uninteresting and non-Zionist ultra-Orthodox.
To one of the scientists, to the editor, who understand the subject of the evolution of plant species, please answer
For respondent 63 in a scientific way so that he understands.
Regarding Michael Rothschild's comments: Are you the reporter on this website named Michael Rothschild?
If so, it's nice that you respond that helps to understand, well done
You also have very interesting articles.
Is that you the reporter?
If Darwin succeeded in producing a delicious, easy-to-peel tangerine
With easy-to-eat segments, I would believe him, but to say that it was created by itself?
And I'm not from yeshivas and I don't like the orthodox religion and I don't like religions in general
And in favor of eliminating all religions in the world!!! immediately !!!
Doss, they also tried to remove Darwin from the overall theory and content himself with the excellent studies he had on pigeons and the Galapagos birds.
There is nothing that should not be criticized, including the Torah, which is a collection of many writings written in different periods and concentrated in one period - the days of Josiah, with the copying errors, with the duplications in the stories, with the unsuccessful stitching of stories originating in the Kingdom of Judah and the Kingdom of Israel (in the story of Noah, there is suddenly a raven that remains from one The stories are mistakenly in the middle). Not to mention the embarrassing scientific errors that no modern interpretation can make disappear.
It's a waste of your time, this is exactly the type of things that the site must deal with because it is impossible to put the scientific enterprise in front of a book full of errors and demand equality between them. If this is not convenient, you are welcome to contact other sites. If you don't understand the relationship between legitimate criticism and science, that's your problem and you have no way of blaming it on others.
Next time write the things in a drawer.
cedar
At least you speak to the matter and not blaspheme.
A. All the molecules in the universe twice the number of seconds since the big bang can be put into a number between one hundred and one hundred and fifty zeros. And if I am wrong then by three hundred even Michael will admit. Even if a molecule can change ten times a second then you have gained another zero. In order for the simplest virus found as a fossil to be created, a number with hundreds of thousands of digits is needed. It is very difficult to call it a "gap".
B. The amount of amino acids in this universe is zero and the Genesis soup was mostly water, which multiplies the calculation many times over.
C. The only theory that answers all the findings is what is written in the Midrash Rabbah that before creation, God was the creator of worlds and their destroyer. And on this foundation was built the entire acceptance of the Arizel, that the world existed long before the current stage.
D. If the website was really only scientific, then I would block it. But this site is used (besides the positive things) among other things to mock the Torah with horrible twists even on subjects that are not related to science at all. So why should I be silent??
ok erez,
” You will find many articles that different sequences give proteins with similar activity, that the same function can be reached through different sequences (and folds). "- Very true. For example, Hubert Yuki, who tested how many additional options would give the protein cytochrome c (101 amino acids) its function. He found that out of 101^20 possible sequences, about 93^10 of them also enable the function of the protein. Hence, such a protein will be created One for approximately 37^10 mutations. From this we can know that an average protein (300-400 ha) will receive approximately one for every 120^10 sequences. And we can be generous and claim that besides that activity, there are a trillion other functions squared squared and this would still be largely improbable quite.
"With all the will, this issue is really too complicated for this kind of discussion." - That's what there are studies for, isn't it? Furthermore, evolutionary scientists also conduct these studies and publish their results.
"But it simply replaces an existing theory (even if in your opinion it is weak) with a circular argument ("Who created the creator" and so on. You probably know these arguments better than I do" - I understand your intention. So you can claim several options and tell me what you think is more Likely-
1) The proteins were created in their entirety despite the zero chance and no planner was involved in this. After all, who created what created them.
2) The proteins were created by a designer who was also created by another designer and so on
3) The proteins were created by a designer who always existed.
But either way, the statistical chance of protein formation remains too low. Something else is needed to solve the problem.
good day…
(By the way, just a short comment on your sentence "Proteins were created in their entirety and not in a random way". Your intuition is correct. Indeed it does not make sense that the proteins were created in a random way. Someone was needed to direct the creation. The problem is not in the theory of evolution but in an incorrect interpretation of this theory - at the end heart or sometimes by tendency. Evolution does not claim complete randomness. There is certainly a purposeful force. But it is not a supreme force but rather an earthly force, of natural selection. A selection mechanism that chooses the appropriate structures and eliminates the unhelpful structures. All that is required is the starting point, a machine Primitive replication that will be created randomly, from RNA or from anything as simple as possible. We have not built an argument that it should be a defining event, with a low probability, the argument is only whether it is possible. I appreciate your opinion, but think otherwise. Let's end the polemic in spirit favor.)
'The Hamiltonian' - I would love to read Prof. Kishoni's research. After all, that's the only reason I entered this page. I take your advice, instead of waiting here for an answer I'll go look for his previous articles (why didn't I do this earlier?). Good night.
In my answer to your article I mentioned one aspect, and that is the folding itself into an active structure out of thousands of possible (inactive) structures. In addition to this, the main claim in the article according to which there is great conservation between the sequence and the active structure, does not contradict what has been known for many years. The central dogma in structural biology coined by Christian Anfinsen, in one of the classic experiments on this subject. Therefore, it is not surprising that given an active structure, the amino acids that make up the polypeptide chain that created this active structure are of great importance (measure the prevalence of sequences supporting a working active site). But this article is not unique in the field, as I have already mentioned. You will find many articles that different sequences give proteins with similar activity, that the same function can be reached through different sequences (and folds). A good example of this can be found in the fascinating evolutionary mechanism of the development of toxins. Most of the toxins mimic activities of natural proteins. In most cases, the imitation is in the structure (because the structure provides the function) but not in the sequence.
I guess you will agree with me that no amount of talkback will settle the dispute, no waving of fists of "my calculation is better" or "my article is more decisive". With all the will, this topic is really too complicated for this kind of discussion. You can't argue here forever. And especially in light of the fact that you are an expert in attacking one theory, but do not offer any plausible explanation for the sentence you wrote "the proteins were created in their entirety and not in a random way". This is, after all, the core of your argument. It can be accepted, but it simply replaces an existing theory (even if in your opinion it is weak) with a circular argument ("Who created the creator" etc. You probably know these arguments better than I do).
cedar:
If I understood you correctly, then in your opinion the collection of data and the calculations made constitute a solid foundation for the approach of natural selection and evolution.
You should then refer to the body of the article itself.
Roi Kishoni - Associate Professor at Harvard Medical School in his lectures claimed as follows:
"We think of it as a way to take the evolution of resistance back in time and that where resistance develops - sensitivity develops."
So the respected professor should attach his thoughts and calculations to reality and simply carry out in practice.
That is, he must find the mechanism he points to and characterize it in its details.
And to verify this he must do it in the laboratory. And if he really has in hand a physical mechanism that works to reverse evolution. He will also make a lot of money from the patents, also probably Nobel. And also... you will have a pretty strong proof of the theory of evolution. At least some of it. Then you won't need to present interpretations and calculations and theories.
This is no different from what they are trying to do for example at the LHC to find the particle that gives mass to the entire universe.
But it is possible that proof of the way of evolution has much more far-reaching consequences.
In my opinion, for that professor to pick up the gauntlet he himself threw down. There is no need to invest billions of dollars as was invested in the accelerator in Geneva. And maybe so.
A. Your math is wrong. I did not say to compare to the age of the earth, but to the product of the "age" by the number of possible steps per second. Too bad you don't read.
B. It has already been demonstrated more than once that there is a phenomenon of accelerated mutations. The one you're implying hits the switch has never been found. At the same time, it was found that different conditions cause variations in the percentage of mutations that a DNA polymerase creates, and different polymerases were also found with different percentages of accuracy. This is in good agreement with the accepted theories.
third. I read the article you sent. This is not new to me. This whole issue of protein folding is completely unclear, and the scientist who cracks the folding secret will win the Nobel. But ignorance is not proof of intelligent design. In addition: the arguments in the style of 'the mathematical calculations yield too large numbers' are fundamentally misleading. The reason is that these arguments imply that finding the correct fold is random (in other words 'there are an astronomical number of possible structures, there is no chance of finding the correct one'). In addition to mathematical calculations, you can find in the faculties of biology and bioinformatics also computer models of proteins that try to find the correct folding not randomly but as it apparently occurs in nature: through energy considerations. That is, there is a clear energetic preference for one folding structure compared to the other possible structures. This is something that is not simple in large molecules at the limits of today's science because you have to find the absolute energy minimum (as opposed to local minimum points) but it has certainly been demonstrated to be true for small molecules. This indicates a clear direction: given an energy funnel, a protein will be able to fold into the correct structure spontaneously. The accepted model is that proteins also have folding nuclei that drive the folding process. All these things - even if difficult to decipher - are known. If the article you gave proves anything, it proves above all that you know how to search for scientific articles. That's why I invite you to read more articles on protein folding and not just the article that allows you to shout "Look! It's complicated!".
d. You wrote that your words are not entirely accurate because "we need to verify what the minimum is, from which randomness stops and natural selection begins to take action. This is also true for proteins that were apparently created in a late evolutionary process." I think what I said was very accurate, and the border is very not as complicated as you imply. Evolution can occur once there is an inaccurate replication mechanism, and once the replication products are under pressure that affects their ability to replicate themselves to the next generation. Therefore, if the first replication machine that stood under the press of evolution is catalytic RNA, there is no relevance to statistical calculations of the random formation of a protein. You can repeat the number 100^20 as many times as you want, it will not make it any more correct. The calculation is wrong, and irrelevant because it is a calculation of the statistical probability of a completely random event, and the random event (according to the latest theories) occurred in the RNA and not in the protein. I can't be more accurate than that, even if it's not accurate enough for you.
God. Either you're innocent, or you're being fooled: do you want me to prepare a list of thousands of research articles from the last hundred years in a talkback? ("You are welcome to specify which evidences"). What, I have nothing to do all day? If you want to do a PhD in evolution, I'm the address. You are invited to the faculties of natural sciences. I am sure you will find an adequate answer to your questions there.
to cedar-
"A. This calculation is only relevant when complete randomness is assumed, so it is very important (for the purpose of the calculation) to determine which is the first catalyst, protein or RNA. That's why I corrected the 'dos'." - Not entirely accurate. We need to make sure what the minimum is, from which randomness stops and natural selection begins to take action. This is also true for proteins that were apparently created in a late evolutionary process.
"B. There is no doubt that the numbers are large, and are not considered in human proportions. But equally the age of the earth is incomprehensible in human proportions, as well as the size of the oceans. "- With a simple calculation, you will find that both the age of the earth and its growth are relatively negligible for the space of combinations. You may get something like 80^10 possible mutational scans. This is roughly the number of atoms in the universe, but not enough compared to a small protein of 100^20
” I guess it will require another unique research that will upgrade the theory. Perhaps an environment (/solvent) that will cluster organic molecules in it and create a progenitor cell-like area even in the absence of a membrane, or a simple molecule that knows how to replicate itself (a similar thing has already been proposed in the past. There is a researcher who attributes to the molecules that form clusters the potential to be the first replicators). "- Are you perhaps talking about the Lancet model? The study of abiogenesis is a problematic field. There are dozens of theories and it is difficult to prove them experimentally.
"Does the opposite theory stand up better in the statistical test?" - see above. Everything comes from simple mathematics. And this shows that the mutations were intentional, and not random.
"It is possible that a certain theory is still far from the truth, but it reflects in the best way what we know today about the truth." - True. And all the studies I have seen in the field show a very low probability of the formation of new proteins. The best explanation would be that the proteins were formed in their entirety and in a non-random form.
". This principle still stands today, with all the biochemistry and molecular biology known today, which Darwin could not even dream of. This is the greatness of his theory: it grew stronger as the research progressed. did not weaken. "-Not according to the latest studies that I have seen. Mainly on the statistical side as mentioned. See for example this study-
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WK7-4CVV2GH-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=db953fac9eef182b969c83f102879a9a
"In my personal opinion, any theory that is proposed will have to be quite similar to the general direction assumed for us today, because in my opinion the foundation is solid and supported by many evidences and proper concepts." - You are welcome to specify which evidence.
(So much for religion-science wars. Even so, no one changes their mind, and it contributes nothing - neither to science nor to religion. The goal of science was never to attack religion, and the goal of religion was never to attack science. Whoever wants to believe, let him believe, This is not inconsistent with studying science. Both sides let their theological arguments influence the way they think, and then just look to bash the other side. Look at the claims, not the claimant.)
And a personal thank you (for who-knows-how-much) to my father for the excellent site, one of a kind in the Hebrew language, which was built and maintained with great effort. I learned a lot thanks to the articles on the site, and I was exposed here for the first time to exciting fields that I didn't even know existed. Well done.
A. This calculation is only relevant when complete randomness is assumed, so it is very important (for the purpose of the calculation) to determine which is the first catalyst, protein or RNA. That's why I fixed the 'dos'.
B. There is no doubt that the numbers are large, and are not considered in human proportions. But equally the age of the earth is incomprehensible in human proportions, as well as the size of the oceans. Even if you have XNUMX percent of the oceans, times XNUMX percent of the age of the Earth - that's much more than you can imagine (in the same order of magnitude as the one you gave).
third. When testing in a test tube, a selection can be made from tens of millions of molecules in one milliliter in one second (that is, 7^10 molecules in one second in one milliliter. Multiply that by the number of seconds that the earth has existed -seconds, not years- and by the number of milliliters that exist in the oceans). This calculation is very problematic and tendentious, but it is intended to illustrate the orders of magnitude, and to show that there is nothing to be alarmed by large numbers.
d. I do not argue with the fact that there is a difficulty, and that is why this topic is further researched. I guess it will require another unique study that will upgrade the theory. Perhaps an environment (/solvent) that will cluster organic molecules in it and create a progenitor cell-like area even in the absence of a membrane, or a simple molecule that knows how to replicate itself (a similar thing has already been proposed in the past. There is a researcher who attributes to the molecules that form clusters the potential to be the first replicators). Today it is clear that it is enough to have someone who knows how to copy himself to start the process. It will already 'take over the environment' (be dominant) and small changes in its replication process will result in a variety of replicators with different chemical properties.
God. The questions are good and legitimate, the doubts are healthy. Good researchers are those who question conventions, too. But it is always important to remember: if this theory is not good for you, what other theory do you prefer? Does the opposing theory better explain the evidence? Does the counter theory stand up better to the statistical test?
Theories are not the truth, but an approximation of the truth. An attempt to understand what the truth is, to strive for the truth, to define it in the best possible way. A certain theory may still be far from the truth, but it best reflects what we know today about the truth. As the research progresses, the theory adapts itself to the new findings so that little by little it becomes more and more similar to the truth.
When Darwin spoke about evolution (by the way, he was not the first. The idea is not his original. But he established it) he knew nothing about DNA, nucleotides or proteins. He was not even aware of Mendel's observations. He proposed a principle. Basic idea. This principle still stands today, with all the biochemistry and molecular biology known today, which Darwin could not even dream of. This is the greatness of his theory: it grew stronger as the research progressed. did not weaken. Molecular biology offered a clear mechanism for evolution, and further established it. That's the big thing: something you didn't know existed at all than what you deduced. (Please do not write to me that the link is not objective without backing up the claim with proof.)
I would love to hear another theory, if anyone thinks the current theory is unrealistic. A theory that would better explain what we know today. My personal opinion, any theory that is proposed will have to be quite similar to the general direction assumed for us today, because in my opinion the foundation is solid and supported by many testimonies and proper concepts.
Larez - you are indeed right that when it comes to nucleotides then 4 options are possible and not 20. But when it comes to proteins - it's a completely different story. Even a short protein of 100 ha can be arranged in 100^20 different confirmations which is an amazing number. Even with 100^4 nucleotides That's an astronomical number.
Doss:
Definately not.
In fact, I'd rather you just go back to my ultra-Orthodox rooms and stop wasting our time.
I don't care if you waste your time because in fact I'm pretty sure you can't talk about anything else.
Michael
You seem to me that you would rather talk to me with guns
cedar
Welcome to the Holy City
1. Very true.
2. I am attracted to all real science. Objective science is the thread that connects the creator to the creature and it is impossible to reach a perfect understanding of the Torah without science.
thanks Michael. Your reply was definitely valuable to me. It makes a lot of sense (even if that's not exactly what the professor meant). I will think more about the direction you suggested.
Dear Doss from Jerusalem (I hope I will soon be your neighbor in the city),
1- Attraction to science is not morbid.
2- What exactly are you attracted to? Which field of science are you drawn to: studying science or denying science?
Even if a particular theory has difficulties, it is always measured in comparison to the strength of the alternative theories.
(If there were no difficulties, there would be nothing left to explore and learn. I'm glad we haven't reached this state of heaven yet.)
cedar:
I don't know how long you've been visiting the site but know that the assertive responses to the morons are doing an excellent job and one by one they are letting go of us.
If you read here, you can see that anyone who behaves fairly receives from me factual responses - even to questions that may seem stupid to others.
What I've learned over the years is that tolerating unfairness never (but never!) pays off in the long run.
Regarding your question in response 7 - I also asked myself the same question as soon as I read the article but - since I do not know for sure - I did not answer.
The only explanation I can give myself is the following:
When both drugs are given - resistance to one of them ceases to be an advantage.
In such a case, other bacteria - which are not resistant to any of the drugs but have some other advantage - can survive better than those that have resistance and then - when you stop using antibiotics - the vast majority of those that survived will be non-resistant.
I'm still not satisfied with this explanation because, after all, these are bacteria that survived - that is - that somehow they were not eliminated by the antibiotics.
Although this could also be the result of stopping the treatment prematurely, but perhaps it is a new breed for whom any time is premature.
In short - if my father does not forward the question to Roy Kishoni - we will probably not get an answer.
cedar
Just as they will never be able to design computer hardware that is simpler than a fork, so they will never be able to design a living cell that is simpler than a nose 15. And it doesn't matter if it is made of DNA, RNA or tomato paste.
And they will not be able to create a simple eye in a significant way from the "simple" eyes of the bacteria that detect light and dark.
You are right that not everything can be written in notebooks. It also limits me. Tetha is also right that it is not nice of me to turn the place into a battleground but if you look you will see who started with the doss first.
I assure you again that I am a real doss from an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood in Jerusalem who studies Torah in a yeshiva, only I have a morbid attraction to science from a young age.
Erez, in 2010 stupidity takes center stage above every stage. So your matter-of-fact questions are less important in the midst of combat. 🙂
It is an emergency time.
I'm getting discouraged from waiting and looking for answers to my original question regarding the article (see response 7). This is my main motivation when I come in here, but it seems that in the heat of the argument with the 'dos, no one is referring to a separate article. In any case, I have not yet understood the words of Prof. Roy Kishoni quoted in this article. An example would be very useful to me, if anyone is familiar with the subject. Thanks.
Mr. Rothschild, good evening,
There is no need to be angry and upset. The best skill I have acquired over the years is the ability to let go. You tried to answer, and that's what should be important to you. What the other party gets from what you said - it depends on him, and there is no need to make you angry.
Come on, you both waste energy on negative things. The world is beautiful, magical and ingenious (and on this both the 'dos' and the biochemist will agree). Is it possible to convey opinions, try to explain, but fight with a person you have never met? Because he doesn't agree with you? Do you know how many more billions have disbelieved in scientific theories? (Ask Copernicus. He'll tell you.) Why does it bother you so much? He won't accept. On, to the next article! There are many more things to discover.
The psychological-human need for God has also been scientifically proven. We have to come to terms with the fact that most of the human population needs faith. So it won't make you angry, because it's part of human nature (most of them, anyway). This does not indicate your mistake, or your inability to explain. Faith has never been based on rational arguments, and usually rational arguments will not dissipate.
The truth needs no audience. The truth needs no fans. Screams do not diminish the truth. Stop panicking and getting angry at any opposition. ("Resistance is the sign that you are making a change. If you don't feel resistance, it means you are not making a breakthrough".)
Have a really good week.
cedar:
I actually tried to correct his basic mistake!
I did this in response 14 and others when I told him that in order to run probability calculations you need a mathematical model of chemistry.
I knew - however - that it would not help because the truth is of no interest to those whose lies are the basis of their lives, and this was reflected in each of his responses.
Doss:
You finally said something right: every child knows what you said (provided that he has not passed the age of one - after that most children already know better).
Dear Doss,
(If you are even a 'dos'. Your arguments indicate that you have learned something in your life, although you obviously did not understand what you were trying to learn. Therefore, it seems to me that you are pretending to be a 'doss' because this position allows you to ask questions, without admitting that you tried to understand and did not understand.)
I will start from the end of your words. You wrote 'none of those present is interested in hearing neither me nor you'. I'm sorry to hear that I wasted my time explaining your question precisely, when it turns out that you're not even trying to listen. I actually heard your arguments very well and answered exactly to your question. But now I read that your heart is not complete, and you came here only to be beaten. If you prefer to remain an empty cart, that is your choice, but I have a feeling that you are not accurate here either. Your questions indicate a desire to receive an answer. They are too precise, too learned - the kind you hear from a person who is thirsty for answers. who wants to be explained to him why the puzzle does not fit. That's the only reason I'm bothering to answer you, with the presumption of 'send your bread on the surface of the water'.
I'm glad you agreed with me that the main argument that came up in your first comments ("22-in the power") is wrong. The correct calculation would be '4-to the power'.
Now you raise a new (-old) problem and use a lack of understanding ('Why do humans fail?') as a central argument. (By the way, you are wrong again. The length is not important, but the spatial structures. The length allows for a greater variety of structures, but does not constitute a limitation for the existence of basic structures of catalytic importance.)
As I mentioned in my previous answer, not everything can be explained to you in a talkback. You will need a little more modesty, patience and diligence to understand the subject. That's exactly why there are books (I'm also ready to discuss this with you on the phone, if you leave a number with my father). Your question concerns a lack of understanding of the strength of natural selection, and the weakness of man. Saying here briefly: Humans work in a serial way while evolution works in a parallel way. That's why the orders of magnitude are so different and so difficult for a human to imitate in 100 years (even less) of modern biology heel-to-toe billions of years of parallel evolution.
I will end with an important note. Two different topics are mixed here in one discussion. While Darwin's theory of natural selection is established and proven above all, the theory about the beginning of life still needs to be substantiated. There are real difficulties (that 'DOS' did not raise) that still have no answer. And this is the greatness of a scientific theory (compared to theological theories): it is allowed to disagree about them, the questions are allowed and welcome because they lead to improved understanding and increased knowledge, it is allowed for a leading theory to give way to a theory that will prove itself to be better, based on the accumulated facts. There is no weakness in this, no proof of a flaw in this. on the contrary. Those who do not ask, and do not test their Torah, are the ones who hold the least worthy opinion. This is a Sisyphean struggle between those who bit the apple and use the wisdom they were given, and those who bit the apple and try to prevent the consequences of the event.
It is allowed to believe, but it is forbidden to use faith as an excuse for suppressing knowledge and perpetuating ignorance. Religion and science can go side by side, the book of faith and the book of knowledge, the book of the soul and the book of intelligence. Arguing with science only weakens religion, in the belief that 'your enemies and your destroyers have come out of you'.
I did not write clearly. Four building blocks is only about the materials but the sequence of the chain and its length is what is important. Even a computer is made of several individual materials, yet the simplest computer is very complex
To Michael
The one who lied gross lies is you and every child knows what I wrote.
I'm really not your friend, it's just that you shouldn't provoke nations if the people of the country like you know what it is.
Erez
If there is a possibility of a simpler form of life than a cell phone, how is it that the researchers who are trying to create life in a test tube did not come up with it a long time ago and succeeded in imitating it. The same science that managed to go to the moon and create new proteins has still not been able to imitate the most "primitive" living cell (a cheeky concept in itself in relation to a huge factory like a cell)
Even if it is possible to create a living cell from four building blocks, it is fine enough that it would consist of fifteen (or even less) building blocks to make its formation impossible. And in particular, fifteen is a completely nonsensical number when in practice it is about tens of thousands.
None of those present is interested in hearing neither me nor you. I only care that there are innocent people who have no idea about science and not the Torah who read your clownish and pseudo-science. I would not waste my time on you, I only deal with Jews and not Gentiles.
I'm very much not interested in joining the eugenics-versus-natural-selection celebration, but it's hard to understand why you guys don't even correct the doss in its basic error.
He has trouble understanding how twenty (or 22 as he wrote) to the power of the length of the protein can occur spontaneously. This is indeed a good question, but fundamentally wrong. It is worth reminding the learned Doss (who should re-read the scientific books he has already read) that the scientific theory speaks of the formation of catalytic RNA (and not a catalytic protein) and therefore the base of his possession should be four, not twenty. Maybe now the numbers will work out better for him . Considering the real age of the Earth there is enough time to check many combinations, from the basis of the correct calculation. Now it should also be clearer to understand the later entry of the proteins, although this issue no longer constitutes a logical difficulty.
The beauty of a scientific theory is that it requires proof, and was not given as a fact that no one gave an opinion on. There are many arguments and countless testimonies that support natural selection (which - precisely because of the opposition to it - is one of the most well-founded scientific theories in science, despite its image in the general public, but it has already been said: "There is a difference between the approval of the crowd and the approval of those who really understand.") But their place in literature the professional and not in talkback. Those interested in learning more about the subject and deciding for themselves between the dos and the antidos are invited to read. And a little modesty. Reading an entry and a half on Wikipedia has not yet made anyone an expert.
good week.
Doss:
You did fight with us.
You would have earned much more if you had argued, because then you could have learned a thing or two, but you only came to fight, so you didn't lie.
That's why I'm happy about the separation but I don't define you as my friend.
Doss
We do have a common origin; Our common father and mother from about fifty thousand years ago were blacks from Africa and our common father and mother from about five million years ago were also the father and mother of the chimpanzee you saw on safari in Ramat Gan...
It's not a curse, it's a phenomenon.
It was nice to fight with you.
We will part as friends, (after all, we have a common origin)
Good night
Dos just asked - is atheism a curse?
That's it, dear Dossie.
Now you have really added insults to the lies.
user
Understand.
When an atheist writes nonsense, it is spreading the values of science and enlightenment.
And we - darkness and wakefulness.
When an atheist blasphemes, it is of course from the hatred of ignorance.
With us - due to lack of maturity.
Oh, we are in exile.
Year:
In our case I saw that he knows he doesn't know and his response 30 provides further proof.
Where did he get the idea that the gene for digesting nylon was copied from another organism (when there is no other organism capable of digesting nylon)?
He just made it up to keep lying.
I do not accept your use of the word blasphemy. This word is reserved for claims that refer to the qualities of another person.
Lair
Am I blaspheming? Uses clean language, I wish all the atheists I encountered were insulters like me - it was much easier to argue with them.
night.
To Michael
This example is the excellent example of the great rewrite.
The bacteria that develop abilities, as anyone who has studied the matter knows, do not develop a new gene, but transfer genetic information from strain to strain, and this is not something new created by the urban watchmaker who does not know how to do anything except break pots in the dark.
If you adjust to a protein built by scientists at the Weizmann Institute, then it is done in a completely intelligent way. This is not called evolution. This is called an intelligent brain.
The very concept of evolution in a test tube is a cynical exploitation of the readers' ignorance. And calling the resistance of bacteria a mutation is such a lie that if you marketed any other product using the same methods the court would judge you.
Good night Jews.
to Michael Rothschild
You located the heart of the eye. Do the opponents know that they don't know? As far as I can read, they don't know their words.
Do I know what I don't know? And you?
Anonymous user
A man blasphemes when he knows he is wrong
Year:
Instead of dealing with statistics - deal with the essence.
Do you think stating things you obviously don't know is an honest act?
I emphasize this because ignorance does not indicate dishonesty, but making claims that you do not know to be true does.
Besides - regarding the statistics - at the moment I take one position and you take the other (the case is not relevant to the matter because his words are the subject of the discussion) so the situation is one against one (also the claim that this is ignorance and not a lie is a claim that only you make).
to Michael Rothschild
Although a majority does not prove the minority wrong, yet you are the only one using the word lie here. The way the opponents of evolution express themselves proves ignorance.
I am happy that there are the strong believers who fight the atheistic arrogance that is accompanied by ignorance in the tradition of their ancestors, unfortunately there is a small but very infuriating number, at least in my opinion, of raw arrogance who think they know the truth and the researchers and scientists they listen to without question are the idols of the truth. I was already in this movie and I debated with quite a few atheists who are considered "hard hearted" and I must say that they are ignorant and squirm when they don't know what to answer, mainly claiming that I am playing games with them. Our faith has sustained us for thousands of years with an absolute truth that cannot be disputed after 5000 years, suddenly the idols of "science" come to me and tell me how barbaric and prehistoric I am, I grin.
Year:
Whoever makes a claim that he does not know is a liar - even if the claim is true (not least if it is wrong).
There is a difference between the statement "I don't know about the creation of new proteins" and the statement "no new proteins are created".
The first expresses ignorance and the second expresses a lie.
Doss:
Receiving an answer but you ignore it as you ignored the reality in your previous responses as well.
A. The formation of new proteins was observed and I brought you examples of interest (such as the enzymes that break down nylon).
B. I also don't understand why you decided to lie. I only know that you do this - both in your claim that new proteins are not formed and in your claim that you did not receive an answer.
third. You still don't understand that if the calculation is not relevant then it really doesn't matter how accurate it is and how many times it is done! None of the "computers" built a model of chemistry.
d. I don't know what you are talking about at this point. No one talked about changes in religious perception. After all, the lack of openness to change is the main problem of this concept, so surely no one blames it for change!
God. You probably didn't understand what you read.
and. Why do you think I'm interested in who someone who talks nonsense represents - whether they are self-proclaimed repentants or repentants like you who claim they are not.
G. Whoever supports creationism is dark - whether he is a doctor, a lawyer, a mafia man, a plumber or a footballer. As a principle, anyone who refuses to refer to the scientific findings is dark.
H. It is obvious that you do not know the subject at all. No one claims that evolution began with cells of the type that exist today. There are all kinds of ideas in the field and one of them appears HERE.
Note that I'm talking about one of them, the only reason I chose it is that I could give you a link to a Hebrew tact showing it. There are many more!
ninth. Indeed - according to the nonsense you have spoken so far - I also do not think that anyone is interested in hearing more pearls from Beit Midrash.
J. So they said.
Doss: What is your purpose in life and is it in any way related to the fact that you post your comments on a site where no one agrees with your views even though they have heard your arguments 1000 times? Why? Go to Doss' website and write your arguments there... yes your arguments are not convincing and yes evolution does convince us. point. You have questions, all the answers are written in many, many places throughout this site with many detailed explanations by Michael... we are fed up with it, we are sick of it and I really don't want another discussion like this on my favorite site.
Still not convinced by the explanations? Not bad. I'm sorry but you have to understand that after repeating everything a million times it's already tired (even though I'm not the one participating in the discussions). You can read the announcements on the site and comment on any topic. Do you have doubts about evolution? Only in this case will you first search the site (through Google) and you will find hundreds of lines on the subject...
Thanks in advance,
The skeptic who is too satisfied with arguments about evolution
Anyway, if you are interested in knowing then my question is related to my purpose in life?
to Michael Rothschild
The use of the word liar is clearly unmathematical. These are only saying what is within their knowledge, that is, what they had time to learn up to the moment of their writing. There is no lie in their statement, but ignorance.
Ledos and the Alohist
What do you care, why get into an argument about what you know nothing about, what's wrong with all the holy books in their fancy covers, what magnificent bookcases.
H. The concept of basic complexity is extremely simple. For example, there is a sophisticated cell phone and there is a simple cell phone. But there is a basic level of complexity without which the device will not fulfill any function of a cell phone and this complexity cannot be created by itself. The simplest living cell that scientists talk about when they think of creating artificial life is something much more complex than the computer you are writing about.
T. Regarding the age of the world that you mentioned, I have a lot of interesting things to say, but I don't think anyone is interested in hearing it, and what I got carried away was a waste of words
Y. Our sages said in their holy spirit that one clown repels many reproaches, and surely one reproach repels many clowns.
I did not get an answer.
A. The formation of a new protein was never observed, but only marginal changes such as a change in the amount of a certain dye that was there before.
B. I didn't understand why I was a liar
C. The calculation is very simple and is done many times by "dark" people like Prof. Natan Aviezer.
D. There is no change in the religious concept, you are simply ignorant and people of countries who understand Judaism the same way I understand football games and other nonsense.
God. I read all the ridiculous material about evolution, including the evasion exercises of the urban watchmaker.
F. The ones who return the answer for the most part represent their personal opinion and not the yeshiva approach.
Z. Is everyone who supports creationism dark, and according to this tens of percent of doctors in the United States respond to the above compliment?
Thank you 'Google Muggle' for addressing my question.
(It's good to see that the 'Doss' - assuming that the 'Dos' here represents them - have progressed from a complete denial of the theory of evolution to acceptance of the theory, and now overall it is not clear to them how it all started. This is a fundamental change in approach. And in the context of the repeated debate, I do not I believe in trying to shout in the ears of those who put atems. They will remove the atams, and I will explain to them their mistake. If the 'dos' wants to learn, he will take a book and read ("the blind watchmaker" answers his statistical questions). If he doesn't read, I forgive him for his ignorance in holding a baby .)
(I am not against religious belief, but note that he always drags you to your court. You avoid asking about the proofs for the validity of his theory. You only defend yourself when you hear his questions. Why shouldn't he examine his theory according to the same scientific-statistical tools that he examines other theories? When there are no justifications for your arguments , it is easiest to attack the arguments against you. This is low rhetoric.)
Have a good week everyone.
Elohist:
According to your response, it turns out that you didn't even understand the topic of the article.
Maybe you didn't notice, but the article doesn't deal with God at all.
And as for what allows you to believe in God - it is called "brainwashing".
A. For some reason it seems to you that it is simpler for God to be created from nothing than for things much simpler than God to be created from nothing.
For some reason you also find it appropriate to ignore the fact that in empty space - particles are constantly being created out of nothing (and are usually eliminated in the blink of an eye)
B. Evolution has lots and lots and lots of evidence (unlike God for whose existence there is no evidence).
My father understood the explanation, but there are two things that allow me to believe in God
A. I have not yet seen any logical explanation how from absolute nothing that ever existed and it doesn't matter how many billions of years ago we suddenly became a state of existence that is not even complex.
B. Evolution has no evidence on the assumption that there is a supernatural God, because then all the proofs can be explained by supernatural things, all the proofs at most can be a pressing alternative to the existence of God on the assumption that you have a theory to explain the letter A
How many times does it have to be explained to you that randomness is not the only element in evolution. There is also a preservative component, so as soon as something manages to be preserved, small changes are made to it and the big changes you see are the result of gradual changes. Contrary to the religious concept of what evolution is (for example Amnon Yitzchak) the DNA does not re-interfere in every generation of every animal or plant because then we wouldn't get anywhere and we would really need that miracle calculator that for some reason is only found in yeshiva and churches.
But you are not able to grasp a 4.5 billion year old Earth and therefore try to explain that in six thousand years it is impossible to achieve such changes.
Indeed, the chance of a certain protein forming just like that without a process is zero, but as soon as you reproduce the process, you realize that the chance is 1.
Doss (9):
When you wrote "a black and disgusting dos" - you forgot to write "and a liar".
In evolution, new genes are created that continuously produce new proteins.
You are welcome to read for example here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/does-darwinism-need-rescuing-0402098/#comment-169288
Although I'm sure the facts won't affect your absurd statements.
The Creator did not create evolution because its existence can be mathematically proven.
This is also why the principle of evolution is used to solve problems with a computer - problems that have nothing to do with animals.
In relation to your 13th response - it is also nonsense.
To run probability calculations you need to describe a mathematical model of the chemistry.
No one who understands the lies of religion and creationism has ever done this.
I'm sure none of them have a clue - neither in probability nor in understanding the conditions under which it can be used.
My honorable father.
I've read a lot of books on evolution and they all deal with diversionary exercises from the main problem. The chance of random formation of a certain protein can be calculated with a calculator and you know it very well. Just as it is possible to accurately calculate the probability that a person will win the lottery ten times in a row.
Take the amount of amino acids in the chain and make 22 to the power of the above number.
And all this from the ridiculous assumption that the genesis soup did not use anything but 22 amino acids used by the animal world.
The supporters of evolution know how to do math very well if they only wanted to.
I would be very happy to receive a factual answer. And thank you for the website.
And so, apparently, a bacterium that develops resistance to one of the drugs will not be given priority, because to the same extent that it weakens one drug, it strengthens the other drug. But I don't see why he wouldn't be able to develop resistance to both. With plasmids it's only a matter of time
Erez
From what I understand, when the first medicine causes some problem (without being really effective) it interferes with the course of action of the second medicine.
And so in fact, resistance to the first drug (so that it will not create any problem in the cell) leads to the opposite reaction -> non-resistance to the drug that follows it (because its course of action is free).
You probably also read the definitions of evolution from books found in the possession of the Yeshiva Yeshiva library, because the correct books that scientists use have different definitions for evolution and there is no need to use calculators.
The very phenomenon of evolution is indisputable. Evolution is a sophisticated mechanism created by the Creator so that organisms can adapt to new situations and not die like flies with every small change in conditions.
but!!!
Evolution can only change the amounts and ratios of existing proteins and organs, but cannot create new proteins because their basic level of complexity (that is, the complexity without which the protein will not fulfill its function at the most basic level) is much higher than the maximum level of complexity that can be created by chance. Take Calculator and check.
Greetings, a black and nasty Doss graduated from Yeshiva Fonibez.
I'm not religious at all and I think your response waiting for doss blah blah is a stupid response
The two things quoted here from Prof. Roy Kishoni are not clear to me.
Can someone explain what is meant by "a genetic component that causes a situation where one drug neutralizes the activity of another drug" as well as how it is possible to "reverse the selection from favoring resistant bacteria to favoring sensitive bacteria".
I have a broad background in biology, so I guess the reason for my lack of understanding is that the theorems are neither demonstrated nor detailed.
I would appreciate it if someone has read about the subject and can expand a little (or give an example or give a reference).
Thanks.
Eran, why accuse me of seeing blackness when my intention is exactly the opposite.
The technological development will mean that everything we know is going to change.
Let them respond here.
Evolution continues in humans and dramatically. Pay attention to the following amazing statistic: 20% of all births are performed by caesarean section. The meaning - newborns with a genetic load that includes narrow hips and a large head can be born.
The weak are not born - the amount of abortions, thanks to comprehensive tests, due to genetic or chromosomal defects is enormous.
Leli - He sees blackness for the future of the human race as it is today.
to the point
Agree with your main point. We certainly seem to have overcome evolution, and probably even reversed it.
I didn't quite understand what your last two lines mean
Evolution continues in all species of life except humans. With us we have invented equality of rights, for the beautiful and the ugly, for the wise and the foolish, for the strong and the weak, everyone has the same right to marry one woman and give birth to children, who will be in their image as their likeness.
Which explains the devolution process we see today.
But in the end all this does not matter, within 50-100 years the processes that will drive things on Earth will be completely different from everything we have known so far.