Darwin versus the fundamentalists

175 תגובות

1. Michael

   You are just doing holy work here. (Without anything to do with religion of course (;

2. Doss:
   To simplify the answer for ignorant and liars like you, all the academic institutions in the world took the trouble to get together and write the following document:
   http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf

   By the way, evolution also has a majority among physicists, mathematicians and other scientists.

3. Doss, among the biologists, and this is what determines that there is a majority of almost one hundred percent for evolution (there are some religious people who have infiltrated). The opinion of physicists on evolution is just like the opinion of chemists on the history of the Middle Ages. Again your books are full of incorrect data that someone dreamed up at night.

4. For us to be able to say that science determines so and so, we need a majority of almost one hundred percent in the scientific community. Evolution does not have such a majority and maybe there is an opposite majority. So let them not speak in the name of science.

5. Jupiter:
   (Eucalyptus? What is this melancholy?)
   The whole discussion with Tsunami turned out to be worthless and it would have been better if it had been deleted entirely.
   The only thing I wanted to achieve in my responses to the tsunami was to put him back in his place because no one can learn anything from his lies.

6. Comment 166 🙁 unnecessary.

7. for a tsunami -
   "And it's interesting that you and your friends keep going back to bacteria and ignoring the surface animals. Has a mutation been observed in any mammal yet?"
   That was your quote.
   Is your opinion comfortable about you in view of the 3 mutations that definitely "impacted" like the swine flu, on the lives of many: Amir Peretz, Israel Caesar, and Rabbi Abd-Allah {Ovadia}.

   And to the other contestants, are you out of your mind?
   169 responses to something that is so understandable!

   Wow.

   Views

8. Michael - after all, you yourself once mentioned the book Revolt of the Masses, so you know this spoiled product. Anyone who has read the discussion knows exactly what a lift you are and what garbage he is

9. Tsunami, no one says Aristotle said. In science there is something that no other institution has - peer review.
   The things I quoted are summaries of studies and should be examined according to the evidence in the articles and not according to my choice of words to explain it briefly.
   Unfortunately, you will have to continue the debate on the ultra-Orthodox websites, where you can discredit science and its supporters to your heart's content. We are trying to put some sense into your head and explain to you that the brainwashing you received which includes hating science but enjoying its fruits does not explain the truth about the most important enterprise of humanity.

10. Friends:
    You have to admit that it is quite a pleasure to see how it is - to attack evolution one must lose all human image and use lies and slander as the only means of argument.
    I have always argued that science encourages people to be honest - at least with themselves.
    What you see here is how the opposition to science distorts all the elements of honesty to the point of ridiculousness.

11. Blizovsky
    Show me one word from a scientist that I didn't treat with the respect it deserves.
    Calling the people of the country like Michael a scientist is slander and defamation of any scientist.
    In the meantime, the one who distorts things and presents them as they please is only you and your friends.
    Can't stand the truth when it slaps you in the face
    You are not as good as the medieval sages who closed their eyes and muttered "But Aristotle said!"

12. 🙁

13. Tsunami, a waste of your time and ours. If you treat the words of scientists as something that can be argued over like a Talmudic page there is no point in arguing. Everything they say to you, you don't understand and then claim that we don't understand.
    You should apologize to Michael and stop wasting our time because I have quite a lot of work to do without conducting a deaf conversation with a person who can only hear himself.

14. Michael R
    Who even corresponds with you?
    Yabush ben Shlolit, and stop looking at the correspondence between me and Blizovsky - it's not for your eyes

15. Tsunami:
    You are a liar, ignorant and a fool and I find no point in arguing with you because even if you understand something you manage to hide it with your lies.
    As you try (with notable failure) to hide - your argument is simply with the entire academic world and you are welcome to look here to argue and invent another lie:
    http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf
    Since my father did not see fit to block your access to the site, I hereby announce the blocking of your access for the time being.
    I won't answer your nonsense anymore (after all, that's all you write so it's likely I won't answer you anymore at all)

16. Even in chemical substances that are not biological there is an evolution that creates spontaneously and without any intervention of a creator, patterns and forms and order that on the face of it seems as if there must be a creator for them. It is in the Belousov–Zhabotinsky reaction

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH6bRt4XJcw&feature=related

    So all the more so that there is evolution in biological things.

17. Blizovsky
    You and your friends talked about new traits like resistance to antibiotics or the moths changing color to black or fish developing armor in clear water. But when I put you on the spot and show that these features have always existed - you twist and turn and explain that it is impossible for a new feature to emerge from scratch.
    So maybe we'll start from the beginning and define what a mutation is?
    Are all the traits already inherent in the genome or can the phenom acquire new traits over time?
    And regarding extinction - I think one of the cornerstones of Darwin's theory is that every species strives to reproduce and survive. Natural extinction of a species is proof of the incorrectness of the Torah. Did we mention the Irish singing ram yet?
    And it's interesting that you and your friends keep going back to bacteria and ignore the surface animals. Has a mutation already been observed in any mammal?

18. Obviously this is ignorance.
    After all, you expect supernatural things from nature, such as a new trait emerging from scratch and not from a trait that was present in a small proportion of the population and spread to the entire population due to selective pressure.
    The result of such an experiment would be clear - the bacteria, none of which were resistant to antibiotics, would simply die. Whether it is 99% of the population as the example I gave or one hundred percent of the population - if no one is resistant.
    The demand you demand - that a creature that had no ability to change will change. This is an unnatural requirement.
    Extinction is also a development as a result of selective pressure, the decline from which there is no way back, but it is also a legitimate development. If you don't understand it, Michael will probably have to explain it to you.

19. Blizovsky
    Forgive my ignorance, but what did you mean by "species extinction" and what does it have to do with our discussion?

20. to Arya Seter
    As per your request from the end to the beginning: a master's degree from the Technion (and not from some remote college), now doing a master's degree in history. Works as VP of Quality at Hi-Tech Ltd.
    more details?
    In connection with Aryeh R, he claims to teach the whole world what he picked up on populist programs on television, and as evidenced by his vulgar language, his arrogant arrogance (see his responses to Barel and to everyone who disagrees with him) it wouldn't hurt if he opened a serious book, say
    Chava Yablonka, and m. third'. Lamb, Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Inheritance in the History of Life, translated by Boruria Ben-Baruch, Tel-Aviv: Am Oved, 2005.
    He didn't even grasp the difference between observations and predictions. and claims that Darwin's theory predicted the observations on which he relied.
    And regarding your claim - are there mutations? Did science predict the appearance of any new feature?
    I keep getting told about features that have always existed but not new ones. But you may know about a reported mutation?

21. Reader, there's no need for that either, the idea is simply that whoever doesn't fit dies, and he doesn't consider whether he has cousins ​​who can continue to live or not and thus continue the species.
    The human mind has a bias to see only the successful and not to see the whole picture. Nature is indifferent to this. I would be surprised if the situation was different.
    Entire populations of bacteria that did not have the adaptation gene simply died. It is possible that bacteria still have the ability to develop such a feature by taking DNA sequences from other bacteria, but in higher organisms this will not be possible.

    By the way, exactly the same kind of bias leads people to think that evolution constantly results in more complex creatures. The bias stems both from the human desire to see only successes and from the limitation - while complexity has room to move forward, abstraction has a lower limit. We do not know how many of the most primitive bacteria have always been like this and how many are remnants of more complex organisms that have degenerated.

22. My answer was directed at my father Blizovsky.

23. These are not controlled experiments, certainly not at the genetic level. So I repeat my original question.
    For the avoidance of doubt, I am convinced that bacteria can develop new mutations that will give them new properties. My question is fundamentally technical: Has there ever been an experiment that showed that out of an initial population of bacteria, there is not even one bacterium that is already resistant to antibiotics, or is able to extract energy from a different food substance than usual?

24. reader:
    Apparently there is a problem here:
    How can one know that a certain mutation did not exist beforehand in a group of bacteria?
    It's a bit like checking that all the matches in a pack of matches are lit - isn't it? After the test, you can no longer do anything with them because you broke them down!

    But actually the problem has a solution.
    If you take a single bacterium and let it reproduce in isolation, the very presence of bacteria that are not identical to each other in subsequent generations indicates that mutations have occurred because if they were all faithful copies of the original bacterium, they would also be identical to each other.

    Such experiments have of course been done, but there is no doubt that nothing will convince Tsunami.

25. Reader, such experiments are conducted in nature every day - they are called - extinction of species.

26. Tsunami's claim is that there are no new mutations and that all bacteria were created with some genetic variation. There is no debate about the existence of natural selection, which allows more adapted bacteria to dominate the population.
    My question is whether there was an experiment in which it was proven in advance that there is not even one bacterium with the genetic diversity that allows it to survive better and take over the entire population.
    If there was such an experiment, it would disprove Tsunami's claim.

27. A tsunami with an end at the beginning. The one who demonstrates ignorance and lack of knowledge is you (and not Michael R.) Your words indicate a lack of understanding of evolution. Mutations, genes and "new" traits did exist in the past (for example resistance to antibiotics as you mentioned) but since the environment encouraged those who excelled in them - they gradually became the majority of the population - and this is not because the environment encouraged the creation of these mutations, but rather it caused those who excelled in it to multiply and lack it will become extinct. You send Michael R. Learn? I am short of being an advocate of his honesty, but he has receipts. He studied and has certificates for it and above all - he applied his knowledge and was successful and created things. In addition, he desperately tries to impart the knowledge he has to the ignorant - not in order to receive a reward. I wonder what you learned. I no longer ask about applications and successes.

28. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

29. reader:
    After all, such examples are provided to us every morning.
    Penicillin was the first official antibiotic drug and in the beginning it was a wonder drug that overcame many bacteria.
    Over the years, the effectiveness of penicillin has decreased and is now almost useless.
    This is the fate of every antibiotic drug and in fact there are bacterial strains that are resistant to every antibiotic.
    These strains developed - as expected - in hospitals - an environment where antibiotics are widely used.
    There are many other examples, one of the most interesting of which is of a strain of bacteria that developed the ability to digest nylon.

30. Irrespective of Tsunami's brazenness and his descent into bland and trivial details, I would be happy to receive a definitive example of creating a new mutation in bacteria.

31. Oren (137) Thanks for an interesting article
    In connection with the second example, I expressed my opinion that there was a selection of fish with armor from the beginning, that is, a trait that existed sexually then and not a mutational development.
    Regarding the first example - the question arises whether there were mutations or normal degeneration of features that were not used. In other words, did the researcher examine fry of blind parents that were born (hatched from their eggs) under light conditions?

32. Tsunami:
    It's nice that you give an executive summary before the response body.

33. A lot of wind and smoke and blasphemies and in the end it's all wind and vanity and there is no reference to the substance of claims.
    The one who testifies to himself "I feel like I'm standing here with my finger in a hole in the dam on the other side of which there is a sea - not only of ignorance but of ignorance idealization".

    is nothing but a bloated nad full of feelings of inferiority

    Go back to elementary school and start studying

34. Leave Tsunami.
    He is just a troll lacking culture and understanding.
    Almost every claim of his is false and I have no doubt that he knows he is lying.
    In the absence of anything meaningful to say, he needed every possible exercise, including attacking typos.
    In these cases, he tries to infect the person (he would not act like this if he were a person himself) a lack of understanding and a lack of control in Hebrew.
    He does not understand that some of the typing mistakes are the result of the fact that people recognize his lies as soon as they start reading his words and when they get to the end of things they are already writing so quickly and so nervously that the control over the spelling goes wrong.
    He doesn't understand that it's not important either.
    But the most interesting thing is that at the same time as all these he makes mistakes in Hebrew himself and here it is not about spelling mistakes but grammar and syntax mistakes - the kind of mistakes that indicate a lack of understanding.
    For example, in response 135 he writes "Bring evidence for mutation...."
    what do you think? Is he prophesying or perhaps he meant what a person who knows Hebrew would write in Hebrew and use the imperative rather than the future?
    I skip over many mistakes in punctuation and the use of "slang" that he does freely even though he blames it on others and reaches response 139.
    It is written there: "If my memory does not mislead me, then the reason that brings Shoshani is because of the small genetic diversity".
    Do you understand that? This is not a reason without a reason! This is about a reason whose reason is the smallness of the variety. But wait... what about the reason itself? Is it not necessary to mention her too?
    In short: since the man made sure to block his mind from all logic, so, in my opinion, my father must block the site from the blio (and it is clear that these are nonsense because many of the examples I gave in response 118 meet the criteria he set in response 135).

35. Noam, my friend
    You claim: "Because of a micar mutation passed by a tiny part of the population"
    Where did this knowledge come from that there was such a mutation?
    Maybe this is a feature from the day the world was created?
    This is exactly the question: are there mutations or are changes caused - if at all, due to mechanisms we have not yet known?
    So far - during all the years of organized scientific monitoring, not a single mutation has been observed, but only the strengthening or weakening of traits that existed then.
    Such as bacterial resistance to antibiotics, the survival of black moths that swarm all sooty alba trunks, the survival of armored fish in clear water, etc.
    This is exactly the question the researchers tried to answer when they decided to analyze the bodies of the members of Amundsen's expedition and test the properties of the bacteria that survived the cold. Disappointingly (depending on one's foresight) it turned out that some of the bacteria, which existed 40-50 years before the discovery of penicillin by Sir Alexander Fleming, were resistant to antibiotics, showing you that this is not a new feature that resulted from a mutation, accidental or voluntary, when bacteria were under the sting of antibiotics .
    And regarding the elephants: perhaps the temptation facing the hunter is to hunt elephants with large tusks, but today when the elephant population has shrunk and the selection is small and the expenses are high, the hunter will also hunt elephants with small tusks. (He may have to kill more elephants) As for myself, I see a bigger problem in the shrinking of the elephants' legs, which is already a documented phenomenon, and which is not caused by uncontrolled hunting.

36. Tsunami

    Regarding the bacteria - you managed to make me feel embarrassed for you...

    This is exactly the mechanism of Ebola. There is a large and almost identical population of bacteria of a certain type. Almost identical - because due to a micar mutation passed on by a tiny part of the population, that part has an important feature - it is not sensitive to antibiotics. One fine day antibiotics are used and then only that tiny part remains alive which, because of the mutation, is not sensitive to that medicine. It is understood that this tiny part of the bacterial population quickly takes over the space and you have a new strain of bacteria resistant to antibiotics.

    Regarding the size of the tusks - it is clear that the viability for the hunting expeditions is small in direct proportion to the size of the tusks, therefore the temptation (not the mercy) to take the risk and hunt elephants (a dangerous matter in all respects) decreases significantly with the decrease in the size of the tusks, thus giving an advantage to elephant populations with smaller tusks. Think about it - would hunting have stopped altogether if the elephant population had no tusks at all?

37. Blizovsky/ continued
    I remembered that I once read an article by Yehezkel Shoshani - the well-known elephant researcher, who says that the legs of elephants today are smaller than the norm. So what, is this also because of the hunters?
    If my memory does not mislead me, then the reason that brings Shoshani is because of the small genetic diversity, which is caused by the reduction of encounters with distant groups of elephants.

38. Blizovsky
    Is it true that you don't read what others write but what you yourself write?
    After all, you yourself stated that in the hospitals there was selection (artificial of course and not natural) the immune bacteria survived and their brothers did not. So what is there to talk about mutations here?
    And about moths. Why don't you tell the whole truth?
    After the cessation of the use of coal (Clean Air Act), the trunks of the trees were cleaned of soot, but took on a greenish tint, and then it turned out that some of the moths were white and some were black, and although today the crickets (I hope I didn't get the name of the bird wrong) eat them wholeheartedly, the required mutation of greenish moths did not occur.
    I have not heard of the elephants, but it seems to me a fundamentally far-fetched story. Did you hear about a hunter who spared an elephant because its tusks were small? They also slaughter elephants with broken tusks.
    Probably the reason for the small teeth, assuming the story is true, should be sought in other districts.
    But since you wrote that there are thousands of examples, I'm sure you can come up with a few more.
    And don't bother with examples of choice like the story about the fish lacking/with armor when already at the beginning of the article it is said that the proportion of those with armor was 6%.

39. tsunami,
    There are a few more classic examples - mutation and evolution for the same species, which gives it an ability, which takes place under a controlled experiment! Published article:
    Cave fish - fish blind from birth. In an evolutionary process their eyes developed as degenerates.
    Today we know that the development of the eye and its maintenance consumes a lot of energy, and therefore many scientists - Borowski (the author of the article) among them - believe that the loss of the eyes saves energy and frees it up for other needs, such as a better vibration sensing system, which enables the detection of movement in total darkness. In this case natural selection plays a role, and fish with smaller eyes will have an advantage over fish with normal eyes.

    Strengthening this theory can be found in the fact that all the mutations found in these fish led to the reduction of the eye, and not just to a simple damage to its activity, which could have been random. So the sentence of Desiderius Erasmus that "in the kingdom of the blind the blind eye is king" is not true in the case of the darkness of the caves.

    The researchers took two different cave fish, from different isolated areas. They predicted that the different species were both exposed to the processes of evolution, and therefore both species, because of the "blindness" preference, would be blind and indeed so. But according to the theory of evolution, they also expected that the mutations that would lead to blindness in each of the species would not be the same, because these were two isolated species in different places - and each of them "followed a different evolutionary path" but for the same goal - the loss of sight (which turns out to give an advantage in caves). That is, the mutations that led to their blindness will likely be different. They decided to test the theory.

    Therefore, the researchers predicted in advance that if they interbreed between the different species, then in each new generation there would be a certain percentage of mutations, which would result in the birth of an offspring with a mutation that would allow them to see - even though there is no preference for this in their environment. And wonder and wonder - it did happen! It didn't just happen... 40% of the offspring were born with the ability to see!
    That is, the normal genes they received from one parent compensated for the defective genes they inherited from the other parent, and vice versa. This illustrates how a mutation in one species can change the evolution of an entire species.
    In addition, another sign of evolution is presented here - randomness:
    All the fish living in the dark became blind.
    The reason for this is probably energy saving.
    The mutation they underwent was almost completely random and was proven when they took similar types of different fish and mated them, 40% of the offspring were born with sight.
    If the mutation was completely directed the offspring would be blind as well.
    This is of course another complication in understanding evolution and why God is redundant in this equation.

    If they stay in the caves those offspring will have no preference to survive compared to their brothers (in the dark caves). On the contrary, the "seeers" will be at a loss due to the reasons I brought up earlier (loss of energy) and their ability to survive will decrease.
    On the other hand, the same fish that took them out of the caves - those born with the mutation that allowed them to see survived to a greater extent than their blind brothers. Eventually, outside the caves, their blind brothers will become extinct (exposed to predators and have a hard time competing for food compared to their sighted brothers, etc.). This is living evolution!!!
    Link to article:
    http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3506387,00.html

    A second example, also in fish for example:
    Rapid evolution of a fish forced to adapt to a new situation: due to the cleaning of a polluted and cloudy lake, the lake became clear.
    The fish that were used to living under a blanket of dirt in murky water (where you could see less than a meter away) started a rapid evolutionary process to become armorless, because the danger from a predator was relatively low. Although in the distant past they had scaly armor, they no longer needed it and were armorless - evolution (thinking about the advantages of those mutations without armor is simple - consume less energy due to the lack of armor, are more agile in reaching food, etc.).
    It turned out that several years after the cleaning of the lake (by humans) those fish now have full body armor - a reverse evolution. This is because those armored mutant fish now had a higher survival priority again!

    Here is a link to the article:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/reverse-evolution-in-the-threespine-stickleback-fish-3105085/

    If that doesn't convince you, I don't know what will

40. An added feature - bacteria that previously died from antibiotics are suddenly resistant to it, white butterflies that lived on the trunks of birch trees died and were replaced by black butterflies that can get along with the soot of the industry that covered the birch trees, a tendency among elephants to have smaller trunks due to the pressure of ivory poachers, and these are just three Classic examples out of thousands of new traits that species have gained in the last hundred and fifty years.

41. Michael R

    It turns out that not only do you not know how to write in Hebrew, you also do not understand what you read
    Bring evidence of a mutation that was scientifically reported (that is, in the last 150 years), that is, of a certain feature that was added to the species and that did not exist in it before.
    A trait that belongs to the genome and not some story about some deformity that is not inherited.
    And you should go to the teacher at the elementary school and ask for the tuition fees back or to have them put you in reading comprehension classes because it seems to me that you are at the right age

42. or!
    I take all the hard claims back with joy.

43. Michael

    The link you provided is really helpful and gives an excellent answer.

44. Quarksome:
    Indeed - as soon as someone makes a claim that contradicts a mathematical theorem, I have no doubt that he is wrong.
    It's not the fact that he sees things differently from me that makes them false, but the fact that he sees them in a way that can be mathematically contradicted

45. by Michael R. (formerly Michael):
    Apparently the way I presented the matter is not palatable. I won't try other ways because I don't know which way will smell good for you.
    However, based on the way you described things as simple in your eyes, you can conclude that there are others who see the same things with the same unequivocal simplicity as you, but completely differently.
    Does this make one of the sides true and the other false I don't think so.
    In the same way you can look at the probabilistic mathematical interpretation of evolution.
    This doesn't rule out other avenues that you just aren't looking at right now because you're not interested or because you don't have the patience or just because you don't feel like it.

46. Quarksome:
    You went from quarks to magic.
    I have no idea what you're talking about.
    What I do know is that when there is a mathematical theorem that says if A then B and you manage to see that A is indeed A then you can conclude with certainty that B is as well.
    This is the situation in evolution and therefore it can be concluded with certainty that there is evolution.
    This does not rule out the possibility that there is also yellow cheese.

47. by Michael R. (formerly Michael):
    As the best mathematician of all, I am at your feet, but it is well known that a proof that does not rule out other possibilities does not prove anything but according to the point of view in question.
    When you prove observations according to a certain interpretation, it does not rule out many other variations and many other interpretations that were not reflected in the range of observations in question

48. Brael:
    Indeed - if you asked about thousands - I might have answered yes and I might have gone looking - as I did and found that there are actually 64 on average
    What's so weird?
    Don't you see the difference between trillions trillions and a thousand?
    Let's make a deal.
    I will give you a thousand NIS and you will give you a trillion trillion (you see - I am not greedy - I did not write trillion trillion) NIS in return.
    agree?

49. Quarksome:
    According to the wording of your words, I am quite convinced that mathematics is really only a little (very) your profession.
    What does "if and only if" have to do with it?
    When there is a sentence that says that if A holds then B also holds, it can be concluded from it that whenever A holds B also holds.
    This is the case with evolution - if the conditions I described about reproduction are met, evolution takes place.

    By the way - what does geometry have to do with it? Will there be if and only if theorems in geometry?
    You're just trying to throw sand in your eyes.

50. even though

    Michael, what you are doing is called intellectual dishonesty. I asked an honest question whether there are trillions of genes in my body that will produce trillions of mostly worthless mutations, to create a process of natural selection. Your answer was "no". point.

    Oh sorry. If I asked about "thousands" and not about "trillions" you would answer "yes".

    Leave, leave.

51. by Michael R. (formerly Michael):
    Mathematics happens to be a bit too professional.
    The probabilistic proof is not a matter of if and only if, as for example in geometric proofs.
    You can prove positive for a certain route, but you cannot rule out endless other routes that you did not treat. Therefore, this is not conclusive proof.
    It's nice that you send me to read as much as I can send you to read.
    For every point of view someone has written there will be enough opposing points of view.
    And all of them have proofs of the above kind only positive but not a single condition.

52. incidentally:
    Since I don't like to throw out untested numbers, I did a little research on the mutation rate in humans.
    Here is one of the links I found:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

53. Brael:
    Since you are putting words in our mouths without asking us, then there is really no point in you continuing to argue with us.
    You can deal with the characters you make up more successfully.

    Have you heard any of us say that there aren't thousands of mutations in everyone?
    No. But that doesn't stop you from claiming that it is.

    In short - honesty is not your strong point.

    The answer about the flying spaghetti monster was completely to the point but - if it offends you - I have no problem switching to a cup of tea in orbit around the earth.

54. Quarksome:
    After you finish studying the necessary background material - you should read, for example, this book:
    http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-3527408304.html

55. Michael and Oren

    Almost against my will I am dragged into a response, I hope for the last time.

    First of all, I could not find the basic questions I asked anywhere. Give me the credit.

    Secondly, I will try to explain to you what the problem is for me with your answers.

    The problem is that the answers close the matter for you and do not allow you to continue the discussion about their possible consequences regarding other parts of the theory, regarding additional aspects, regarding other theories, etc. In other words, your answers are not an opening for further discussion, but "with that we have closed the issue". The only thing I have to do for you is to admit that you are right and I am wrong, and thus close the matter.

    For example, to the question of whether there is a large amount of genetic changes in my body (well, not trillions. Just ten thousand, let's say) that would be an opening for mutations, natural selection and so on, your answer is "no". What is left for me to say? fine got it. The answer does raise questions about the lengthening of the source of the Pharisees in the Galapagos, for example, but there is no reason to ask it just to get the answer "We already told you no, one donkey, what, don't you understand?"

    Well, I didn't ask. Regarding the negation of the possibility (more correctly, the non-negation of the possibility) that the change of organisms under changing conditions results from a built-in adaptability, you answered me about the flying spaghetti machine. Well, we also closed the discussion on this unimportant topic.

    So you are right and I am wrong. This. This time I really finished.

    post Scriptum.
    Is trying to disprove a theory a criminal offense? (Rhetorical question of course)

56. Quarksome:
    You are wrong.
    There is proof.
    I assume that your words stem from a lack of familiarity with the mathematical field called probability.
    Nor is it about any specific algorithm.
    In short - you have a lot to learn before you start talking about the topic of taste.

57. Michael R. (formerly Michael):
    There is no mathematical proof. There is an algorithm that can be shown to be positive.
    This does not rule out variations of the same seemingly natural selection, but in a way that is not so natural, for example at a very high speed or with very few initial variables or development in negative directions precisely contrary to the trend in the initial assumption. So the explanation will not be natural but some kind of higher power.
    As for the second point that he must be alive, then really not exactly as your assumption about naturalness depends on the parameters you determine to be natural.
    Avi Blizovsky:
    Nature is a matter that depends on the setting of the parameters of the frame.
    You just adjust them to see your eyes. There is no reason not to accept the possibility that evolution may flow in completely unnatural ways. That is, as soon as the supreme power decides, it can cause a person or a group to get a degenerative disease at once and another group not. There is no reason not to accept, for example, Mechta Korouth as some variant of that evolution itself. Most of the time you enter within the known parameters except when the same higher power has a different interest.

58. Tsunami:
    And you keep lying.
    Natural mutations are found all the time.
    If you want to ignore mongoloids and fish from the depths and rats who have eyes that cannot see and who live in a malaria-stricken area who have developed resistance at the expense of an increased tendency to sickle cell anemia then you must also ignore what is written here:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-speciation.pdf
    And here:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/reverse-evolution-in-the-threespine-stickleback-fish-3105085
    And here:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/lizard-fast-evolution-230408/

    I assume that you will also continue to fall for linguistic trifles while demonstrating a total lack of understanding both in the content of the things and in the manner of saying them

59. Tsunami:
    Who's your name examines kidneys and heart?
    You misinterpreted what I meant

60. Avi Blizovsky
    You made a classic mistake and mixed 2 completely different teachings
    Evolution - Schlmark and Darwin's grandfather already recognized and supported it
    And natural selection - Darwin was a prophet.
    We talked about evolution and Michael R's theory was that in the course of antibiotics, new immune mutations were created.
    And speaking of mutations. In 150 years of scientific monitoring they have not yet found natural mutations among animals (and as you know viruses are not animals) so where will evolution draw its power from?
    And besides, I am happy that we are slowly teaching Michael R. Hebrew. In this lesson we will learn that 'tifleka' is a creature of inferior languages ​​and one should say 'hastaraba'!

61. Quarksum, human actions are also in terms of a natural factor (as far as I know we are not machines, at least not me). Man exerted selective pressure on the bacteria not to experiment with evolution. On the contrary, the result of the development of resistant bacteria is against the will of the person.

62. Barel,
    Just to reinforce what Michael said. Today there are "albation algorithms" that are supposed to "simulate (create a simulation)", that is to describe mathematically the phenomenon of natural selection. This is manifested in robotics, biology, materials science, physics and many other fields.
    Just an example:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-of-eficiancy-2602092/

    The more famous use is the development of learning robots (with artificial intelligence). There is an article on the website that, as far as I remember, is based on this, in the field of robotics, but I couldn't find it (I spent 2 minutes trying to search for the truth). If you want I will try and find or others will find for me.

63. reader:
    I have already realized that the "interesting thought" of these people is never original.
    As the examples that Oren brought show - it turns out that these questions have already been raised in the past and I am quite sure that Barel also took his question from such a source.
    I was amazed by the question because I had not encountered it before and had not thought about it myself.
    I was really happy for the opportunity to deal with you and it seems to me that I did it well - in fact, in my opinion, better than the person who wrote the sections that Oren pointed out did.
    I did this, as mentioned, more for me and for other serious people than for Barel, who from the beginning I suspected would not try to understand and later I was convinced that he was making every effort not to understand.

64. Nablus=>that even before the idiot jumps on the bargain again

65. Brael:
    All the questions you raised were answered by me.
    All my answers received a stubborn response and lacked any desire to understand on your part.
    If there is anything insulting it is this kind of attitude you have shown and the blunt language I have used from time to time was because your attitude just annoyed me.
    Of course your current attempt to rewrite history is annoying.

66. Quarksome:
    You're just wrong.
    Natural selection and even evolution in its entirety are among the most mathematical theories in science.
    It is possible to prove mathematically that when there are factors that replicate themselves with (note! Tsunami! I wrote "with" in E! Yes! I didn't suffer from a spelling mistake this time! What will you do?!) probability of small errors in replication and these factors compete for resources and the more successful they are More in competition, they are also more successful in reproduction - evolution will begin.
    This fact is well used - especially (but not only) in computer science and allows finding good solutions to problems that sometimes do not know how to solve otherwise!
    The theorem is, as mentioned, mathematical and therefore it is enough to prove that in nature the threshold requirements for its application are met in order to know with mathematical certainty that the conclusion arising from it is also met.
    Checking the existence of the threshold conditions in nature is very simple and they do exist - both at the level of genes and at the level of organisms.
    Therefore evolution must exist and your whole claim about the intelligent creator loses its legs.
    Of course - the claim that I repeat for the thousandth time - that an intelligent creator cannot (by definition) be an explanation for life because he himself is alive - also remains true.

67. Michael

    The arguments I put forward are part (a very small one) of a set of contradictions that do not reconcile regarding random evolution, from the philosophical level to the individual level. The question of symmetry, as well as the question of motivation and consciousness, are not solved thanks to genes, in this context, more than they solve physiological problems, they are a panacea for any problem that is difficult to answer. The definition of the arguments that I brought as "garbage" does not indicate them but only says it.

    A person who knows without a doubt that his opinion is correct does not need insults and the use of bad language during an argument. The reason I am withdrawing from the discussion is not because my intellectual disgrace has been proven. With the exception of the answer about symmetry - which does indeed give an answer at the molecular level but just as much sharpens other questions such as deterministic development - you did not address any of the issues I raised. The reason is the contemptuous treatment of anyone who does not hold your faith. Just unpleasant.

68. Avi Blizovsky
    "Natural selection" is not a mathematical theory that can be proven in a pure mathematical way as usual.
    It is simply an algorithm as a result of the conclusions that arise from statistical analyzes of the observed phenomena.
    And since this is so, there is nothing inherent in the selection but a choice of the commentators. In the same way, evolution can be used by creationists. Because it can be said that the force driving "natural selection" is not natural at all because there is no mathematical proof that forces it. After all, by the same token, the choice could have gone in a completely different direction. And if we continue along the same line, we can also say that at different times natural selection behaved in different ways according to certain parameters that nobody knows for such complex systems. So it is quite possible that "natural selection" is rather the work of a higher power than natural forces as you tend to believe in them.

69. Tsunami, yes - the bacteria adapt to antibiotics. Bacteria are circulating in hospitals that are already resistant to all types of antibiotics. The reason is simple - natural selection eliminated all those who were not resistant to antibiotics and thus the resistant ones remained and they are the ones who gave birth to the next generations of bacteria. This is the most important practical illustration of evolution.
    As for the people, I got your comment, and next time he will suggest that you talk to someone like-minded.

70. You are really standing with your finger in the hole in the dam and doing important work. Please forgive me for not joining you in arguments, but I have long since come to the conclusion that it is better to invest the energy in other channels and stick your fingers in other holes in the dam because there is no point in arguing with people who do not want to be convinced and who only speak to hear themselves. This includes Raanan who is full of interesting ideas but unwilling to read anything that contradicts them. He would have done well in the Middle Ages as a peddler of potions, but he doesn't understand that in this day and age you also have to prove what you say and refer to all the information already collected by smart people in the past. And of course this also includes Barel who started with a good question but refuses to accept all the good answers to it. The problem of symmetry was solved a long time ago with the discovery of genes in DNA and the discovery that one gene can dictate two or more sides of the body. And so a sea lily or an octopus does not need to develop eight arms each separately but only develop one good arm and multiply it by eight. But what do you care about refreshing and baral? They have already said their interesting thought and from it they will not back down, even if a whole community of scientists has already thought about the problems they presented and found proven and good solutions.

71. Blizovsky
    No! I have a recipe for the one Michael R. mentioned:

    "Every sensible person knows that bacteria adapt to antibiotics. I suggest you talk to a sensible person sometime if there is one in your environment."

    And on the same occasion, he sent the aforementioned to also learn Hebrew, how to spell simple words like "am"

72. Delete the warning!
    The script is not to be answered, get ready, we'll meet soon.

73. Thank you, reader.
    The truth is that sometimes I want to stop too, but I feel that I am standing here with my finger in a hole in the dam on the other side of which is a sea - not only of burnouts but of idealization of burnouts.
    I have a lot of material I want to read and I find myself wasting most of my time chasing book burners and writers.

74. fresh:
    What is "feed me"?
    Is it talking nonsense?
    If that's what you mean then I agree. All you have to do to calm down is stop talking nonsense.
    By the way - maybe you can tell me where you think I spoke irrelevantly?
    See the level of Barel's arguments.
    seriously!
    They wrote all this rubbish just so I could ask him how Descartes knew he was doubting?
    This is called postponing the end. There is no logic in this, but logic does not interest him because he has a clear goal and his goal is such that logic simply does not add up.

75. Labarel
    Don't get excited about Michael, he just has a blunt style, but even so, he sometimes has witty words, you just have to not feed him when he starts talking irrelevant and he calms down.

76. Tsunami, do you mean a bar named Menachem Ben?

77. Michael R.
    The level of your arguments is at the level of a religious fanatic:
    Every sane person knows there is a God. Why are you arguing with me?

78. Before I leave for good, a few quotes from your comments:

    He continues to claim that he came in the name of "science". (I just clarified that it was not).

    How did Descartes know that he was thinking. (He didn't. He just knew he was doubting. But how do you know you're thinking?)

    ...opinion versus theory (the psycho-physical problem, for example, is an opinion?)

    What does Descartes that belongs to philosophy have to do with evolution and science? (I tried to explain, apparently there is no chance).

    Have a happy independence day everyone.

79. Thank you Michael. Personally, as a reader of the site for years, I avoid being dragged into arguments with people who do not understand or do not want to understand the basic rules of logic in discussions. The very fact that you continue to try and make an effort to explain to them sometimes against their will is a miracle to me. You have my full appreciation.

80. The last anonymous user was me

81. Michael,
    I'm sorry I'm not continuing this discussion. I don't have the time and energy to support you. After all, it is clear that Barel came here in the first place under the guise of trying to extract claims that support his views (opinion, as opposed to theory...). I didn't even suspect it at first, and I thought it was just me. Look at how at the beginning he still vehemently denies affiliation with any religion or belief, and look now how he inexplicably directs the direction of the discussion. He twists everything he hears, reads and what we say. Hear only what he wants.

    Such a person already comes with a decision known in advance - what is called faith. Nothing will convince him, not proofs, arguments and logic and nothing.

    I am in favor of your continued attempt to explain and discuss with him, but I no longer think I will actively participate in the specific discussion. At first I tried because I thought he came to really learn, but very quickly he removed the disguise (while continuing to claim that he came in the name of "science"). I think the main reason he states in almost all of his responses that he "doesn't come as a believer" is because he knew it would weaken his credibility from the start. He only came to the site with the aim of finding "weapons" against evolution and science, and also in the hope that he could extract these tools from science enthusiasts who, to his disappointment, would find supporting arguments for him (hence the "disguise").

    Anyway, good luck, and don't give up.

82. You are just idiots. What Descartes has to do with philosophy belongs to evolution and science, you've made a complete mess. Beautiful silence for the wise.

83. Brael:
    Are you in an infinite loop?
    Tell me: how did Descartes know that he thinks?
    The "examples" you gave are not examples of knowledge. They only demonstrate the fact that you have no idea what the word "knowledge" means.

84. Michael

    You have two mistakes. Your claim that Descartes based his assertion on the input of the senses is the complete opposite of what happened. He based his assertion precisely on the assumption that his senses are deceiving him, and that the world may not exist at all. The second mistake is that this statement is "not significant for the world". This is the most significant and fundamental statement about the world. If you choose to ignore her - leave.

    Look, for you the world is very simple. There are genetics, there are genes, and these are responsible for all evolution. As far as you are concerned, why am I even confusing your mind? After all, it has been proven that there are genes that create shapes, that create features, that regulate symmetry, etc., etc., etc. After all, they have found gardens for everything, and whatever they have slowly found a garden for - they will find it (and I truly believe they will).

    So why do I still confuse the brain? Because even if they crack the entire genome of all living creatures on earth, it is still presumptuous, arrogant and ignorant to claim that we discovered the origin of life in this way. We speak two completely different languages. You try to find the source of life in the micro, in the tiny details that are getting smaller and smaller. I maintain that with all the importance (and respect), and with all the benefit that biological research brings to humanity from a practical point of view, the attempt to theoretically trace the origin of life in molecules and atoms is doomed in advance to failure, because if you do not always keep the view of the macro, you will inevitably reach a dead end.

    Example: The assertion that any connection of identity between the object and the subject is impossible is related to a problem known as the psycho-physical problem. This problem can be ignored when dealing with practical research, but it cannot be ignored when trying to claim that consciousness and thinking were born from physical matter. How can this problem be dismissed as unimportant or irrelevant? It is the most relevant thing you can think of. If you ignore her you simply look for the coin under the lamp, find something and be happy about it, but at some point you will obviously reach a dead end.

    Another example: Roy gives in one of the previous responses an example of a (possible) gene that resulted in some creature having the motivation to live, which gave it an evolutionary advantage, etc. But a change that turns indifferent material into motivated material is a jump from one set of rules to an entirely different set of rules. This is not "another mutation"; There is a seemingly impossible transformation here that requires an explanation. This particular gene, if it existed, can at most be considered a trigger or a technical mediator, but not as the creator of the miracle - and it cannot be called otherwise - of jumping from one set of rules to another. (We don't know any physical matter that has motivation, or at least no physical matter that has told us about it). You can insist that it's just another kind of garden, but why do you come later with claims for a religion that talks about miracles?

    And so on.

85. Brael:
    I have no mistake.
    Descartes knew that he thought based on the input of his senses. He felt it and therefore based himself on it.
    The claim that this is an insignificant assertion about the world stems from the fact that it is an assertion about Descartes only.
    It is true that you can repeat the process and reach a similar conclusion about yourself, but even about Descartes you cannot be convinced of its correctness.
    In any case - you are still welcome to respond to the challenge I have put before you.

86. Michael

    You have two mistakes. Your claim that Descartes based his assertion on the input of the senses is the complete opposite of what happened. He based his assertion precisely on the assumption that his senses are deceiving him, and that the world may not exist at all. The second mistake is "insignificant for the world". This is the most significant and fundamental statement about the world. If you choose to ignore her - leave.

    Look, for you the world is very simple. There are genetics, there are genes, and these are responsible for all evolution. As far as you are concerned, why am I even confusing your mind? After all, it has been proven that there are genes that create shapes, that create features, that regulate symmetry, etc., etc., etc. After all, they have found gardens for everything, and whatever they have slowly found a garden for - they will find it (I really believe they will).

    So why do I still confuse the brain? Because even if they crack the entire genome of all living creatures on earth, it is still presumptuous, arrogant and ignorant to claim that they discovered the secret of life. We speak two completely different languages. You try to find the source of life in the micro, in the tiny details that are getting smaller and smaller. I claim that with all the importance (and

87. Tsunami:
    I have no strength for your nonsense.
    1. There is no description of a mechanism for inheriting features in your text. I suggest that you try reading the Bible once to get rid of this strange prejudice.
    In the patchwork story, no mechanism is described and when I talk about a mechanism I'm talking about something like the DNA.
    2. Everyone knows that bacteria adapt to antibiotics. I suggest that you talk to a reasonable person sometime if there is one in your area.
    3. Observations on pigeons helped Darwin to discover the theory of evolution, but the theory of evolution does not only talk about pigeons (if you meet the same wise man, ask him also if he agrees with my claim that there are other animals in the world besides pigeons). In general - the fact that they knew something before does not mean that evolution does not predict it. The theory of relativity also predicts things some of which were known before but were not understood (eg the movement of the planet Mercury).
    4. I don't know what you define as critical, but actually vertebrae between the monkey and man were discovered. Probably yours, no one discovered that several such intermediate links were discovered.
    5. Quantum theory also does not predict when beta decay will occur. You're just not looking at the right resolution but I'm sure that sentence goes way beyond you.

    This conceit with phrases like philosophy of science to support claims that no serious scientist and no serious philosopher accepts is pathetic.
    See for example the following statement common to all academic institutions in the world:
    http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf
    By the way - I have read a lot in this field and unlike you, I also understand what I am reading.

88. fresh:
    Everyone here is a fan of philosophy and everyone who accepts the scientific method is skeptical.
    You see Barel as a "skeptic" only because he is trying to defend a far-fetched idea and dismiss an idea that has received many confirmations.
    As I said here and elsewhere - the idea of ​​intelligent creation has no value because the claim that a living being is necessary for the creation of life renounces in advance any explanation for the origin of life.

89. Michael R.
    All the examples you gave are wrong:
    1. Existence of a mechanism of inheritance of traits known from ancient times - see the story of Jacob and the Patches (if you sometimes consult the book of books)
    2. Are you sure there is adaptation of bacteria to antibiotics? More than 100 years ago, bacteria resistant to antibiotics were discovered in the stomachs of the Amundsen men, who perished on their way to the Pole.
    Conclusion - a certain percentage of bacteria are naturally immune. The use of antibiotics eliminates those who are not immune and thus we are left with the more violent bacteria. And therefore the antibiotics are also more violent.
    3 You claim that "evolution predicts the ability to exercise artificial selection on animals and adjust them" read Darwin's "Origin of Species" and you will find that one of the pillars of his theory is observations he made on pigeon breeders who give their pigeons certain characteristics.
    So what came before what? Darwin's observations or predictions?
    4. Precisely the critical intermediate links were not found.
    What about the creature that is between the monkey and man?
    5. The theory of evolution does not give any explanation how/when new species are created and certainly does not predict when and where we will see a new species
    Michael R. You should once read a serious book on the philosophy of science and distinguish between scientific theory
    A religious hypothesis that has all its strength in providing explanations.
    To date, the theory of evolution has not given a more convincing explanation than, say, Greek mythology

    By the way, before you get carried away and talk about mutations in viruses - check if viruses are life forms that evolution applies to

90. Labarel

    It's nice to see that there is another philosophy lover like me here who doubts, and for our purposes

    The fact that you think does not necessarily mean that you exist, maybe you are just someone else's dream?, maybe you live in the Matrix, etc., so a more accurate sentence in terms of our certainty of its truth would be: "I think means something exists, in some sense of existence" (i.e. that not necessarily existence in the sense of something alive, or anything else we can conjure up in our limited imagination)

    And when there is a contradiction between pure logic and science, it is impossible to know who is right, sometimes logic will be right and sometimes science, because the fact that you have not found a logical flaw in your logic does not mean that your logic faithfully represents reality, just as a million experiments whose results are predicted by scientific theory with perfect accuracy still do not Gives 100% certainty that we understood the reality.
    And that's the truth that you can't know anything significant with 100% certainty, it's all beliefs.
    At the same time, in my opinion, acceptance of the theory of evolution is 99.999……% and evolution does not contradict the existence of a god or any spaghetti monster and does not increase or decrease the likelihood of their existence.

91. And one more interesting thing about you, Barel:
    The more a person's scientific education increases, the less likely he is to believe in the existence of God.
    This is repeated and proven in every study that is done and also here:
    http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

92. Brael:
    I think you are rambling but you know what? Come and share with us something you have learned about the world outside of science and explain to us why we should accept it.

    Science consists of experiments and drawing logical conclusions.
    We accept the axioms of logic as true both because experience confirms their correctness all the time and because as human beings we have no other choice.
    We also accept the input of our senses as reality for the same reason.
    Descartes' claim is an inference of a logical conclusion from the input of the senses and therefore largely meets the criteria of a scientific claim.
    Of course, this is not a really significant claim about the world, but let's go.

    I repeat, therefore, and suggest that you point to knowledge that can be obtained other than through the scientific method.

    Your words about evolution are of course meaningless especially in light of the fact that the existence of evolution can actually be proven mathematically based on very simple assumptions whose existence can be tested very simply.

93. A. I did not claim that religion is science. It is not a science and therefore its way of thinking is different.

    B. I did not claim anything in the name of religion or faith, because I am not religious. At most I argued in the name of philosophy.

    third. According to your claim, everything that is not within the scope of "science" in its academic form today is not able to explain anything to us about the world, and therefore it can be thrown in the trash or used as an opium for the masses, the phrase that is so endearing. I don't agree with that. You can learn about the world from art, poetry, intuition, religion, even music, and philosophy.

    d. Philosophy, when it takes into account the most basic fundamental concepts in our cognition, and first and foremost systems of laws, is the supreme and absolute tool for determining what can exist and what cannot exist. As such it is superior to science. If science determines an assumption that cannot exist according to philosophy - philosophy prevails. I know this statement jumps all fuses here, but just to demonstrate a basic concept - Descartes' cogito statement "I think means I exist", the most primal statement of consciousness, cannot be contradicted by any discipline - scientific, philosophical, religious or otherwise . So is the fundamental statement derived from it "the subject and the object can never connect in our knowledge, and any connection between them is borderline impossible".

    God. In a logical-mathematical progression from these initial determinations to their derivatives - which also cannot be contradicted unless we "go crazy" in thinking - it turns out that the theory of random evolution stands on chicken's knees. The logical course is long and it is impossible to bring it here, but I would be happy to bring it in a suitable framework if requested. (By the way, the determination of the cogito itself raises a very heavy question mark on the theory of evolution in its current form.)

    Another thing for Oren - the claim attributed to religion "it happens because God wants it" is a flattening of religion, a flattening that is very convenient for atheists. The claim is "God is causing this to happen because it is what needs to happen." You can argue with this too, but at least present the argument correctly.

94. Brael:
    In your response to which I referred, you did not speak of an intelligent creator but of an intelligent force.
    Since I see myself as an intelligent force - I wrote that no intelligent person denies the existence of an intelligent force.
    I see that every word needs to be interpreted for you although I'm pretty sure that won't help either.
    Let me also explain the word "explanation" for you.
    An explanation is a combination of claims that shows how facts that seem puzzling arise from facts we already understand.
    As soon as we try to "explain" something by referring to a concept that we define in advance as incomprehensible - we are not actually explaining anything. We are just throwing sand in the eyes of humanity.
    Of course, when I say "we" I mean you and not me.
    The claim of the existence of the intelligent creator that you talked about in your last comment and that is talked about by all those who want to defend the religions but realize that they cannot defend any other part of them, not only does it not explain anything but it is also devoid of content in the sense that it does not point to any way in which a world with a creator is supposed to be Different from a world without a creator. This is actually the definition of the unscientific nature of the claim.
    The fact that it is impossible to prove the opposite is an infinitely weak argument. Can you disprove the fact that you are nothing more than a brain in a test tube and that I created you along with all your imaginations?

95. Barhl

    The problem with the idea of ​​the intelligent creator is that it is such a successful idea that it can justify and explain anything - but anything - that you want.
    An idea that explains everything - explains nothing.

    The idea of ​​the intelligent creator is a defeatist idea that is useless.
    Oh - and of course he doesn't even have a shred of proof.

96. Harel,
    Where is the denial of a fact? You mean denial of claim. And this is what happens in science when you make a claim that does not have any supporting evidence or the ability to explain a phenomenon and predict it. And saying "it happens because God wants it" does not count.

    This is the problem with religion from the beginning. It has no facts. She doesn't need facts. On the contrary - it is based on reality so there are no proofs - this is where the word faith comes from. There is no proof - you have to believe. Repeating the word "fact" along with "God" or "religion" enough times will not make them related. You deliberately avoid the word "belief" and replace it with the word "fact" (in a twisted way). The very fact that you make the exchange shows that you are aware of the implication of classifying religion as faith - something that is not scientific, hypothetical (also not) compared to science. You try to throw all the signs of science - proven, tested and more - on religion, which is the exact opposite of it.

97. To Michael

    The problem is that the evolutionists laugh at the religions because of the very idea of ​​an intelligent creator (see Richard Dawkins), which means precisely the negation of one fact because of the existence of another fact.

    On the other hand, the religious approach (or let's call it religious, to distinguish it from the fundamentalist approach) does not deny the existence of evolution because of the fact of the existence of an intelligent creator, but claims that an intelligent creator must also use certain tools to create something intelligent, or more precisely to transmit his intelligent creation the ideational to the physical dimension (see genetic code value).

98. Tsunami:
    Your words, of course, are wrong.
    Evolution predicted the existence of a mechanism for inheriting traits and such a mechanism was discovered.
    Evolution predicted adaptation of bacteria to antibiotics and such adaptation was discovered.
    Evolution predicts the ability to exercise artificial selection on animals and adjust them - generation after generation to our needs and humans have indeed been doing this long before the idea of ​​evolution was raised.
    Evolution predicted the existence of intermediate stages between different types of living beings and such intermediate stages were indeed discovered.
    Of course, none of this will make you admit to a mistake because you knew all this in advance and your whole intention was... oh well...

    Brael:
    It is much easier to make fun of religions when you know them.
    I don't know how well you know them, but if you don't - you should try and see for yourself how funny they are.
    The thesis that the very existence of evolution contradicts the existence of an intelligent force is not raised by any intelligent being because an intelligent being is aware of its existence as well as the existence of evolution and since it is intelligent it will never claim that one existing fact contradicts another existing fact.
    What evolution (as well as discoveries made in other sciences) does contradict is the correctness of religion's claims, which are much broader than the claim that there is an intelligent force (which is true for every religion).

99. I don't believe everything they try to "sell" to me that the theory of evolution is wrong (they don't even try that hard. My father, for example, still believes that he is descended from monkeys, and as far as I know him there may be something to it). But I do try to think logically and adapt the reality I know to what the followers of the theory of evolution are trying to sell me as "proven" facts.

    It is very easy to take religions and make fun of them, especially those who are not familiar with their deep foundations (and I am not religious). But try to deal with assumptions that accept the fact of the existence of evolution and the existence of genes and mutations, yet do not accept the assumption of coincidences (and yes, there is nothing to do, it is only an "assumption" and not a fact).

    The thesis that the very existence of evolution contradicts the existence of an intelligent force is foolish. No one in the world has any idea how the genes actually work, and there hasn't been a natural scientist yet who will show him a genetic formula and he will predict in advance which mutation will result from it, without the result being known in retrospect. There is no way to investigate how a certain mathematical formula turns into black hair, a runny nose or a tendency to stomach ulcers. And as long as the situation is like this, it is absolutely possible to make any possible assumption about a motive for evolution, including an intelligent motive - and we haven't even talked about the philosophical absurdity of human reason, which suddenly appears out of nowhere in a world that contains no reason and shows an abysmal indifference to its fate. So if God is called "natural selection" and is blind, deaf and has no motive - so be it. The main thing is that there is God.

100. The author of the article states as a fact the "success of the theory of evolution". Not her!
     Scientific Torah is judged by its prophecies. If it fails to predict the results of one and only experiment then it has failed.
     For example, Newton's theory of mechanics failed to predict the Morley-Michelson experiment, therefore it is considered a wrong theory today (and if it is used, caveats are published for the conditions of use and the accuracy of the results)
     The theory of evolution has not yet predicted any result that has stood the test of reality
     Where are all the prophecies that following the atomic explosions such and other monsters will grow?

101. : )

102. Pine:
     One boy came home from school and said to his father:
     "Dad, today we learned that man is the son of the monkey"
     His father (Tsarli) did not hesitate for a moment and answered him:
     "Maybe you but I'm not!"

103. Views:
     This Pat Condell is simply legendary.
     http://www.hofesh.org.il/articles/god/pat-condell.html

104. Michael,
     And I went to ask him to save me a good place near the bananas...

105. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f01IBDoZGg&feature=related

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Vaw658Bow8&NR=1

     Here is an Englishman talking about the religious through the non-religious.

106. I'm sorry:
     As someone who does not only speak but speaks to himself - you must be hospitalized.

107. To all the creatures born of the apes, stop yelling and climb back into the trees.

108. Miracles:
     First of all - you did write that Darwin said that his theory was refuted and you even pointed to the refutation as a sentence he said in the present tense (his present). Now - being caught - you are trying to give your words a different meaning.
     Besides - intermediate stages were found and between us - intermediate stages between fish and land animals exist even today and are called amphibians.

109. Nissim, I'm glad you enjoy studying Torah. I believe that there is no holiness in any text, not even in Darwin's texts. It is not their holiness that makes us believe in them but the millions of proofs that you deny.

110. To Michael: I didn't say that Darwin disproved the theory, of course he believed in the theory he spread. But he also pointed out that if in the future they investigate and find no fossils that prove the existence of building creatures, then it will be possible to say that the theory is incorrect.
     Also regarding the fossil finds: if you are talking about honesty: I also sat down and checked

     "Anyone who rejects the claim that intermediate forms exist but have not yet been discovered, must reject the entire theory" (ibid., p. 336). And in other words, as mentioned: if it turns out that there are no intermediate forms, I admit - says Darwin - my theory of evolution is incorrect.

     "The fossil findings clearly show that large groups, such as the series of mammals (rodents, carnivores, etc.) appear in the fossil findings in a sudden manner that does not allow us to claim that they constitute a final stage of gradual development" (Time Frames, Simon and Schuster, New York 1985, p. 146) "The possibility that the variety of life forms known to us today developed gradually is completely dismissed, because there is no possibility of gradually arriving at a real new species" (ibid., p. 61).

     As mentioned, it is clear to everyone that the marine fish did not give birth to a land animal, and a large land animal did not give birth to a human. But according to the theory of evolution, there have been many changes over millions of years in the generations that have been born. If so, we would have to find from each animal hundreds or thousands of generations of different forms that arose during the gradual transition from the marine fish to the land animal. And there are none!!

     Lenaam: Our perception as human beings is that everything has a creator, the carpenter created the table
     The cobbler made the sandal, and the cook made the bread.
     But in the matter of the Creator, this concept is not valid, because the Creator has no creator. The Creator is one and only
     Just as a king has no kings above him, so also God has no one but him.

     to see 🙂
     Freedom, I am a person who does not seek thrills. Revelations and revelations do not please me,
     Although I am more pleased to sit in front of the Gemara and learn even more interesting issues, try it.
     When studying Torah, the pleasure is many times greater than studying such and such topics, why?
     I don't know how to explain it, but as a person who is not fond of studies, the study is Torah
     It is a study not for the reason that the things recorded in the holy pages is an interesting and amazing study
     But there is a holy Torah that my feelings automatically get attached to and there is no better feeling than that.
     You won't know if you don't try :) But what should be advocated and be careful about why you can't get there so quickly.

111. Really, it sounds - the whole argument above - like endless bickering.
     Our vision is limited to a narrow range of waves.
     Our hearing is limited to a narrow range of waves.
     Our understanding is limited to a very limited area.
     There is a fifth force within us that tries with all its might, with verbal and physical violence {as in the case of Galileo Galilei} to prevent the possibility of "outside" thinking and understanding.
     There is no end in sight.
     Relativity is not perceived.
     Death.
     Eternity.
     time.
     Haim.
     Formation.
     Happiness does not exist except in the experience of memory and in theory.
     Love is forbidden from us.
     Thinking is prevented from us, or conditional, intentional.
     And since I am limited myself, I cannot add at this moment more to the list of what I do not know or know.
     The idea of ​​evolution, even though it is relatively innovative, receives extremes of ridiculousness and negation from the fifth recruit who also castrates the thought in the contemporary.
     But this contemporary is a constant moment throughout history.
     As if they are trying to direct us as a herd in one direction only.
     Trust is required, but it's called "faith".
     Only this, lowers the person to the level of a puppet on strings.
     They really demand that we trample the humanity in us and accept the fiction.
     And on the other hand, individualism {Friedrich Nietzsche, Jesus, Buddha} throughout history managed to change our perceptions about a variety of subjects.
     The four Jews - Jesus, Spinoza, Freud, Einstein - caused revolutions.
     thus allowing freedom.
     which is a birthright.
     Look at what fixation does: Aristotle said that everything is fixed, the Jews jumped and said it was a kohlet said, 2500 years of deliberate thought, Aris-total.
     Then Einstein came and said that everything is relative.
     And what happened since then?
     An explosion of discoveries and understandings.
     freshness.
     As far as I understand, it is only possible to refresh what has become moldy or outdated.
     The reference to the herd should be ignored, and continue to the fullest capacity as if no "herd" comments were written, since this diverts from the main point, which includes -
     Mutual distribution of the pleasure of free thinking.
     Delighting in revelations and revelations.
     Satisfaction.

     Shabbat Shalom

     Views

112. Miracles,

     Following Michael's words,

     The theory of evolution explains very well how creatures with advanced abilities develop without having a creator, what's more, once you put such a creator into the equation, you have to be consistent and explain who created the creator???

     If you're really interested in expanding your knowledge, don't believe all the stories they try to sell you to present evolution as stupid and outdated - there is no theory that explains the origin of life better!

113. Miracles:
     I am sorry to say that your writing shows that the truth is not a candle to your feet.
     Darwin never claimed that his theory was falsified (which is implied by your claim that there is something that disproves it). On the contrary - he believed that his teachings were correct.
     He noted the lack of information about intermediate creatures as a difficulty but not as a rebuttal and he did so - as required - in his lifetime (which, as we know, has long since passed) when there was still a lack of archaeological evidence of this kind.
     As any sane person knows - from then until today, a great many fossils have been discovered exactly of the expected types, and what Darwin saw as a difficulty turned into a confirmation in the great millennium. There is and is fossil evidence for the existence of the intermediate creatures and your attempt to create a presentation as if, like in Darwin's time, such evidence is still missing does not indicate an excess of honesty.

     The amazing thing is that so much evidence has been found despite the low probability that you will find it! Have you ever tried to think what are the chances that you yourself will turn into a fossil (I do not mean a mental fossil but one that, as part of natural processes, left an imprint on the rock)?
     The chance is zero and this is true for any animal.
     Even when an animal is petrified - the chance that it will be found is extremely low.
     And yet - despite all the low chances, many fossils were found, as mentioned (and here, too, I mean the physical fossils and not people whose minds were shaped by thousands of years of prejudice).

114. Noam,
     So let's say I didn't open a dictionary, thank you in any case you enriched me with knowledge :)
     And on the normal side, I called Darwin's theory a prejudice, with a certain basis
     And if you think it is well founded, then read further, because Darwin himself claims
     that the refutation of his theory is the very fact that building creatures, among the creatures that evolved thousands of years ago and those that evolved afterwards, should have still existed, at least a few million
     of such creatures that prove that there is indeed a development and a product of an earlier creature, but later
     Searches and investigations of such scientists and archaeologists have not found such creatures...
     And almost 90 percent of the world has been excavated and studied and no remains of such creatures have been found that prove it
     that there is a lineage of such kind of pioneers after another. Therefore we can say that quite a few scientists
     who researched and tested came to the conclusion that the above theory is indeed far-fetched and not based at all,
     Although it is possible to believe so, but not to prove anything scientifically.
     Also, the dictionaries oh the dictionaries, how many of these are already in my house?
     I define myself as a person of faith, not because I meet with the Creator of the world every day and know
     that he is found or exists, I don't need (although I can't) see the Creator of the world, God Almighty
     But it is enough for me to look at you, as one whose nervous system allows him to write
     and respond to the message, and feel that what I think and believe in is absurd, this observation is enough for me to understand that there is something that created you and made you see, understand, become educated, feel
     and do things. That there is a creator even more sophisticated than me and you, who gave us these abilities
     And I try as much as possible to learn and wait so that I can thank him.
     Where the questions end, this is where faith begins.

115. Miracles,

     Dictionaries define "prejudice" as an unfounded opinion about a person or something.

     The theory of evolution is a well-founded scientific theory, even if not perfect (scientific theory is never perfect).

     On the other hand, the things you believe in are without any foundation and proof. You just believe that's the way things are. I guess for you it is enough, for me certainly not.

     In any case - according to the dictionary definition, the things you believe in are much closer to "prejudice"

116. Noam,
     What was not true in the sentence I wrote "ancient dea"? Why yesterday Darwin was born and died
     And proved that you were created from a monkey? It is also true that the opinion I live with is a prejudice 🙂 This does not contradict anything.
     Only what I believe in a thing is not because it makes sense to believe it.
     But I have no other way to interpret the complexity and wisdom found in the entire universe without lying to myself, so I became a person who believes that there is someone who created me 🙂

117. Miracles,

     To call evolution a prejudice, in the holocaust to your ancient opinion - no shit

118. Hello, to all the dear evolutionists, it is your right to believe in such a prejudice.
     Let me enrich your knowledge with more interesting sources
     In the following link you will see a lecture by Rabbi Yitzhak Pangar, in which he explains how science is a field that touches the Torah, and reinforces the information in the Torah that the world was indeed created and not created by itself.
     For all those interested, of course:
     http://www.hidabroot.org/MediaDetail.asp?MediaID=9445
     Enjoy watching

119. Evolution and racism: I am currently reading the autobiography of Clarence Darrow, the lawyer who defended John Scopes in the famous "Monkey Trial". Although he believed in the truth of Darwin's teachings, Darrow writes that he was aware that it had become a tool in the hands of white racists. In the book that Scopes used, pearls appeared that dealt with the supremacy of the white race, and within it the Nordic sub-race. The book also supported the displacement and castration of imbeciles, and claimed that the theory of evolution explained the moral inferiority of the Jews.

120. I am a biology teacher who teaches evolution, although most of the students do not like this material and I have never been able to change prejudices. The students would prefer to study the subject of reproduction, which is a very, very interesting and important subject for life, much more than evolution. I teach evolution out of ideology, since it is a very important subject that many people still talk about and discuss, out of ignorance. We are committed to success in the matriculation exams and have to teach according to the syllabus of the Ministry of Education, which is not that interesting and gives a very narrow view of the subject.

121. 'mad scientist',

     Evolution is a theory, just as gravity is a theory, and Newton's and Einstein's laws and quantum mechanics are all theories. These are theories that have been tested in thousands of experiments and have shown in all of them that they correspond to reality.

     On the other hand, there are many religions in the world, which are unable to decide with each other which of them is right and which is wrong, and each dictates different laws.

     Thanks to scientific theories, we now have medicines, airplanes, cars, life expectancy twice as long as before, cities, fresh food from all corners of the globe, refrigerators, computers and glasses.

     Thanks to religions we have religions.

     So what should really be taught in school? How to study religion, or how to do science?

     ------

     my new blog - Another science

122. mad scientist,

     Religion is not a theory for anyone. For the religious it is an axiom, for the non-religious it is a collection of stories, however interesting they may be, that have nothing to do with science.

     Indeed, no matter how many think that one theory or another is true. What matters is the degree to which the theory matches reality.
     The theory of evolution corresponds to reality in a large number of tests.

     There is no equality between the theory of evolution, which should stand, and even stands scientific tests, and stories of creation that do not stand any test of conformity to reality, but are written in a certain ancient book

123. In conclusion ,

     For some people, the Torah is a theory, and so is evolution.

     And that's why - studying the subjects is a choice and not mandatory.

     And it doesn't matter if 99 percent of the world believes in evolution, he just does
     I believe, I don't know. The theory is still unproven.

124. I didn't waste any time and you are welcome not to read what I write to save time.

125. fresh,
     I didn't claim that you were spiritual, I said that you were using the line of defense of spiritualists - and he was evading the proof of their claim. If you are tired it is ok. Go rest, come back later, maybe a day or two, and bring us the source of your claims. You have the right to choose not, of course, but then you just wasted our time and yours.

126. As far as I'm concerned, it's perfectly fine if you don't believe me or think I'm spiritual. I just really don't have to search, because it's tiring.

127. fresh,
     In your statements like "I'm sorry I don't have the strength to look for sources that will prove me right, but you are welcome to look for yourself", "I remember reading somewhere", "Even if such sources of information do not exist it still does not mean" reminds the main line of defense of creationists, believers , spiritual and New-Agers (or as I happen to call them the New-Shits) of all sorts.

     In almost every discussion with them, after they have already gone through all the attempts and evasion methods that exist, they return to statements that basically say - "I have no proof, but try to find one for me, because it will make it easier for me to prove my nonsense. If you find it, don't forget to let me know, because I'll soon run out of excuses and evasions"

     If you bring a certain claim, and worse than that, say that it is brought from a qualified source (and apparently scientific in its basis) you should bring it or at least direct us to it. It shows a lack of seriousness and maturity to say - "Go look for yourself, I don't have the strength." I know I'm right and that's enough for me."

     I write this not necessarily as a criticism (also - as a constructive criticism, but not only), but in the hope that if there is anything in your previous words, then you will indeed understand our motivation to "persuade" you to bring the source of your claims and will not see this as a senseless attack. Although never I understood all those "spirituals" who feel this way as a response to an innocent and rational question such as: "And what is your source?"

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

129. fresh,

     When you tell me to look it up myself, you're basically saying, “I'm sure I'm right, even though I don't know much about the subject. You, as an expert, can look it up yourself, even though in all the years you've read about Greek culture you've seen no evidence of it. In any case, I'm sure I'm right."

     The reason I am asking you to provide sources to prove your claim, is that I have been reading books on Greek culture for a long time, and I have not found any proof of what you are saying.

     Your arguments will be much more credible if you bring concrete examples and sources, and not just your self-confidence.

     ------

     my new blog - Another science

130. Sorry, I don't have the energy to look for sources that will prove me right, but you are welcome to look for yourself, I believe there are some.

131. But if such sources of information do exist, it does mean that Greek culture did not grow from religious sources.

     Alternatively, if such sources of information do not exist, then it does lend strong support to the idea that Greek culture did not grow out of religious sources.

     So please - if you make a claim, back it up with evidence, as I have done so far. If not, don't treat the lack of evidence (which supports my idea) as if the lack itself doesn't prove anything.

     ------

     my new blog - Another science

132. Even if such sources of information do not exist it still does not mean that Greek culture did not grow from religious sources, so it is a waste of energy.

133. fresh,

     The reason that societies have been preserved in a primitive way in New Guinea depends on a huge variety of reasons, most of which are described in Diamond's book and are mainly related to the geography, the climate and the living environment that New Guinea provides. The concept of religion does not seem to be related to this.

     Regarding Greek culture, I would appreciate it if you could provide me with sources of information documenting its growth from religious sources of belief in gods that provide moral laws to follow.

     ------

     my new blog - Another science

134. Note that your phrasing was "in many ancient societies preserved in New Guinea" and why did these societies survive in their primitive form to this day? It is possible that because they did not adopt the concept of religion, if they had adopted this concept they might have gone further...
     And by the way, didn't the Greek culture grow from religious sources?, just as the secular culture of today grew from them, so did that of Greece, therefore your argument is not valid in my opinion.

135. Pine,

     Any message with more than one link automatically goes to the waiting list, because in the vast majority of cases it is an advertisement message from a bot (and hundreds of such are registered per day).
     Thanks for the links - they are entertaining and interesting!

     fresh,

     You jump to the conclusion that 'conversions and the social order had to grow out of religious belief in the beginning'. This conclusion is not only unprovable, it is also completely wrong. In Jared Diamond's book 'Guns Bacteria and Steel' there is an observation of many ancient societies preserved in New Guinea. It is evident that in the two primary types of social existence: the group and the tribe (up to hundreds of people living in one village), there is not necessarily a religion, although there is a leadership of one 'big man'. The groups and tribes may have supernatural beliefs, but they are not used to justify a central authority or to bring peace between people.

     There is no doubt that in the transition from tribes to governorates and states, there is an advantage to establishing a 'state religion' that determines the status of the leaders. But it is certainly possible to reach the status of a state even without a single religion, and ancient Greece serves as proof of this once again, where the judges and rulers were determined democratically and not according to the will of the gods.

     And last but not least, you make a lot of determinations in a tone of determination, when you yourself claim that it is impossible to reach any firm conclusion, but only to believe. I would suggest that you stop dancing about both weddings - enjoy logic when it supports your opinion, and declare that it is never mathematically and philosophically valid when it misleads your opinion. Because if you continue to state that nothing is ever proven, and that we cannot know anything, then there is no point in exchanging information between us.

     ------

     my new blog - Another science

136. I meant that the transition between primitiveness and wildness and civilization with trade and technology and agriculture is done through religion which allows to get out of a chaotic social situation to an orderly one. Therefore, religion is a kind of infrastructure for science that could not have grown if religion had not existed first. And religion still has many, many advantages even today when Western culture is at its peak, but despite this there are also many, many disadvantages.

     The social order in ancient Greece that enabled its prosperity was also created from a religious source. And that's because no social order was created out of chaos in the form of Yesh Mayen, policemen, judges and lawyers did not suddenly emerge one day from a primitive tribe and begin to rule over them, the changes in authority and social order had to grow out of religious belief in the beginning, and this indeed happened in all places in the world .
     Therefore the disdain of people here for the opinions of other people who express religious opinions is unnecessary. And I say this even though I am completely secular. Not only is it impossible to convince the religious, it is also impossible to *know* that science is the one that is right, one can only believe. Because even millions of experiments that confirm the predictions of a certain theory are not certain proof, if you think about it philosophically. Therefore, the question is not whose arguments are more right, science or religion, but who is stronger (politically, socially, culturally, etc.)

137. Avi,
     Why did it take so long to receive my previous message? (message 30)
     A total of 2 links to YouTube

138. anonymous user,

     Of course there are limitations to the very simplistic model I proposed. There is a delicate balance between the number of offspring an organism can produce, and the number the environment can reasonably support. This is why my wife does not give birth to dozens of offspring every week. This is probably also the reason why most organisms do not live long, but die and turn over the environment to their offspring. But these are only side limitations on the main idea I presented of the need to establish offspring, which must still be valid in itself.

     The same thought experiment can be used to understand why we also do not produce too many offspring. Those populations in which the reproduction rate was too high, became extinct due to the collapse of the environment. The populations where the reproductive rate was too low became extinct as a result of failed competition with larger populations (that is, having a higher reproductive rate). In the end, most populations today are able to produce approximately a high number of offspring, but suitable for the environment - in other words, high, but not too high. And anyway, everyone feels the need to produce offspring, otherwise they wouldn't have enough offspring.

     ------

     my new blog - Another science

139. Another interesting point I remember from political science classes from... a long time ago... is that in countries where 'religious' punishments are accepted (for example, amputation of the right hand for theft), the crime rate is not lower than countries where religious punishments are not accepted.

     Since we can assume that the countries where religious punishments are accepted, also educate in a more pious religious way, it seems that religious education does not help in stopping crime.

     And one more thing: a year ago I read in the newspaper a report by one of the rabbis who runs an association for victims of sexual assault among the ultra-Orthodox. The rabbi himself says that according to the number of separate references to the association, and compared to the total number of ultra-Orthodox in Israel, there are -=more=- sexual assaults in ultra-Orthodox society than in secular society. They simply do not report them to the secular police.

     So it does not seem that religion also genuinely contributes to the development of morality. I would guess that at most it strengthens morality in the people in whom it is already naturally strong, and causes feelings of guilt in those who are not endowed with the same level of morality (but still does not prevent them from committing the sins, in many cases). Compare this to the less good aspects of religion - mindless fulfillment of mitzvot, unwillingness to accept work assumptions other than the holy book, complete intolerance for others, complete loyalty to the one who communicates with God (the rabbi / the kadi / the priest) - and you will find that religion can actually suppress the development Science instead of promoting it.

     ------

     my new blog - Another science

140. to Roy Cezana,
     The mechanism you proposed makes a lot of sense when it comes to ideal conditions, say like a single cell in a sterile world. In nature the conditions are completely different and the total offspring of an individual is a function of many, many factors. Do you think the mechanism you suggested is also valid in the following situations:
     1) When the population has reached the maximum carrying capacity of the area it inhabits - a very common phenomenon
     2) When there are restrictive predator-prey relationships - a very common phenomenon

     Furthermore, there are theories (Zahavi for example) that talk about evolutionary mechanisms of companies. How would such a mutation fit into communal species for example? Will it eventually destroy the strategy of the species in favor of the spread of the private genome? If so, why isn't it happening yet? What is the motive and what is the motive?

     -----

     Lanaam,
     Religion is perhaps the most effective user of technology ever. Not only did it produce (in the past, nowadays much less) many scientists and technological innovations and inventions; Its main importance is in the introduction of technology into the individual's life. Look at the countries of the third world that until before the introduction of Christianity lived on their sword and used thousands of years old technologies. Religion has implanted countless technologies among large populations (practically - almost the entire population of the world) either in the name of religion or in the name of self-righteous and arrogant Western coercion. Religion is an oppressive but effective mechanism. She had no equal in this regard.

     Today with the secularization (from the word secular) of the world in the last two hundred years, the picture is reversed. Religion has become a great inhibitor of technology and therefore, in my opinion, its end is known in advance - if it does not change its ways.

141. fresh,

     Police and courts exist in all cultures, including those where religion imposes moral laws. On the other hand, there were already prosperous societies where religion was not necessarily used as a basis for moral laws, such as ancient Greece, where the gods themselves were corrupt. Another example can be found in Xenophon's 'Many Journey', from the time of ancient Greece, when he describes his wars there with the 'mountain people' who do not believe in gods.
     It is interesting to note that, contrary to your claim, it was precisely in Greek society that technology and science progressed at an accelerated rate. The contrast is even more striking when compared to the decadent Middle Ages, where the Church (and its 'moral' laws) ruled unchallenged.

     In short, it seems that religion is not necessarily required to create a moral and successful civilization.

     ------

     my new blog - Another science

142. Religion made it possible to create a civilization with certain moral laws without the need for police and courts out of a state of pre-civilizational tribal chaos. Civilization in turn allowed technology to develop in an accelerated manner because humans had time to think about other things besides surviving from day to day.

143. To 29

     Reporter:
     "Science, like religion, is a very useful tool that enables cultural and technological development"

     Did you mean that religion is also a usable tool that enables technological development?

     Please give an example of a technological development that religion was instrumental in bringing about.

144. To the anonymous user from comment 9,

     There is nothing miraculous, magical or unusual in that all the creatures we see today are infected with the urge to reproduce and the desire to produce offspring.

     To understand the matter better, let's try to give a somewhat simplistic example, but one that well represents the idea of ​​natural selection and the placement of offspring:

     Suppose you have a primitive creature, whose very primitive nervous system is able to give it only two possible actions: eat and move. Assuming that this is all he will do, and that he will not reproduce, then at some point he will die - and therefore he will not have continuity, and his descendants will not survive to this day.

     Now let's assume that a mutation of that primordial creature causes it to want to reproduce, but only a little. You know, not too much. Like after twenty years of marriage. In this case, he will give birth to an offspring or two, but no more than that. But if one of his offspring has another, more extreme mutation, which will make their urge to mate much greater, then the owner of the mutation will give birth to 10-20 offspring. Each of these offspring will have a large mating instinct by itself, and therefore within a few generations, their offspring will fill the living space, and compete with the creatures that have not undergone mutation, and whose number is much lower (because they mate much less and produce much fewer children). The obvious result will be that those with a low mating and reproduction instinct will simply become extinct, because their numbers will be much smaller.

     For this reason, it is clear why today we see that all living creatures have a strong mating and reproductive instinct. If they did not have these qualities, then they could not have survived until our days.

     And to refer to the last post (yours?), any other theory of the evolutionary mechanism would have to refer to the many fossils of the mesozoites that we find in the corresponding geological strata. Since no such theory has yet been found, we still continue to rely on the idea of ​​evolution (even if it has long since ceased to be 'just' Darwinian).

     Shabbat Shalom,

     Roy.

     ------

     my new blog - Another science
     

145. Is it possible for those who accept the theory of evolution that natural selection will cause their extinction?

146. I think all our discussions can be summed up in 2 videos that I will bring... If it doesn't help people understand and accept reality, nothing will. The two videos exactly represent what we face every day on the knowledge site. May this open their eyes (and their brain won't fall out):

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB_htqDCP-s

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DXl68NF_uI&feature=PlayList&p=B1350F88E4CE10C6&index=1

147. to respondent 26/28,
     The analogy of a round body rolling to the lower place is a great analogy.
     We can explain why it rolls there, what is the mechanism of it and what are the practical meanings of it. We cannot explain (perhaps we do not wish to do so) why such a circle would even want to reach the place it has reached.

     The analogy is in place and certainly suitable for explaining more fundamental questions about evolution.

     Therefore, we can summarize and say that like the ball whose every movement can be described, documented, foreseen and explained - so is evolution. It is a mechanism visible to the eye and to scientific logic only. A smart and interesting hypothesis that can even be applied in many fields, including biology.

     This does not mean at all whether it is true or not. We do not understand the motive but can certainly guess, given the fact of a fundamental lack of understanding of the motive, how it works and where it is going.

     I want to say: so far I see - from here I believe.
     And as such, the relative advantage that evolution apparently has over such and other esoteric theories, including creationism, is reduced.

     Yes, it is childish and maybe a little silly to believe in one god or even a group of idols. Yes, it's quite stupid (with all due respect, forgive me dear believers) to attribute truths of nature when they originate from the fundamentally rotten religion and from leaders of public opinion such as the Pope, the Imam and the rabbi... Yes, everything is true. But the bottom line is - so far I see, from here I believe. As in religion, also in science. I don't understand why the ball would want to reach the bottom of the mountain when it is on its pointed top. i don't understand I know how to predict it, I know how to describe it, I know how to explain it - I don't know if my description is the result of my pair of human eyes or the result of absolute truth.

     In conclusion:
     Science, like religion, is a very useful tool that enables cultural and technological development. The evolutionary mechanism, despite being rooted in the depths of our secular-western logic, may one day turn out to be a mistake born of innocence. The eyes are human eyes and the assumptions are human assumptions and there is no interpretation because absolute truth is. If there is no other alternative (yes, there is none) this is what there is. This does not mean that everything said in the name of science should be sanctified, and this also includes age-old scientific dogmas such as Darwinian evolution.

148. Following on from my previous answer (response 26), it is not that the surviving animals have any "conscious" desire to survive and reproduce and pass on their traits, it is simply a process that happens naturally (in our country it is called "love") the animals that have not developed such a mechanism (or that he was not effective enough) became extinct and disappeared from the world, and therefore you cannot ask about them all the questions you asked before, on the other hand, animals, since they developed the mechanism of culture, continued to spread their good qualities to prosper in the world, and then it is very possible that from this side it will appear to you as if they have some " purpose" or they understand why they do it.

149. To Roy Cezana and all those who defend evolution

     You don't understand that your battle against the religious is already lost.
     In a conversation I had years ago with a religious man about the theory of evolution, the answer was yes
     For him there is only one Torah and that is the Torah of Moses.
     Faced with such an answer, there is no point in adding words.

     Have a peaceful Shabbat.

150. The answer is very simple, those who do not have this mechanism become extinct and disappear, and those who have this mechanism continue to exist and thus you can ask "but wait, what is the purpose of this continuity...".

     Think of a sloping surface on which you pour a collection of different types of objects - the rough objects with a strange geometric shape will stick in place, while the round objects (balls and such) and the smooth ones will roll or slide all the way down, here too you can ask "but just a moment, what caused the need for them ( of those who have reached the bottom) to reach the bottom? What is it good for? Why should they roll down to the bottom and for what purpose?

     Hope the example is clear and if not I will try to explain it to you again.

151. to an anonymous user,

     For the questions/concerns you raised in response 9, science is not able to give answers. The mechanism by which evolution occurs is natural selection, which you can easily find information about anywhere on the web. Questions of the purpose of existence are the concern of philosophy. Science can describe the results, offer a theory but not provide explanations that concern the purpose of existence. Questions of purpose can be contained about the universe as a whole. What is it for? for who? This is a more general question, but it is also one that science does not and will not have the tools to answer. Darwinian evolution here on our planet is a direct continuation of chemical-physical evolution that began about 10 billion years before. For what? I do not know. I doubt if anyone knows what her future plans are 🙂

152. Just to add to the words of a fan before me: this just shows how important it is to be familiar with science (control groups) and statistics. It is very easy to brainwash people who have gotten a little lost in the conferences of converts. The manipulation and exploitation of the listeners' weakness are the guru's main tools. I wonder if anyone at these conferences drew the penitent's attention to the issues about which a fan wrote? I'm sure not. They left fascinated after the meeting.

153. Is there anyone who can refer to my response (number 9) and reply, even if in general terms or to give a tip on the matter?
     I see that the discussion is very lively but there is no practical reference to the fundamental and deep questions asked.

     Shabbat Shalom

154. Another small point regarding that advertising gimmick of a psychometric preparation company about a group of ultra-Orthodox that was an extraordinary success, a story that managed to enter in recent months the canon of lectures by converts of various kinds and to exist there in a wonderful coexistence alongside complete disdain for the science whose sole purpose of the psychometric is to filter those who seek to enter its gates .

     Apart from the glaring mistake that the sample is not so representative, which has already been addressed here, another glaring problem with that admission is comparing that group to the average score among the entire society, and not to the average score among those who studied in the psychometric preparation course in the same society, a comparison that would probably have been much less flattering .

155. Do you check email occasionally?

156. for four sons,

     The studies of evolution as pointed out by Roy can indeed be useful, but that is not the point. The evolution that receives reinforcements from different fields of knowledge and anyone who does not understand this, or at least does not try to internalize it, is ignorant. Evolution puts man in the right perspective in the animal kingdom. It presents an example of dynamism, of development, of increasing complexity on large scales of time. In contrast to religion/Talmud which are an example, one that never advances anywhere. Encourages mental fixation and blind loyalty to authority. An idea has meaning only when it is consistent with observation, there is no other way to talk about the world. New age ideas are empty of content and more like religion than science.
     The success of the students you mentioned indicates more about the psychometric test than the students. There is no connection between the psychometric test and science (I wonder what Niels Bohr's score was in a psychometric test that was known for his horribly slow thinking...?).

157. For all evolution skeptics, "natural selection" is a critical key concept. Understand it deeply and then you will see that the word "need" has no meaning. (to 9: the basis of the theory is only a strained continuation of the understanding of the mechanism of the theory).

158. four sons,

     As I already explained to you in a previous discussion, evolution gives a wealth of practical knowledge. Every aspect of biology is based on the evolution of organisms. Examples of practical uses of the knowledge and insights obtained from evolution can be found in many fields of science: biotechnology, genetic engineering, geology, epidemiology (the science of diseases), microbiology, agriculture, etc.

     The Talmud... is still only good for teaching Talmud.

     ------

     my new blog - Another science

159. BDS
     Here you can read/Shrieven Bnei Brak and other news/Simchot in Yiddish

     Abomination!! The people of Israel should not concern themselves with this nonsense of evolution.
     One should only engage in God's work!!

160. To teach not only evolution, but skepticism and philosophy of science, as a compulsory subject. The theory of evolution is the embodiment of a larger idea, of the scientific method and rationality, which people need to understand deeply, and not just memorize theories.

161. Roy Cezana
     A quote from your words…
     "Last but not least, Talmud studies do not provide practical knowledge"
     Just as evolution studies do not provide practical knowledge as such.
     Because the theory is not an applied theory but only an interpretive one, therefore it has no useful side at all.

162. fresh,

     Sorry, but it was. I know the teacher personally.

     four sons,

     Without disparaging the Talmud and its scholars, there are a very limited number of jobs for people whose entire studies are in the Talmud. The Talmud does not prepare its learner for scientific language, therefore it does not contribute to him, in the end, in finding a profitable job and acquiring knowledge.

     As for your statistics, they are very biased. I know the story about these young men. This is an extraordinary group among the ultra-Orthodox, highly motivated and intelligent, who decided to take action and go for academic studies. When you compare such a group to the general population (secular, ultra-Orthodox, religious, Arabs), it is no wonder where their scores were higher.

     Last but not least, Talmud studies do not provide practical knowledge, while science studies provide knowledge that can be used for higher studies and understanding the world. And yes, they also impart the truth - an understanding of the chemistry of existence, biology and physics. The Talmud does not teach all of these. He only teaches Talmud.

     ------

     my new blog - Another science

163. Roy Cezana

     The story about the teacher is indeed sad. But it doesn't make sense to me that it happened in a secular school in Israel.
     After all, everyone knows that evolution is the truth and it goes without saying that it is true, maybe it happened in a religious state school or something like that.
     We all grew up watching series like "Hiya Hiya" where you see evolution in the opening song, and this is how the idea is assimilated in children even without having learned a single lesson about evolution. I, too, have not studied even one lesson on evolution and the fact that I understand it and do not cast any shadow of doubt on its correctness, therefore it is necessarily the case with everyone (except for the religious who will obviously not believe it because evolution has the potential to weaken faith in the name among their public).
     Therefore there is nothing to blame for lack of study on the subject, there is no necessity to teach what is obvious.

164. Roy Cezana
     Your arguments are biased towards only one interpretation if you demand others to study only the fields you point to, why would you not study the Talmudic professions and fields and the like. What advantage do your beliefs have over others.
     After all, a few months ago statistics were published of above and beyond average success in psychometric tests of groups of young people who only studied Talmud before. and studied for a very short period of time before these exams. It turns out that studies of the only type acceptable to you that last several years in conventional education and not several months are not enough to reach such results in psychometrics.

165. Religion is the biggest bluff in history, as they say, you can work on some people all the time, on all the people some of the time, but not on all the people all the time, indeed the representatives of religion work on some people all the time, religion is a mostly failed attempt to explain the existence and nature of Nature, any sane person will understand that the world has existed for more than 6000 years, only a perfect idiot would think otherwise

166. This is not a Jewish state, this is the state of the Jews. The wording 'Jewish state' is a compromise. Again, to please religious parties.

     Anyway, Roy; I myself chose a biology major in high school (actually, I chose physics and philosophy, then, in the twelfth grade, I switched to biology. I simply asked to dance at two weddings, and I succeeded).
     In our class, they chose biology as an elective subject, under very heavy pressure from me. about the teacher and the students.
     I must point out - evolution, as it is currently taught in the biology major (if it is chosen), is not a difficult subject at all.
     In fact, I was very disappointed by the low level of the material conveyed. Even more, I was disappointed with the teacher who did not know how to explain what a scientific theory is.
     When a student in the class said it was just a theory, she simply agreed with him and did not elaborate. Simply because she didn't know, I think. Thus most of the class was left with the feeling that this is a topic that is not supported by evidence.
     Hardly anyone learns about findings. There are a few examples that we learn about (the bacteria that break down nylon, the case of the spotted moth, and a few paleontological findings that relate to humans).
     I tried to insist that you explain what a scientific theory is. After all, if she teaches one like that, it is appropriate that we first know what it is. This is not at all a self-evident concept.

     Even those who study evolution, study it at the most basic and lowest level. I don't know how other teachers convey it. But I definitely have a bad taste left from my experience.

167. What causes evolution? The need to provide fertile and competitive offspring that can continue to maintain (even spread) the private genetic information and assimilate it into the population? If so... what causes this need? Why would we want to produce fertile and competitive offspring? What is the advantage of continuity? Instinctively I understand this. Even without understanding, I see that in nature everyone tries to fit in as best as possible so that they can produce fertile and competitive offspring. but why? What is the mechanism? What is it good for and who is it good for? Why maintain the species and for what need or purpose?

     This is a hole in the security of the theory of evolution that stands on this basis. The mechanism makes sense, but its basis is not clear.

168. to the mad scientist,

     According to the logic you indicated in your response, we should not educate women about equal rights for the simple reason that women are considered inferior in the eyes of the people who believe (at least some of them). In which we will allow equal opportunities for women only to bodies that are interested in it. God forbid the feelings of the religious are hurt. The same goes for democracy. And other examples are not missing.

169. In the state schools there is an obligation to teach the scientific subjects, which will enable the children to support themselves in adulthood and contribute to the state. One of the most important basics of biology is evolution, so it must be taught. A man will live by his faith, but science must be taught because it reflects physical reality.

     In the private schools, you can teach from me that Christ will come soon with a donkey as well as an elephant. But the state should not support them if they do not adapt themselves to the core professions.

     By the way, Judaism has always been divided into dozens of different factions. Some factions accept evolution, some don't. There is no reason to impose the most extreme faction on all the other factions in the Land of Israel. And really, if it's a Jewish state, then why not teach in the schools according to the faith of the Karaite Jews, who are also considered part of Judaism?

     ------

     my new blog - Another science

170. This is so wrong!

     In a democratic Jewish state, it is impossible to make the theory of evolution mandatory, because
     This is a Jewish state according to which the world has existed for less than 6,000 years.

     So as a democratic country, leave the study of evolution as a right.
     Whoever wants to - will learn it.

     Shabbat Shalom .

171. Warning - a particularly depressing story:

     I know a physics teacher who teaches at a strictly secular school. In one of the first lessons in high school, he began to explain about the solar system and the stars, and how they were formed. To his surprise, the children strongly opposed his scientific explanations about the gradual formation of the solar system over millions of years, based on one simple claim: everyone knows that the age of the world does not exceed 6000 years.
     That teacher was so amazed, that he stopped everything he was teaching, and gave three 'physics' lessons, which explained the theory of evolution. And when he tried to understand how it is that the children do not know what evolution is at all, he discovered that the Ministry of Education does not require evolution to be taught, even at the level of 5 biology units. The teacher can choose which subjects to teach from a limited pool, and evolution is considered a particularly difficult subject, so there are almost no biology teachers in Israel who would choose to teach evolution over other subjects.

     I don't intend to bash Israel's teachers, whose status is at the bottom of the ladder anyway. They are all good people, most of whom turned to the profession out of a sense of mission. The real problem here lies in the Ministry of Education, which prefers to please the public and extreme sectors, instead of conveying the science as it is. That's how it is - the politics of adults leads to a decline in the children's study material. When the graduates of the current education system will not be able to find a job in biotechnology companies in ten years, we will know the reason.

     ------

     my new blog - Another science

172. Something to think about:
     Until the formation of life and especially the development of man, the universe did not exist. Maybe he existed but no one was aware of his existence. According to the same way of thinking, after the human race has passed away from the world, and most likely that will happen sooner or later, in fact the universe, or the awareness that the universe exists, will disappear along with it!
     Hence, the goal of the human race in being aware of the existing universe is to convey the same awareness of its existence to the conscious species that may come to life or awareness after our passing.
     Perhaps the human race should in general concentrate on preserving the evolutionary capabilities of life so that after the catastrophe the evolution of life will be renewed which will eventually lead to the formation of a new species with intelligence and awareness which will continue to maintain and sustain the awareness that the universe exists...

     Did I exaggerate? Maybe.

     But if you think about it a little more, it is also possible - what do we care, as a species that is going to become extinct someday, about the inheritance of awareness that we have about being the universe if we don't know anyway that this awareness was passed on to someone at some point....

173. the four boys

     You made your opinion very clear about the theory of evolution, as an unenlightened theory, which adapts itself intuitively to the circumstances.

     Since the science website is intended, among other things, to expand the knowledge of its readers, please kindly share with us more modern theories, many of which explain the origin of species in a better way ** in your opinion **.

     This is a sincere request!

174. Indeed, not everything that is clearly true deserves to be called enlightened.

175. There is nothing enlightened about a theory that on the whole adapts itself intuitively to the circumstances.
     The New Age theories excel in this field and are not considered enlightened except among a fairly limited public.

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