Evolution studies in the Holy Land

833 תגובות

1. The new interface of the site is a failure. Horrible design and bugs. The previous interface will be returned.

2. Amit,
   1. The God of the Jews does not "interest" him in anything. To say that G-d is "interested" in a certain kibbutz of people more than another kibbutz, is to turn him into an idol.

   2. What is a "Jew is better"? What is meant by "others": other Jews or Gentiles? What differentiates an observant Jew from a non-observant Jew is, guess what... observance of mitzvot. In your eyes it is appropriate to keep a mitzvah, and in the eyes of another Jew it is not appropriate to keep a mitzvah. "Good" is a subjective judgment. The difference between a Jew who does not observe mitzvot and a gentile is that Jewish law considers that Jew as one who should, in theory, observe mitzvot, while the gentile is exempt from them (unless he converts).

   3. No rabbi claims to represent God, not even Aviner the mixed. I don't know where the secularists got the strange notion that the rabbis claim to represent God. I also don't know how it infiltrated religious communities as well. All the rabbis, ultra-Orthodox as national religious, as modern orthodox and as conservatives, do is to pronounce Halacha. For them, the Halacha is divine, of course - but they themselves do not consider themselves representatives of God at all, neither does Rabbi Ovadia. And I say this about all the rabbis, including those whom I hate and despise with every fiber of my soul (A.A. Aviner).

   4. I haven't had the chance to read "Notte Ha-Hesed" yet, although I've heard good things about it. interesting.

   5. I did not understand how you jumped from the Nazis' perception of the Jews to the Jews' perception of themselves. There are racist Jews, true. There are too many of them. They also have a very good foundation on which to rest within Orthodox Judaism. But there is no connection between the fact that the Nazis perceived, in your opinion, the Jews as a superior race, and the Jews' perception of themselves as a superior race/chosen people. Unfortunately, I have already met quite a few Jewish racists - they never base their racist views on Nazism, even if they are not far from it.

   6. Kudos to you for being able to express such positions without the fear that characterizes most believers, although in my opinion they should be more precise.

3. I admit that I am small. The discussions so far, really at the levels of knowledge and thought...
   So anyway, a few small ones:
   1. The God of the Jews is only interested in the Jews. All other 7 billion people - no.
   2. What makes me a better Jew than others - the clothes and the hair...
   3. There is no doubt that there is a strong struggle between liberal humanism (see IMAGINE) and between Aviner's religion and all the others who claim to be "rabbis" and claim to represent God on earth. We among them pay the price...
   4. I recommend reading the masterpiece book: "Notot Chesed", where an explanation is finally given for the abysmal hatred of the Nazis towards the Jews, and why they had to (!!) destroy the Jewish people. For those who haven't read, the explanation is the German's desire to take the Jew's place as a superior race! They saw the Jewish people as jealously guarding the purity of their race through strict laws, which prevent the mixing of foreigners as much as possible. According to the German - in order to be in first place among the racists - one must remove from there those who are already there, that is, destroy the Jews.
   5. Put everything together and get "Gentiles will not be assimilated" = the pure people / the superior race - the Jews
   6. And I am still a Jew who believes in the great and the sublime and thank him every morning for the wonderful day before me...

4. Shmulik,
   To your question:
   "The believing person, whose religious experience is full of internal struggles and contradictions, who is debating between enthusiasm and clinging to God and thoughts of despair when he feels as if he has been abandoned by him, has had a difficult role since the days of Abraham and Moses. It would be an unforgivable presumption if I tried to turn the experience of faith full of suffering into an experience full of harmony and satisfaction, while the knights of faith in the Bible rose from a heroic life in this tragic and paradoxical experience. All I wanted was to follow the advice of Eliyahu ben Barchel: I will speak and have mercy on me (Job Lev, XNUMX). Because the heart cares for a redemptive correction through suitable things. For an agitated soul - confession brings peace and calmness...

   We all know that the Torah gives two formulas for the creation of man. We also know the theory of Bible critics, who attribute the two formulas to separate sources and traditions. It is clear that we who accept without doubt and without reservation the complete unity of the biblical stories and their divine character, definitely reject this hypothesis, like the other hypotheses of the biblical critics, which are based on the literary standards of modern people who completely ignore the conceptual-property content of the biblical story. It is true that the two formulas for the creation of man are different from each other, and this was known to the Sages (see Baruchot XNUMX. Ketubut XNUMX, Ramban to Genesis XNUMX:XNUMX and Khozir XNUMX). But the answer is not in the seconds of tradition, as it were, but in the seconds of man; Not in the pretended contradiction in two formulas, but in the real contradiction of human nature. The two formulas speak of two kinds of "man", two human beings, both the ancestors of mankind, two types that both represent mankind and it is no wonder that they are not the same...

   first man
   The first man, created in the image of God, was blessed with a great impetus for creative activity and given great powers to fulfill this role. When God blessed the first man and tasked him with conquering nature, he directed him to the practical qualities of the mind through which he would take control of nature. The first person is, therefore, only interested in one side of reality. And he asks:
   – How does the universe work?
   He is not interested in the questions of the essence of the universe, but in a purely practical and technical question: how? He is controlled by one wish: to conquer the natural forces, control them and make them available to himself. Thus the first person is aggressive and strives only for victory.

   Although the first person is not only a theorist. He also designs ideas and discovers creative power in the field of law as well. He legislates beautiful and wonderful laws and manners for himself, so that he can have a great and noble existence, and that there will be no anarchy in the order of the world. And by doing all these he tries to fulfill the task that his creator gave him, when on the sixth day of creation he commanded man: fill the earth and conquer it. God decreed that the story of the first man would be a great plot of the liberation of the man-slave, which slowly turns into being the man-master.

   Driven by an ambition that he must obey, to reach this goal, man strives for vast territories and even as far as the distant stars. He acts according to his nature given to him by his creator and obeys it. Therefore, in summary, we arrive at the triple nature of this person which is:
   Respect - responsibility - magnificence.

   the other person
   The second man, like the first man, is full of wonder at the foundations of the universe. Intellectual curiosity pushes both of them to stand strong against the secret of existence. However, while the universe brings the first man to his ambition to gain power and rule and make him ask the functional "how" question; The other person responds to this phenomenon with questions of the metaphysical type. It does not ask any functional question. He wants to know: why? what is? who is

   He asks:
   - What is the purpose of all these?
   - What is the meaning of the great challenge that comes to me from beyond the limits of the universe, as if from the depths of my undecided soul?

   He continues to wonder:
   - Who is it that follows me constantly, unnecessarily, and disappears into infinity at the very moment I turn to stand before that hidden, holy and terrible "he"?

   And he wondered further:
   - Who is it that fills man at one time with happiness and fear, humility and greatness, charms the heart of man without any ability to resist, and at one time rejects him completely? . .

   To answer this triple question, the other person does not create his own world and he does not mathematize phenomena and things. He stands before the universe in all its shades, in all its glory and grandeur, and learns to know the world with the innocence and humility and admiration of a child who seeks the wonderful and the extraordinary in every ordinary event. While the first person is dynamic and full of creative power, the second person seeks the image of God in every pillar of light and in every sprout and flower; In every light breeze of the morning and in the silence of a starry night. The biblical Mimra, which tells that God breathed a spirit of life into man, deepens and expands into man's experience of God's word. Therefore the first Adam was not created individually but together with Eve, male and female were created at the same time. The first person has an existence within a public, together with sites. It was created in society to connect and communicate with others; He emphasizes the artistic side of life and prefers form over content; for practical achievements over internal affairs. He has the gift of speech and communication and is never lonely; Because man in his solitude does not have the possibility to reveal and present his honor and glory, because these two things belong only to the customs of the great society. The first man was not alone and was not left alone even on the day of his creation. He was born together with Eve, and God spoke to both of them as inseparable members of one community. ….”

   (From "The Lonely Man of Faith" by Dr. Soloveitchik, the continuation is here: http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/shana/bdiduto-2.htm
   His student, Rabbi Prof. David Hartman, died this morning at the age of 82.

5. Orly,
   You joined the discussion and stated that there is no contradiction between the Jewish religion and science. This is how you wrote: "The answer, truly dear writer, is that there is no conflict between the big bang theory of evolution or any other aspect of science that deals with the formation of the universe in particular and the universe in general and Judaism. point."
   Let's assume for a moment that you are right and indeed there is no contradiction. Most of the Jewish religious people, who do not go into the depth of issues, like you, think differently than you, completely. Do you agree with this claim?

   Specifically, there is certainly an abysmal and fundamental contradiction and this is the reason why religion has always tried to suppress science. Science today knows how to explain how the universe was created, without the need for God, including, by the way, how space and time themselves were created. Clergymen are afraid that this knowledge will reach the population and especially the next generation because it will undermine the stubborn indoctrination that the ultra-orthodox and the religious do to their children, the whole purpose of which is to hide from them the knowledge we have. This is why the ultra-Orthodox maintain educational networks outside of the state one (although unfortunately they still receive money from me) and this is why the ultra-Orthodox insist on not teaching core studies. If core studies are taught there, children will understand that God is not 6000 years old, that God did not create man, that diseases are not caused by sins but by germs and that there is not one faint sight to the Torah (not to the Bible, to the Torah). It's hard for me to understand your argument and she made excuses for it.

   Claiming that the sages of the Mishna are not apologetics and that they are equals was not a theory related to evolution and is obviously nonsense. The Greeks are the ones who started with the theory of evolution:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought#Greeks

   The period in which they conceived these theories is about 500 years before the birth of Jesus and the Mishna was signed in the third century AD, that is, about 800 years before the Mishna was signed, the Greeks were already thinking about evolution. All that you told all the sages of the Mishnah, is that they determined that the creation should not be interpreted as a language (by the way, this does not mean that the Sages had any theory). And why not actually? Because they understood, perhaps because of the Greeks, that the story of creation is one big piece of nonsense and if the sages of the mishna insist on the As Is interpretation, they will laugh at themselves. This is apologetics for its own sake. Every lawyer knows that when someone bothers to issue an alternative explanation for something that does not need an explanation, and the story of creation in principle does not need an explanation, because it is clear and speaks for itself, he is not doing it just because he is nice. If the sages of the Mishnah bothered to point out, twice, that the story of creation should not be accepted as it is, they did so because the majority of Jews precisely thought that the story of creation should be accepted, as it is, and the situation is problematic because it was probably already clear at that time that the story is nonsense, therefore it should be stated twice. As a side question, I ask again: if the story is not to be accepted as it is, what is it there for? Why is the story wrong throughout? Why is there not one correct detail? Is it difficult for God to write the correct order of creation? If the story is a metaphor, then a metaphor for why, that the woman is inferior to the man and is selfish?
   In conclusion, I would like to point out that what you don't see in the Wikipedia link is the contribution of the Mishna sages to the subject. Jews had no contribution whatsoever to the science of evolution, in antiquity, at least not according to Wikipedia.

   For dessert you asked: "And I don't care what the ignorant crowd thought and thinks - that's what the discussion is about here?" Yes, that's exactly what the discussion is about. The discussion is about the fact that because of the religious (the Arabs have no political power) evolution is not taught in schools except for a little while and you make Clal Israel ignorant and I asked you why, if the opinion you subscribe to, no matter how wrong it is regarding the contradiction you claim does not exist, is it The opinion of learned Judaism, great and important rabbis don't make a strong call for the study of evolution in schools?

6. withering
   I invite you to develop a thinner sense of humor and sarcasm and then read my last response to you
   For some reason you also tend not to respond objectively to my arguments, so let's put it this way...

   Buddha, the argument itself is not wrong at all.
   He is indeed logically on the same level as the flying spaghetti monster, but what, the aforementioned monster does not appear as a weaving thread in all human cultures known since the dawn of history... unlike God, yes. The weight is a little different, with all due respect to pure logic.

   You continue to ignore the side words I brought
   You continue to dismiss my opinions - which I did not invent! - as irrelevant and singular, even though I drew them from my near and far, completely orthodox environment. One even went so far as to claim that my religion is probably not the Jewish religion if those are my views. He knows her better than me, how? I have a little more knowledge and experience in it I think.

   I have no escape from the conclusion that you want to believe and continue to think the way you think now, and what I represent disturbs you in the dance of slander and distance that you conduct,
   And if so - "why is it selfish"?
   All the best, hello hello.
   Hoping for a better and more connected future, peace & love to you all

7. Certainly.. what's wrong with the review?
   In any case, no secular public figure, in my eyes, obviously does not make an unacceptable statement one with such legitimacy as - halachic..

8. Eric,
   It's irrelevant. From every public figure I expect some minimum of respect for others, in practice very few have this minimum. Is there any secular public figure who would demand from her what you demand from Rabbi Ovadya, under the same pretext?

9. R.H
   The problem is that when a religious leader says or writes a sentence like "He will sitra after." Devil. May his name be blotted out and his memory should be blotted out like the memory of Amalek. Ovadia Yosef was not seen among his listeners as someone who just suffers from Tourette syndrome.

10. We chatter (or rather chatted) ourselves to know, and here are three girls from Lydia who took the initiative:
    http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/432/589.html

    Here is the petition:
    http://www.atzuma.co.il/evolution
    So far she is doing well.
    Sign and distribute.

11. withering,
    Who said to whom (I don't know in what context): "I hope the Mossad will find a way to eliminate you"?
    This sentence was said to Yossi Sherid, yes yes - the same Yossi Sherid that Rabbi Ovadia hoped that all the revenges that were done to Haman would be done to him.
    by whom?

    by Tommy Lapid.
    (I wanted it to be a surprise. Full disclosure: I appreciated this man very, very much, and yes - also Rabbi Ovadia. And Yossi Sharid, and for the avoidance of doubt - I have no intention of harming him or encouraging the Mossad to harm him)
    Was it fair for me to tell you, as a secularist, that there is something inherently bad about you because Tommy Lapid, the quintessential secularist, also expressed himself that way? Of course not. So why are you allowed to do this to religious people? It's just bad logic.

    The sad truth is that wickedness and contempt exists in all human beings, regardless of race, sex, and religion. People wrap their most repulsive statements in the most comfortable wrappers - Rabbi Ovadia's wrapper was Haman. Tommy Lapid didn't need such a cover - he served his poison distilled (ahhh, what a man he was).
    You said it yourself - it's all labeling. Religion offers its rabbi a comfortable platform to reach out to other people. If he wasn't religious, he would have found another platform, and perhaps consorted with other people.
    Evil is always there, no matter what one's lifestyles are. It is our nature as humans to be bad and nasty.

    There are religious leaders who incite murder, true. Do all religious leaders incite murder? Do Rabbi Yuval Sharlo, Rabbi Haim Navon, or Rabbi Benny Lau incite murder?
    You know that this inductive inference is unfair and defames entire communities for nothing. I have no intention of defending murderers and instigators of murder. On the contrary, the religious man who applies the label 'Amalek' to someone commits an unforgivable sin in my eyes, because he simply distorts the Torah for his personal needs.
    I think that whoever incites murder should be banned, no matter what religion he belongs to. I think the state should not be interested in the realized or unrealized destructive potential of religion... it should fight murderers and lunatics of all kinds because they are murderers and lunatics.

    I will mention one more thing: since the establishment of the state, Judaism has corrupted its face beyond recognition. The possession of religion as a mistress by the state, which showers it with more and more power with its "love", has made Judaism as corrupt as it has not been since the end of the Second Temple. The vast majority of religious atrocities in recent decades are the result of this corruption - they are the result of the corrupting power that the State of Israel has given to the religious establishment. This is a group of faiths, this is the Chief Rabbinate, and this is the ultra-Orthodox culture (which hurt the ultra-orthodox themselves most of all). Rabin's murder would not have happened if the national religious public had not been planted with the feeling that the country belongs to them. Baruch Goldstein would not have done what he did if he did not think he had a "responsibility" for the state, which is why he has to protect its citizens by means that silence suits them.
    It is possible that this course of religious corruption was inevitable. And yet, we clearly see that abroad religion has not been corrupted like that; I wish religious Zionism in Israel looked like modern Orthodoxy in the USA. She didn't, and that's because of the power and money that the state showered on her and ultra-Orthodox Judaism for decades.
    Unfortunately, I highly doubt whether this corruption is fixable.

12. Orly,
    As a start, I suggest you read the Wikipedia entry: "Rest in Seven Errors" and then carefully re-read my previous response to you, emphasizing that at each stage you are invited to refer to the many substantive points I raised in this discussion and others in the context in question. Not mandatory of course. By the way, I hope you are not religious, because if you are, it follows from the end of your last comment that you are a very unpleasant person. I'm not religious by the way, even if you think that this word can be used to describe other and unrelated things.

13. R. H.,

    Who said to whom and in what context: "He will sitra later." Devil. May his name perish. And his memory should be commemorated as a male Amalek. When reading the scroll while you say cursed Haman, also say cursed Yossi Sherid... God will put his blood on his head and give him revenges that were done to Haman... so all the revenges that were done to Haman will also be done to Yossi Sherid."

    Your last response, like several of the responses that preceded it, are loaded with assumptions and blindfolds regarding the reality that surrounds us especially on the subject of the dangers of religion as a mechanism at the base of which is an abominable immorality that is just waiting for the disturbed person on duty to rely on that immoral religious justification to incite and depose others to commit crimes to the point of murder . When you write in your response: "The really interesting question is to what extent religion is contrary to our natural and instinctive conscience. So you can say a lot about "reviving the male Amalek" and the rest of the shame that exists in religion, but it is clearly not a case that "there is no Amalek these days..." and you ignore such prominent and blatant examples of religious leaders who literally incite murder, and base it on The same "commandment" that you unfairly reduce its importance. When the religious man on duty creates a link between a person living today, whatever his views, and an Amalek and says that their fate should be the same, then it is no longer important if there are no longer original Amaleks. Once religion allows labeling someone as an Amalek when everyone knows what should be done with Amalekites, it leaves the decision of whether or not to do so up to the audience. So in the case of Yossi Sharid, no religious person has yet taken the initiative, but in other cases related to sexual orientation or a certain prime minister (and there are many other examples of varying degrees of severity) things reached the point of harming the soul precisely because of similar incitement which is based on the moral distortion on the part of the religious apparatus, Based on a religious leader who took advantage of this moral distortion and incited to commit an act and a religious person who did not know how to push this moral distortion to the corner and did an act. I really don't understand how you can deny these things based on documented facts.
    I can go through section by section and show you that most of your protective and very lenient words on religion are in the clearest contrast to the current reality and the well-documented facts that have been spread over the past decades. Do you still believe that there is no potential danger to the immoral religious "commandments"? Do you still not accept that a rabbi who issues a halachic ruling based on the above commandment and incites harm to the soul is an essential link that translates the potential of religion into actions? Even though it happened over and over again?

14. Orly,

    You are right about one thing. Humanism is also a religion. The most successful explanation for this, in my opinion, appears in Yuval Noah Harari's book, Kitzur Toldot Anushot. He defines religion as some irrational belief that a person believes in and bases rules of behavior on. In the case of humanism, the belief in the value of man (man as value), etc. Assig says that those who define religion in a different way will not necessarily define humanism as a religion. I personally do not accept the person as a value and therefore I am not a humanist.

    Regarding the statement that belief in God cannot be proven or disproved empirically and therefore stands outside of science. This is one of the mistakes that is repeated endlessly in discussions of this type. It is clear that the belief in a God external to creation about whom there is no information cannot be tested. Such a god can be indifferent to human existence or anything else.
    On the other hand, every god described in the Holy Scriptures of all existing religions can be refuted because the practical stories described in the Scriptures can be refuted. Some religious people who understand this tend to interpret the scriptures in a denying way that there is nothing to do with the scriptures. It is also possible to prove that the scriptures themselves were written by humans from their wild imaginations and also copied passages and changed them. Some of the Tanakh stories were found in older scriptures, etc.
    In addition, the idea of ​​God's existence is logically equivalent to any other idea that cannot be disproved or confirmed such as Russell's teapot and the flying spaghetti monster.
    When you write "evolution is indeed proven, and if there is no contradiction between religious and intellectual" you should indicate which religion you believe in and what its laws are. It is certainly not the Jewish religion as most Jews understand it and as most people in the world know it.

15. withering
    Indeed, your response to me demonstrates what I said.
    It wasn't me who wrote Noah with V. 7 times (His name is Heaven! Terrible!), but I had no problem taking that person's words seriously.
    Interesting, no?
    I also wanted to explain to you how much the claim of respecting everyone, but every person - except anyone who doesn't think and behave like you,
    And every deviation from the moral standards you have set for yourself, puts in your eyes those who are different from you on the same level as rapists and murderers who deserve all condemnation and contempt,
    You place yourself in the league of racists and deviants who only accept members of their own gender and allow themselves to hurt and curse anyone who is not in their clique (the only "sane" one of course). Humanism? Not really.
    But R.H. He did it with such great grace and at length that I have nothing to expand on.
    There were a few more responses - one from Shmulik: regarding the alleged apologetics - although the Greeks had science and it was before them, but there was no theory of evolution, so I don't understand how you contradicted my argument, and it still stands.
    Nor did I claim that the sages of Israel built science, but only that they knew and studied science.
    The picture you paint is also not quite right - during the Mishnah people did not live 20 s, but 70-80, these are not the Middle Ages in Europe.
    Sages did not shut themselves up in the ivory tower - they all had professions and earned a living - even inferior and difficult professions such as tanners for example.
    The examples you gave from Halacha are distorted at best. Some are completely wrong.
    And I don't care what the ignorant crowd thought and thinks - that's what the discussion is about here? Even today there are people who are burned out - I met teenagers who thought that the sun revolved around the earth, and I don't think they philosophized about a relative point of view...
    I admit that I have not yet conducted an examination with rabbis, but we will do so in LND and BA (;

    Buddha - the position you present is really a bit childish - either/or...
    Indeed, my faith seems the most plausible to me, evolution is indeed proven, and if there is no contradiction between religion and intelligence, why should I stress?
    On the contrary, the whole matter of "it somehow developed by chance, by itself" and reassuring yourself with the flimsy excuse of - but billions of years have passed, is more absurd in my eyes.

    And in general, in the framed article - disbelief in the existence of God based on empirical science and rationality is the most irrational, and just another type of religion (from modern animism).
    God cannot be empirically proven or disproved with today's scientific tools. Therefore, a true scientific rationale would say - I have no way of knowing, it may be yes and it may not be. I don't have the tools to address this possibility at the moment.

    But for some reason it is clear to everyone here that either science or god... you are all religious, my friends... (and here for some reason we came back to you Camila, because if you are religious it really explains your loathing of everyone who is not like you - because he is the root of evil in the world, etc.).

16. their creation
    The attempt to attribute it to Rashi is the most puzzling, there are enough books and studies on the subject.

17. Eric,
    The revelation of the Zohar to all the people was during this period in the 13th and 14th centuries, but the historical truth is that the Zohar was written by Rashbi and his disciples after the destruction of the Second Temple.
    The attempt to attribute the Zohar to Moshe de Leon in the 13th and 14th centuries,
    He is extremely puzzling because he claims he wrote the Zohar in only six years, when the Zohar contains over one thousand seven hundred pages and requires a lot of talent and proficiency in translations.

18. R.H
    One of the problems of Sefer Zohar is that it does not have a long-standing tradition, contrary to the Torah in the Bible.
    And there are other problems.
    But really that has nothing to do with the topic of the article.

19. Eric,
    It is a bit difficult to disprove Zamir Cohen's claims using claims that he himself does not accept - according to tradition, the Zohar book was compiled by Rashbi, as you probably know.
    You really don't need all of this - anyone who develops Wikipedia sees how ridiculous his "scientific" claims are. It is sad that such a person represents the face of Judaism nowadays among many, many people.

20. ^(Sorry for the interference)

21. 'Creation..'
    I don't even have to make an effort, here is an example of Zamir Cohen's nonsense regarding the Zohar, a book that according to scholars was written in the 13th and 14th centuries. (Of course he forgets to mention this)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbGOVvB5H-w

    Take one of many small examples of him being a clown:

    In the above video he lists '7 continents' (arbitrary concept, but it doesn't matter..): Europe, Asia, Africa, 2 Americas, Antarctica, and Australia..
    In the clown book you mentioned, it is listed: Eurasia, Greenland, Africa, 2 Americas, Antarctica, and Australia..

    He himself does not believe his own nonsense.

    Needless to say, there is not even an implicit connection to the '7 lands' or the 7 heavens that the Zohar mentions, as explained in the video and the links to the video, ('XNUMX heavens above, seven lands to the bottom') How stupid and lying can one be..

    But this is really a small example..

22. their creation,
    From which category in "talking" do you want me to bring you examples?
    Maybe a lecture on religion and science (http://www.hidabroot.org/Page.asp?CategoryID=2) who makes the absurd claim that scientific discoveries are all based on the Torah?
    Or maybe you cracked the biblical cipher (yes, I know that there are respected mathematicians who dealt with this subject, but they did not derive from it any of the conclusions about the secrets that are supposedly implied in the Torah) - http://www.hidabroot.org/Page.asp?CategoryID=16

    In short, not lacking at all. Unfortunately.

23. R.H
    "I really think that Zamir Cohen is not speaking rationally, to say the least"
    Could you be more specific and give an irrational example of his words?

24. withering,
    I am afraid that we are spilling, or have already spilled, into the arduous and tedious discussion of "religion and morality". Personally, I think it's boring and trite, but I find it appropriate to make a few comments:
    I completely agree that religions (certainly monotheistic) are far from representing the humanistic ideal. I also don't think they are supposed to represent him - they were created long before he was created so it's not really surprising. This is simply a given fact. How and how should they be made to settle with this ideal, if at all? This is already a much more concrete question (I will only point out that neither Aviner nor the reform movement constitute a model for the matter in my eyes).
    The really interesting question is to what extent religion is contrary to our natural and instinctive conscience. So one can say a lot about "the revival of the male Amalek" and the rest of the shame that exists in religion, but it is clear that it is not a case that "there is no Amalek in our days" just as it is not a case that there is no remote city in our days, and it is not a case that in reality there is not a disobedient son and a teacher, or a Chaz." Abolished the deviant law, reduced the Nida laws, and completely abolished "an eye for an eye". All these things do not exist because the Sages knew, as I said, to push them to the corner. But this is not just a corner fund: you have no fear that the remains of Amalek will suddenly be found so that we can carry out the mitzvah of life, or that suddenly there will be a rabbi who will decide to renew the law of a disobedient son and teacher. These things are simply impossible. There are many other problems, but the sages knew how to solve most of the serious moral problems. What we are left with is mostly the leftovers, and especially the problems that they themselves did not see as problems.
    How does the "potential for evil" manifest itself in the daily life of the common religious? With the possible exception of women not participating in prayer, I don't think there is any inherent evil here that manifests itself in mildly religious moderates. Or maybe Nida laws are an expression of this immorality? I really don't. Obviously, Mitzvo Nida is not very feminist, but I don't think there is anything here that is really immoral on a level that goes against the conscience (a religious man doesn't really think that his wife is impure when she is menstruating, come on. I also know religious people).
    You wrote that those moderate religious people do not act out of universal values, but out of relegating the not very moral aspects of their religion to a corner. But here is exactly the point: they push those parties into a corner also because they are not in line with their conscience (not very different from the Sages). They agree that they do not act on behalf of your universal values, and here we again return to the matter of pluralism and the tolerant attitude towards particular traditions, which do not necessarily hold humanistic values, which I will expand on in connection with Imagine.

    You wrote as follows: "What worries me, and in my opinion the "Duckinsians" as well, are not the religious as such and per se, but exactly that belief system with arbitrary content that allows quite a few of the religious to behave in a way that actually hurts others. ". But you can't do that - you can't treat the other person's beliefs with disdain and complete rejection, and at the same time respect them. When you tell a person that his personal belief is the root of all evil in the world (a statement that is no more populist than that), you directly hurt him, and it won't help how much you say you respect him as a person.
    In your eyes, this harm is necessary to prevent the greater potential harm of religion. I don't think it's right and I don't think it's appropriate, but I guess I won't be able to convince you anymore. Saying only this: if you tried to apply this approach in relation to any other (dangerous) human phenomenon, the enlightened would immediately claim that this is incitement, collectivism, and perhaps also racism. For some reason, only religion is allowed to express itself however you want. This is certainly also the fault of the religious, most of whom do not speak the language (meaning the language in the cultural sense of course) in which they speak out against them.

    Regarding the song: I think I didn't phrase it correctly: I have no problem with striving for equality between all human beings. On the contrary, I am very, very much in favor of it, and I am a partner in it like you. However, in my eyes equality is meaningless when we give equal treatment to those who look like us. It is clear that everyone should be treated equally, but this equal treatment had to arise precisely from the differences. Precisely because I accept the identity and the difference of the other. Again, there is no wisdom in accepting someone who looks like you as an equal - it's not equality, it's simply egocentrism. Essential equality comes from the recognition of the natural diversity - cultural, ethnic, historical and mental - that exists between human beings, and despite this diversity. This is the essence of tolerance - willingness to tolerate the views and beliefs of the other, due to being human (which is humanism in its self-evident version), due to being different, and despite being different.
    You are ready to accept this difference as long as it has no value significance; As long as the person who is different from you in his culture and character accepts the same values ​​for him that you accept for yourself, which are absolutely not by chance universalistic and humanistic values. In my eyes, this is partial tolerance, which lacks the main thing: the main thing should be the recognition of a fundamental difference that exists between me and other human beings. That is, true tolerance should also be directed towards those who are not tolerant themselves. Of course, this tolerance has limits; When a person openly preaches the killing of people because of their origin, there is no reason to be tolerant of him. In this matter I agree. Even in less extreme cases, one must not be tolerant: in a situation where a person openly preaches the oppression and humiliation of people because of their origin/gender/religion, one must not be tolerant towards him either, because there may be those who, God forbid, see his words as a source of authority.
    However, as long as we have not reached these situations, we must continue to hold tolerance as a value. We have to stretch the thread of our patience and tolerance until we really have to condemn the specific person we see as a danger. Note that there are no intermediate situations here: either we must be tolerant towards every person, or we must not be tolerant towards a certain person, or a certain group of people, who in our opinion pose a danger (especially when it comes to a danger to human life). There is no intermediate state of "it is permissible to be tolerant, but not required" - if we perceive tolerance as a value, we must apply this value in practice, to the limit of our ability to restrain.

    Back to the song: Neither you nor I can love all human beings, by virtue of their being equal in rights (if they are equal in rights, why should I love them at all? How does love have anything to do with it?). I really recommend Magen's article which demonstrates very accurately why the idea of ​​"loving all people equally" is simply meaningless. And in general regardless of Magen's article: love is an emotion, and the nature of an emotion is that it changes from time to time. I need and must respect all human beings at all times, regardless of the feelings I have or don't have towards them. I must respect both those I hate and those I despise. This is simply, the whole essence of tolerance. The religious requirement of "love your neighbor as you" (and again, read the article. Ze'ev Magen gives a beautiful interpretation of this verse there) is not at all relevant to the matter of tolerance.
    I admit that the interpretation I give to the song is quite far-reaching. Nevertheless, it seems to me that this is the ideal that Lennon was talking about - a world where all people are simply people, without all the cultural and ethnic affiliations that lead to wars and conflicts. Again, in my eyes this world is a catastrophic world if only because without cultural affiliations people find their lives meaningless (a perception I am not mistaken) and become miserable. Moreover: a world in which all human beings live for the now is a world in which no great human creation, no great enterprise, could be created. Religion too, true, but also other big enterprises like let's say... science. Imagine a world where there are no scientists who dedicate themselves to research, who only live in the now. What kind of science can develop under such conditions? Science is a human creation that unfolds throughout history; From Aristotle to Einstein, scientists and intellectuals have dedicated their entire lives to understanding the world in which they live a little better. Imagine Marie Curie not dedicating (and of course also sacrificing) her life to research radioactivity, because she lives in the moment and things like science don't interest her.
    No great human creation can be created in Lennon's perfect world, because creation requires sacrifice - a concept that does not exist in this dystopia.

    their creation,
    I really think that Zamir Cohen is not speaking in a rational way, to say the least. In an even more belittling language, I say that I feel ashamed as a Jew that the answer, a wonderful concept like no other that thinkers such as Rambam and Rabbi Kook and R. Zadok HaCohen conjured up a miracle, has been perverted in our day by the Hamnonitzchakim and has become a symbol of intellectual and mental bankruptcy. And I really tried to be tolerant.

25. The 'Ig Nobel' prize in literature was given to the 'discoverers of the biblical cipher':

    http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A1_%D7%90%D7%99%D7%92_%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%91%D7%9C

    "The prize in literature was awarded in 1997 to the researchers of the biblical cipher, Ilya Rips, Doron Weitzum and Yoav Rosenberg, and their popularizer Michael Droznin."

    Professor Israel Oman (mathematician) as a summary of the biblical cipher:
    We finally come to the bottom line: A priori, the thesis of the Codes research seems
    wildly improbable".

26. Zamir Cohen is a clown and a liar, and he deserves to be treated like the above:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfk7owXhz8k

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRHg3hxxRcs

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4bxMmUiEf8

27. their creation to the matter,

    Without getting into the debate again about whether the theory of evolution is correct, the people you mentioned who advise Zamir Cohen are indeed recognized scientists, but on the subject of evolution they hold a minority opinion. As posted in this thread already, all or almost all recognized universities in the western world support the theory of evolution as scientific truth and call for it to be taught in schools as you can see here:

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/twas-against-intelligent-design-3006061/

    Regarding Professor Natan Aviezer, even Bar Ilan University disowned his views when he published a film that denies the theory of evolution, even though he sometimes claims that he does support it:

    http://www.tapuz.co.il/blog/net/ViewEntry.aspx?entryId=2368330&skip=1

    Regarding Professor Eliyahu Rips, you can read an article here from 10 years ago and decide for yourself to what extent the biblical code allows us to predict the future:

    http://www.nrg.co.il/online/archive/ART/406/505.html

    I wish I had 10% of Professor Rips' mathematical knowledge, and I write this without a hint of sarcasm.

28. Avi,
    Could you be more specific, for example, I read in the book HaMafal about the theory of relativity and cross-referenced it with external sources and found no gaps between them,
    I also read about the structure of the cell, DNA, etc. and did not find a problem
    It is very possible that not all the information is given to the details due to it being a theoretical book for the common layman rather than a scientific book for a student studying physics, but one cannot dispute the reliability of the information given there in a concise and light manner.
    Especially when it is signed by well-known professors, who are still working in science and any nonsense of theirs will harm their reputation and livelihood, therefore it is difficult for me to accept that nonsense is said there.

29. In any case, even if he consulted the scientists, he probably didn't get to the bottom of their minds because he's talking nonsense. The fact that he protects this nonsense by copyright so that it is impossible to criticize it does not make it any less nonsense. And one more thing, if he consults with scientists, it should preferably be in their areas of expertise.

30. Avi,
    Zamir Cohen did not come to represent science, there is a team of scientists he uses:
    Like Prof. Natan Aviezer, Prof. Doron Orbach, Prof. Eliyahu Rips and more...
    So I think you may be confusing Amnon Yitzchak who of course has no formal scientific education - I agree with you

31. All well and good, except that without a scientific education, the part of the science he describes is far from accurate.

32. R.H
    I think you are not accurate about Zamir Cohen at least,
    In that you attribute his repentance strategy to the rational channel only, he also works on the emotional and talks a lot about our ancestors: their faith and their different virtues
    But he also incorporates the matter of science to show that this is a true theory that corresponds to reality at any time
    because otherwise there is no chance that someone who does not connect to the stories of the ancestors will find his way to Judaism, unless he receives
    the rational dimension and the connection to contemporary reality through science.

33. R.H.
    I will have to represent the Dawkinsian side...
    There are two clear facts here, one is that religions inherently contain things that, in the eyes of most sane people I know, are clearly immoral, unfair and indecent. The combination with irrational divine justification is deadly, sometimes literally. You can try to push these issues into a corner as much as you want and reduce their importance but the fact is that religions (especially the three - Judaism, Christianity and Islam) maintain this seed of calamity as long as they exist.
    The second fact is that despite the great evil potential that exists in religions, and which is realized every day by extremists, but no less important, it also exists every day in a more "refined" but rather widespread way (as mentioned, unfortunately, some of my family are ultra-Orthodox, and I had enough opportunities to experience these things, in words and deeds which I refer to, first-hand and among the usual "dosses"). Even the religious people who do not observe extreme and completely delusional laws, and I have no doubt that there are many religious people who are wonderful role models, just as I do not believe that secularism is necessarily synonymous with honesty, love of people, etc. Still, those religious who do not act according to the asymmetry that is built into their religion, act not out of recognition of universal values ​​but out of relegating to the corner those parts that seem irrelevant to them, at least as of this moment.
    What worries me, and in my opinion the "Duckinsians" as well, are not the religious in any way and per se, but precisely that belief system with arbitrary content that allows quite a few of the religious to behave in a way that really hurts others. The problem as far as I'm concerned is the religious and non-religious apparatus which, in my view, are babies who have been caught, because if they had been born into a completely different religious apparatus they would have adopted a faith with completely different contents, whereas if they had not been born into a religious apparatus they would not have had to push the same invalid things that exist in religion to the Zoyt Fund at all And which not every religious person is strong or moral enough to oppose it, precisely because of the same mechanism.

    Regarding Lennon's song, the things you wrote are just as absurd as saying that the pursuit of equal rights among human beings wherever they are is dangerous because it strives for human beings to be the same. This is a complete distortion of the underlying idea. It's as if you say that the principle of equality before the law means that we are all the same in terms of obeying the law, which is simply nonsense, and then you increase the absurdity and adopt the words of Zeev Magen and write: "When we are all the same, we all treat each other in the same way," implicitly assuming that the relationship It will be bad, when all the principle of equality means is that there is no reason to think that the other is fundamentally different from you in terms of his rights and therefore there is no reason for the same discrimination even if he is different and special in his culture. But Lennon didn't come up with this idea, these are ideas that existed long before, which are supposed to be central to Judaism: like don't do to your friend what you hate, or love your neighbor as yourself (until lawyers of the religion came and explained that not all people are good enough to be "your friend ” and “neighbor”). How do you manage to miss the call to love human beings as they are, by virtue of their being equal rights in principle? Why do you think that one of the lines in the song specifically mentions religion, where, as mentioned, the principled equality between all human beings does not exist by definition? There is no call for social isolation in the song and this is not the meaning of individuality, I wonder where this interpretation comes from?
    In any case, it seems to me that the gap in perception between you and me is much greater than I initially thought, especially in connection with the problematic nature of the destructive potential that exists in a structured way in religions, and that the inevitable result is that this potential is indeed realized by many of the religious, some in a more radical way and some in a relatively more softened manner. And at the same time, there are enough secular communities in this world that prove that you don't need religion to maintain a moral social lifestyle, whether with a unique culture or with a diverse culture. The great advantage is that, unlike religion, this way of life also exists without asymmetric axioms regarding the superiority of individuals in that society on the one hand and the inferiority of all others in the world on the other.

34. withering,
    As I wrote in the previous message, I do not understand what is wrong with ignoring the universal aspect of the amorphous religious feeling. As I have already explained several times - without the "content" faith is meaningless. Perhaps for you as a secular and atheist (if you define yourself that way) it is easy to look at all religions in an overall view, and to recognize the universal aspect in all of them - because you do not belong to any of them. On the other hand, those who are within one of these religions understand the depth of the difference between the religions, that the universal aspect is meaningless compared to it and because of it.
    You certainly don't expect me to try to justify the views of the ultra-orthodox and the settlers, some of whom in my view distort Judaism for their fascist, racist and misogynistic needs. Yes, there is certainly a built-in foundation in Judaism that allows them to do what they do, but I think that over the past several hundred years, enough great personalities have arisen in the world of Judaism who have proven that this foundation is not necessary, and that it is possible to sustain Judaism even without it, or at least while relegating it to a corner. The problem is that there will always be someone who will take this foundation from the corner, and as if to destroy Judaism on purpose, make it its central foundation. Here is an example that came to me today on Facebook: http://www.kipa.co.il/jew/50586.html
    Aviner, who apparently publishes these halachic rulings because he secretly desires to wipe out orthodox Judaism from the face of the earth, writes there that what he says is written explicitly in Rambam. He may be right, I don't know - I looked for it and didn't find it. And now, look around you and think how many religious people around you really practice this way? How many religious avoid being alone with their sisters? What's funny is that in the post where they shared this link, religious people responded by calling Aviner various derogatory names. How did they respond? "What are you going down on him? This is your halacha!", RL - the religious are invalid in any case, both when they are against this madness and when they are in favor of it (they are dosums!!!).
    This is what I mean when I say that this element is suppressed. In the last hundreds of years, Judaism knew how to relegate these laws to the corner because it was no longer possible to uphold them - because they simply ceased to be relevant to reality.

    I got a little off topic, so I'll try to stick to your words:
    The arrogant and racist element to a certain extent exists in religion, definitely. The question is whether you choose to emphasize it, or whether you choose to emphasize other elements.
    You wrote this: "You may not want to impose your opinion on others (just as you don't want others to impose their opinion on you) but the reality in which there is constant friction between perceptions (the question of ownership of "sacred" territories and places, the tension between religious and secular in many areas) shows that in practice it is difficult It is very important to avoid such coercion." Unwittingly, it seems to me, you are doing exactly what I am talking about: due to the coercion imposed on you by a dominant group in the religious community (say if it is even the majority), you claim that the entire religion is like this. But your total vision does not see me, and does not see other people who belong to this religion, who also oppose coercion, and who also think that coercion is unjust.
    There are two ways to fight racism and hatred of man:
    The easy way is to denounce the entire religion as racist and misanthropic, and thus fight coercion. This is the comprehensive, universal view of the Jewish religion as one bloc that is full of hatred and misogyny. This solution tramples me and my shoulders, because it does not see me and does not count me. This is the solution of certain atheists, I'll call them "Dawkins" (you understand where I'm getting at).
    The more difficult way is to denounce the one who is a real racist and hater. It is difficult, because here it is no longer possible to generalize and one cannot be satisfied with a general opposition to religion; Here you have to find the one who really hates a person and denounce him. The Dawkins of sorts will never bother to choose this solution. Why be fair when you can attack the entire religion with collectivist and rather racist statements like "religion is the root of all evil" (which of course means that everyone who belongs to a religion is infected with inherent evil)?

    I repeat your words again, to clarify the point: "But the reality in which there is constant friction between perceptions (the question of ownership of "holy" territories and places, the tension between religious and secular in many areas) shows that in practice it is very difficult to avoid such coercion." True, reality is hard. I didn't say no and I claimed so myself.
    In my eyes, a truly democratic and pluralistic society is one that sees the person beyond labeling. Yes, there is tension, and it needs to be resolved. What way does the company choose to resolve this tension? Usually the easy way, because it is easier and more convenient. And damn the little man with the tagging.

    Regarding the alienation: I meant that the search for what unites human beings - for the universal and not for the particular, causes alienation between humans, because they lose their identity. They become a kind of shadows.
    I don't understand how everything you wrote about the Crusades is related to what I wrote - the concept of modernity as a period in which alienation increased, following urbanization and the dissolution of rural communities, is not a concept I invented. Yes, there were terrible things (much more) even before modernity, which were done in the name of religion and perhaps also due to particularism, but I was talking about a feeling experienced by the modern person. Beyond the fact that nothing similar to what was done in modern times was done before modernity (yes, even in the name of humanism - in its socialist - communist version, for example).

    "I am not at all calling for the blurring of cultural identity and uniqueness, but only for the understanding that the customs that characterize one culture do not represent some absolute divine truth that, in the eyes of those religious believers, is a justification for exalting themselves over other cultures (which simultaneously created other religions) which leads to the actual commission of many injustices against those who happen to not belong with the culture of the first." I totally agree, but I was talking about the unique cultural identity being obscured for the sake of universality. In my eyes, the blurring of the unique cultural identity in the name of universality, a blurring that in my eyes is a danger to humanity, to say the least.

    Regarding "Imagine": I hated the content of the song the first time I heard it, somewhere in middle school I think. Something about the song felt very fake to me. Sometime I also read this article by Zaev Magen, which greatly strengthened my position: http://tchelet.org.il/article.php?id=173 (Although I have reservations about a lot of things he says there).
    I think my main problem with this song is that it tries to sell us a world where we have no identity and no belonging. A world where there is no place for cultural tradition. In Lennon's world, only the individual exists, and the individuals are all "Living for today", there is no place for a sense of cultural or even family belonging, which is greater than the chapter of the individual's life, which continues throughout history. In my eyes, the absence of this feeling causes alienation and makes us lonely people. When we don't have different cultural affiliations, we are no longer different but equal, we are simply equal, that is - the same. When we are all the same, we all treat each other in the same way, and as Zeev Magen says in the article - we stop loving, or experiencing any emotion. In my eyes, this "egalitarianism" of Lennon hurts us as human beings.

35. their creation,
    I really didn't say that faith is necessarily just an emotional thing without a hint of rationality. On the contrary: if I do accept the faith in its Jewish version, which is embodied in the Halacha - certainly there is an important place for the rational here, because the halachic formalization is done by the strictures and the drawing of conclusions (within a "closed world" and autonomous of axioms that are not necessarily rational, as Rabbi Soloveitch showed Yak).
    But beyond the practical matter of the Halacha: I did not deny God's being the "creator of the world" and the "inventor of everything that exists", and I have no interest in doing so - after all, the Jewish tradition actually treats God that way. I claim, however, that it is impossible to refer to God only as the Creator of the world, but also, and even before that, as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that is, as the God of Israel. Also, it is clear to me that no "logical recognition of the Creator of the world" (if there is such a thing at all...) does not bring a person to faith, it is vanity and bad spirit. Needless to say, all the converts who realized that "there is a creator for the world" make a particularly bad impression on me. It is not enough that it is not a belief, but that there is a blasphemy and blasphemy in it, so that you understand what is related to Amnonitzchakim and Zamirkohanim of all kinds.

    And one more thing should be noted (which links Rambam as a rationalist): the person who believes is not exempt from the rational viewpoint; He is not allowed to say that since his faith is based on certain emotions, he discards the rational and only follows his heart. My intention in this is mainly for theoretical theological issues, and not for Halacha (which is also decided rationally, as I wrote in the previous paragraph). It is precisely for this reason that Maimonides presented a rational view of Judaism (regardless of rationalism. A distinction must be made between rationalism, that is, seeing the mind as the essence of man and perhaps also as the "image of God" in man, and a rational view, which is simply a logical or logically sound view). Maimonides believed that the believing person not only can, but must use his intellect and apply rational thinking to his faith as well - this explanation is expressed, for example, in his theory of prophecy, which is indeed rationalistic in the strong sense of the term, but also rational, that is, logically sound.

36. R.H.
    You wrote: "The arbitrariness lies in the fact that a person is born to a certain origin and a certain culture, while the psychological tendency to a general feeling of faith is shared by all human beings. But again, I'm not looking for the belief system that is common to all humans, it doesn't interest me."

    I think that many religious people share the lack of interest (and sometimes even ignoring) the common tendency of all religious people to believe in their religion. It is unfortunate that this is the case because in most religions (as expressed through the behavior of the religious leaders but also in the behavior of the "simple" religious people) they attribute to their religion The certain (which as mentioned is an accidental historical cultural result) some superiority over all other religions, moral superiority, superior in knowing the truth (and this without any proper examination of this "truth"). This arrogant attitude, which is built into religion even if there are religious people who choose to humble it, is in my opinion a very serious stumbling block to the existence of a reformed multicultural human society. So it is true that extreme Islam, as it is called, but also among religious Jews, both among significant groups among the settlers and among the ultra-Orthodox, it is difficult to ignore the different and differentiating, racist lines that discriminate between people, especially on religious grounds but also on other grounds (such as gender , including sexual orientation). It is also difficult to ignore the fact that the religious people's strong inner belief (and irrational as you say) in that certain truth (which is only "true" for them due to a given culture and time) is what justifies in the eyes of those religious people the disqualification of all the others, and any reasonable person cannot escape the understanding that in any social friction -Cultural The chances of finding fair solutions are greatly reduced when each side is confident that it holds a divine truth (illogical to the same extent).
    I try to look at the issue in a general way and you keep coming back to the particular case of a certain religious person (your case for example). Obviously, in this particular view, belief and content are both equally important. If the religious groups had existed separately from each other, perhaps there would not have been a problem (I highly doubt it and I have several reasons for this if you would like me to add to this) but in this reality, where cultural friction is inevitable, especially in this place called Israel, the lack of logic, which is evident at a glance The total, claiming ownership of some divine truth on the one hand and sweeping rejection (or at least condescension) in relation to all others is not only an unpleasant situation to live in, but constitutes a real existential danger. You may not want to force your opinion on others (just as you don't want others to force their opinion on you) but the reality in which there is constant friction between perceptions (the question of ownership of "holy" territories and places, the tension between religious and secular in many areas) shows that in practice it is very difficult to avoid such coercion .

    "Modernity has proven to us that when we emphasize too much the universal over the particular, and when we damage the differences between us - we in some sense actually cause alienation."

    Do you believe that in the not-so-distant past, when religion (meaning the religious) ruled the world almost completely, there was less alienation between people? Slavery (in the soul, property and natural treasures of other nations), crusades and other massacres of all kinds on a holocaust scale and persecution on religious grounds. I don't think that in the past there was technology that made it possible, for example, to help another nation that experienced a national disaster such as a hurricane, an earthquake or an invasion by a foreign army, it is modernity, as you say, that made possible and makes possible mutual aid between different nations. Maybe things are still very far from perfect, there is still exploitation of resources in third world countries, there is still an unfair distribution of resources, but I don't think that the alienation between people is increasing, at least I don't see good evidence of that.
    I also do not agree that renouncing the centrality of religion leads to a decrease in diversity, the opposite is true, the seculars are called a group only by way of negation, because they are not "full" religious. The diversity among the secular is enormous and precisely among the religious the diversity is smaller. It is possible that this homogeneity does indeed increase the closeness and sense of belonging (in each stream separately, of course), but the reality shows that it greatly increases the alienation towards other groups, both of the religious to the outside, of other groups to the religious and even between the religious streams themselves. So what is the use of a small and cohesive group but culturally isolated and alienated from the rest of the world?

    You wrote: "Precisely in a society that emphasizes the common (amorphous belief) and makes it central over the "content" which is supposedly secondary, there will be less multifacetedness because there will be less uniqueness."

    I am not at all calling for the blurring of cultural identity and uniqueness, but only for the understanding that the customs that characterize one culture do not represent some absolute divine truth that in the eyes of those religious believers is a justification for exalting themselves over other cultures (which simultaneously created other religions) which leads to the actual commission of many injustices against those who happen to not belong to The culture of the first.

    Wow! You surprised me with the review of Lennon's song. is it so bad A world without hunger, without envy, without hallucinatory dreams of places that don't exist, perfect in their good or bad? A world where humans live in peace with each other? A world where humans can find meaning in learning, in creation, in positive social interaction (what boredom are you talking about?). He doesn't say that all people should be the same, surely he doesn't mean people who have no individual meaning, huh? We're talking about John Lennon, I don't think he was ready to live in a world that didn't allow him to create and play and sing, activities that characterized him as an individual and undoubtedly gave meaning to his life, I also find it hard to believe that he thought of a world where everyone is an identical copy of himself. I have to admit that I am a little shocked by your interpretation of the song... a person interprets songs from his own world and from his aspirations and the wishes of his heart.

37. R.H
    This approach is a bit problematic, in my opinion
    Because man also looks for the rational beyond the emotional, that's why there are those who are in the scope of a "scholarly mitzvah"
    who observe the mitzvot out of the necessity of the reality into which they were born and thus live their lives,
    But the connection and affinity with God should be at every given moment like a pipe of abundance that connects you to a source of infinite spiritual wealth and as soon as the creatures do not understand that he is the cause of all causes and that he renews creation at each and every given moment and that he is the source of abundance, then no one will want to connect with him, Therefore, in my opinion, the basis for the connection must also be rational beyond historical cultural affinity

38. withering,
    I do not understand your words.
    I agree that it can be said that the "content" that shapes belief is somewhat arbitrary, in the sense that the believer does not choose it. But why does arbitrariness make this content secondary to faith itself? For me, the opposite is true: in the absence of content, belief is complete. If we have indeed accepted belief in emotion (although in my opinion the acceptance is not complete and I have reservations about it), then this is even clearer: a person does not experience an emotion if he has no connection with the object of the emotion. In the same sense, if the God we are talking about was a deistic god - an amorphous god to whom the believer's emotional relationship is not rooted in his culture and identity, belief in him would be meaningless (if you notice, usually people who believe in God in a non-religious sense, or who accept the existence of a god Deistic and they have no emotion towards him, or their emotion towards him is influenced by the perception of God in Western culture, i.e. - in Christianity).
    I don't understand why the arbitrariness necessarily makes the content secondary - the arbitrariness is that a person is born to a certain origin and a certain culture, while the psychological tendency to a general feeling of faith is shared by all human beings. But again, I'm not looking for the belief system that is common to all humans, it doesn't interest me; The "content" that my culture (Judaism) put into it, along with this feeling of course (which is the paradox above), are what interests me.

    "I will ask you this: what do you think you will lose if you admit that your faith is "only" a result of exposure to a certain historical culture?" is nothing. I fully acknowledge that. And yet I acknowledge my belief that for me it is the truth. It may be that there are certain people who claim that the truth is different, and I have no desire to convert their religion (nor does the Halacha ask that I convert their religion). This is the line that separates modern pluralism from postmodernism: I recognize that the other person's faith is different from mine, and I don't want to impose mine on his just as I don't want him to impose his on mine. I'm not saying that for me there is no truth, because for me there is definitely truth, but I respect exactly the "content" of the other you talked about, which is different from mine. I recognize that he was born, arbitrarily, to a different origin and to a different culture and therefore his content is different from mine (well, on second thought this is a problematic parallel because I am not talking here about truth in the ontological sense but more in the epistemological sense).

    I completely disagree with your opinion: precisely in a society that emphasizes the common (amorphous belief) and makes it central over the "content" which is supposedly secondary, there will be less diversity because there will be less uniqueness. I think modernity has proven to us that when we emphasize the universal over the particular, and when we damage the differences between us - we in some sense actually cause alienation. Although in such a situation we will treat others as equal to us, but this situation causes two problematic results: one - if most individuals in society are similar to each other, then the minority who are different feel even more different. Actually, paradoxically, in such a situation there is actually less respect for the difference (provided that the difference is really a small minority). The second - in such a situation we stop treating others with respect by virtue of being human and by virtue of being equal to us, but by virtue of being similar to us. Therefore, it is much easier to collapse pluralism in such a situation.
    In my opinion, a society that emphasizes the different and the particular, rather than what unites, is a truly tolerant and democratic society and it is a society that truly advocates for human dignity. I agree that such a situation is difficult and problematic - that is exactly why tolerance and pluralism need to be taught. I also agree that most religions do not exactly educate for such pluralism, and that precisely in a society that emphasizes difference, tension may arise between the different groups, but resolving this tension with respect and kindness is a task that a democratic society should take upon itself, and not avoid by emphasizing the similar and the unifying. In my eyes, an "egalitarian" society like the one described by John Lennon in "Imagine" is nothing less than a catastrophe. Beyond the fact that it is horribly boring, it is simply a totalitarian society with the consent of all its members (and I'm not necessarily talking about nationalism - I'm talking about ethnic, cultural and religious characteristics that distinguish the members of society). Such a society eliminates pluralism in practice, because there is simply no need for it - there are no individuals in society that are different from each other on a level that is meaningful to them (as opposed to a level that may be meaningless to them, such as skin color).

39. R.H.
    You wrote: "What you call "content", which is the cultural and social context that shapes this amorphous belief into an institutionalized religion, is not at all secondary to the belief. The opposite is true: it is the content that makes faith a significant factor in human life."

    But if the sentence you wrote is true for every person who believes, when it is true whether he is Jewish or whether he is Christian, Muslim or of any other religion from the hundreds of religions that exist and have existed in human history, then it is impossible to escape the fact that any content can create a similar meaning for humans, Therefore, although it is clear that a certain content is critical for a certain believer, and only this content is the content that creates the meaning for that believer, it is still not possible to escape the conclusion in a broad view of things that the sense of faith (the emotion, the sense of meaning) is the common basis for all believers, while the content is arbitrary Completely and in this sense secondary.

    I did not claim that there is anything wrong with a religious person because of the fact that there is a high correlation between a person's faith and their cultural and geographic background, on the contrary, this is extremely interesting and points to a deep common ground between all religious believers. Those who find fault with certain believers are actually usually believers of a certain religion towards the other religious groups (unfortunately sometimes even if they are sects of the same religion). I will ask you this: What do you think you will lose if you admit that your faith is "only" a result of exposure to a certain historical culture? When this understanding is supposed to lead to the insight that there is no significant difference in the strength of his feelings or their essence in a believing person who was exposed to a different historical culture, an insight that was supposed to bring all people together and prevent persecution on religious grounds.

    I do not believe that it is so difficult to reach this insight, nor do I believe that this involves a special mental effort, but mainly an emotional effort to oppose the same pattern on which the person grew up. From this point of view, religion is a huge obstacle to the ability to maintain a multicultural social life, since inequality between people is built into it, so even if there are individuals who manage to maintain a more universal social morality, they are relatively rare and their influence in this direction is fleeting.

40. Ori,
    The people you are talking about did not invent anything new. More than that: they also do not sacrifice the concept of God on the altar of logic, they simply continue the Rambam's theory of negative titles, according to which it is logically impossible and religiously forbidden to describe God in any positive description. Note the duplicity here: it is clear that they avoid a positive description of God also because a positive description of God is logically impossible, but they also avoid doing so because such a description has the meaning of fulfilling God, which is religiously forbidden ("You shall not make for yourself a statue or any image" ).
    So you come and claim, rightly, that there is a serious problem here: there is an emptying of the concept of God from its meaning, certainly from the meaning that emerges from a simple reading of the Bible. Even though we can still describe God in a negative description (to say what God is not - for example: God does not have a body), this is still not the prevailing description in the Bible. Rambam's solution was complex: he claimed that all the descriptions of God in the Bible are allegorical, and did not come to describe God's image in a concrete way ("the bones of God") but to express his action in relation to his believers (an action that is embodied, as mentioned, in the conduct of nature on the way of the intellect) . This is about the contradiction between the Bible and the Rambam's view.

    Now, then what is God?
    Neither I nor Rambam have a real answer to this question, and our inability to answer this question is the essence of faith, according to Rambam; We cannot fully understand God's essence, and this recognition is faith recognition (!) according to his method. And again, we can say what God is not: God is not the world. God is completely transcendent and is distinct from the world in every sense. It follows, quite clearly, that any attempt we make to contain our mental categories about God is doomed from the start to failure.
    (Personal note: As someone who is not a complete stranger to the world of Kabbalah, this is exactly the point where I begin to feel difficulty with Rambam's perception, but let's put this point aside because it will completely complicate the discussion).
    Now, regarding the passage from the Laws of the Torah:
    I did not invent everything I wrote above from my fevered mind, everything from Rambam. If so, then how can it be that he writes "to know that there is a name found first." And he invents everything that exists; And all that is found from heaven and earth and what is between them, were not found except by the truth of their being found. "?
    As I wrote in one of the previous comments, Maimonides is an esoteric. What he writes in Morah Nabukim he designates for the intellectual elite, and what he writes in the Mishna Torah he designates for the common people. And yet, it is absolutely clear that Rambam would not write in the beginning of the greatest work of his life, Mishna Torah, things that he thinks are completely incorrect. Therefore, it is clear that the Rambam means in the basic principles of the Torah something that is true for him, he is not lying. That's why you have to try and understand what Maimonides means, something that many, much better than me, have done throughout the generations. I say again that I am not an expert on Maimonides, and don't consider me an authority (what's more, I draw more from Maimonides' interpretations than Maimonides himself).

    The first four laws of the basic laws of the Torah are the more problematic for us:

    "A The foundation of the foundations and the pillar of wisdom, for knowledge that there is a first place. And he invents everything that exists; And all that is found from heaven and earth and what is between them, were not found except by the truth of their being found. [b] And if it is conceivable that it is not found, nothing else can be found. [XNUMX] And if it comes to mind that all things that exist apart from Him are found, He alone will be found and He will not be canceled for their cancellation: all things that are need Him; And he, blessed be he, does not need them, not one of them.

    Therefore, its truth is not the same as the truth of one of them. [XNUMX] It is that the prophet says "And the Lord God is truth" (Jeremiah XNUMX:XNUMX) - He alone is the truth, and there is no other truth like His truth. And it is that the Torah says, "There is no other, besides Him" ​​(Deuteronomy XNUMX:XNUMXa), that is, there is no truth found there other than Him like Him.

    XNUMX [E] This being is the God of the world, the Lord of the whole earth. And he is the leader of the wheel with power that has no end and purpose, with power that has no end, that the wheel always turns, and it is impossible for it to turn without turning; And blessed is he who spins it, without hand or body.

    XNUMX [XNUMX] And knowing this is a mitzvah to do, as it is said, "I am the Lord your God" (Exodus XNUMX:XNUMX; Deuteronomy XNUMX:XNUMX). And anyone who thinks that there is another God, apart from this, transgresses by not doing, as it is said "Thou shalt have no other God before me" (Exodus XNUMX; Deuteronomy XNUMX:XNUMX); And mainly a village, which is the big main thing on which everything depends."

    Notice which word Rambam avoided: created. The first word that appears regarding God in the Bible is absent from the Rambam's description of God, and not by chance; Rambam does not understand this word, nor does he need it. Maimonides does not refer to God as the "creator of the world", but as the "first commandment". And note: the root MCA repeats here again and again and again. What does the root mean? I tend to interpret Maimonides' use of it as implying "reality", meaning that God is the reality of truth. In other words, Rambam says: God is not just the first cause, from which the rest of the things in the world unfolded; God is the reality of truth. Whether we truly exist or not, God is truly present. There is a concept here that in my eyes is extremely nihilistic (which is why I like it very much): the whole world, all the things that apparently exist in reality, are vanity. The whole world is contingent, that is, it could also not be, therefore it is nonsense. Only God alone exists in truth. Therefore, only God is true reality (and therefore also, only God is holy).
    This is not logical thinking - it is an existential position. This is a position that turns us, and the entire mighty universe into a meaningless vanity. It is this position that determines the attitude we should have towards God: love on the one hand, and fear on the other hand (and this attitude is not expressed except in the worship of God, and on the other hand utter contempt).

    It is interesting that Rambam, who is known as an Aristotelian philosopher, does not mention the word "wheel" except in the third paragraph. If for Rambam's friend God was simply the cause of the causes, that is, the unmotivated motive that moves all the wheels (and here we have to get into Aristotelian physics and metaphysics, which I don't think I can do in a serious way. Unfortunately, I did not find a link where things are explained at an adequate level), It was likely that he would have presented it that way in the first place.

    I have to finish, so I must answer briefly from here:
    God is not omnipotent in the sense you think of. The almighty paradox is not relevant to Maimonides' God because this God is identified with the mind anyway. What is contrary to reason is not a threat to God, because it is simply not true. Maimonides wrote about this explicitly (there is a link about it in the wiki).

41. R.H.

    First I will explain why I am asking the question. I happened to come across people who, in order to reconcile contradictions between their faith and science and logic or internal contradictions between different aspects of faith and the concept of "God" sacrificed all the content of the word "God". That is, from a meaningful word, the word "God" became a meaningless word, an unknown thing of an unknown nature that cannot be understood by humans. In my opinion, this is tantamount to unbelief, since in this case the word "God" can be replaced with any meaningless sound, and it would be like saying "I believe
    in 'Blip'".

    This is actually what I want to understand from you. In your opinion, is "God" something that can at least be partially understood by humans, and if not, then what is the meaning of the claim that you believe or do not believe in him?

    You wrote: "I do not believe in God who is the cause of causes." Whereas in the link you gave it says: "And he invents everything that exists; And all that is found from heaven and earth and what is between them, were not found except by the truth of their being found. [b] And if it comes to mind that it is not found, nothing else can be found.:". Isn't there a contradiction here?

    Maimonides also wrote that God is omnipotent. do you agree?

42. withering,
    I don't have much time right now to answer your question, but I will tell you this:
    You are right in claiming that faith as a general emotion, devoid of content, stems from psychological motives that are common to all human beings. However, what you call "content", which is the cultural and social context that shapes this amorphous belief into an institutionalized religion, is not at all secondary to the belief. The opposite is true: it is the content that makes faith a significant factor in human life. The content, i.e. the multitude of rituals and social norms that are supposedly built on top of faith (in Judaism they are Torah and Mitzvot) are not secondary to faith, nor are they built on top of it, but as I wrote in my previous response, they form the foundation for it, and at the same time they also rely on it. This is the paradox that stands at the foundation of Judaism (in Christianity this paradox is much less noticeable, in Islam a little more).
    The pure faith in itself, which is not directed by the halachic formalization, is nothing but idolatry, as far as Judaism is concerned. Contrary to Leibovitz, I do believe that one must distinguish between faith and Halacha (Leibowitz identified a complete identification between Halacha and observance of mitzvot), but like him I know that separating them is not possible.
    Captain Kierkegaard wrote this with courage and trembling (he was indeed a Christian, but I find that his words are also relevant to Judaism): "The supreme passion that pulsates in man is faith, and in it no generation can begin at a point other than the one at which its predecessor began, each generation begins with it anew, just as that no generation can advance in it over its predecessor - as long as, of course, the previous generation remained faithful to its duty and did not abandon it before it."
    We are not allowed (a big question if we can at all) to disconnect the faith from its cultural and historical context. No one has true faith in a Deistic God, but believes that He exists out of rational thinking. True faith depends on place, culture and time. As far as I am concerned, there is no understanding of "God" if he is not the God of my ancestors. Although, the same god is also "the one who said and the world was", but it also depends on the culture and religion to which I belong. That "leap of faith", the leap of faith, is relevant to me only insofar as it jumps to the Jewish faith, for all its absurdity.

    I know very well that there is a high correlation between a person's faith and his cultural and geographic background. And what is wrong with that? If I hadn't been born where I was, I wouldn't be me but a different person, and all the issues I wrestle with would be much less relevant to my life, if at all. Of course, I would also believe in a different way, and there is nothing wrong with that. I do not believe that the other beliefs in the world are all invalid. From my subjective point of view they are OT, but those who believe in them are not wrong in my eyes. On the contrary, his faith interests me, and I try to learn it and get to know it, despite the irreconcilable distance between me and him (and maybe also because of this distance).

    their creation,
    I don't understand your words: those who were born to this lifestyle simply live it, they don't feel that they are busy with psychic meticulousness to details or that this requires infinite power from them.

    Ori,
    I am not allowed to do what the author of the Pentateuch himself did not see fit to do - "In Genesis God created" etc. And even with the Rambam's definition in the Laws of the Basic Torah Chapter XNUMX ("The Foundation of the Foundations and the Pillar of Wisdom" etc. See here: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/1101.htm) I have a difficulty, despite the fact that it beats me.

43. Buddha, R.H.

    With reference to your words:
    Buddha: It seems to me that before dealing with dissonance one should ask what makes a person even begin to believe in something.
    RH: I doubt if this is possible because the very belief is a paradox. I cannot answer your question because I cannot quantify a psychic connection.

    It seems to me that in the question of "the beginning of a certain belief (especially a religious belief) it is very difficult to ignore the crazy correlation (around 99.99 percent if not more) between the culture in which you grew up (parents and close environment) and the particular belief you hold. The fact that such a high correlation exists shows that most of us have a built-in mechanism for belief which can form the basis of any content, would be far-fetched and contrary to common sense, sometimes contrary to verifiable reality and in my opinion also sometimes contrary to basic morality (such as basic rights for a person as a person). This is exactly what is so tragic to me, that every "sect" creates a total connection between an emotion/feeling of faith that is probably universal (at least for humans) and between a content that is clearly accidental, depending on a period and a geographical location. I believe that this world will be a better place for social life when people will be able to understand this separation between a feeling of faith and between an arbitrary content that is linked to it. That way a tradition can still be preserved but without the condescension and contempt for other traditions (which seem equally arbitrary). I believe that this way the tension between maintaining tradition on the one hand and between studying and researching reality will disappear, because it will be clear that a feeling of faith, however strong it may be, cannot in itself be acceptable as a criterion for the correctness of claims about reality.

    R.H. So to refine the question, I understand how it is possible to maintain a certain belief (of irrational origin) but I have a hard time understanding how you can claim that you can be rational in other things when the reality of the correlation between the content of the belief and the environment in which you grew up clearly indicates that the irrational part is Only the feeling of belief and not the content, which is obviously completely arbitrary. If you rationally realize that if you had been born a few miles away you could have been a Muslim at all and still believe (irrationally) everything Muslims believe, how can you still maintain the link between the sense of irrational belief and the accidental content?

44. R.H.

    I did not understand what you mean by the word "God". I would appreciate it if you could write what is the content of the word "God" in which you may believe (ie what God is and what he is not).

45. R.H
    As a person who observes many mitzvahs, you sacrifice
    A lot of time and resources from your life, there are a lot of prohibitions
    and customs that must be observed every day in religion
    And if you don't have a rational basis for belief, I do
    Wondering where you get the energy and fuel from
    Daily to fulfill the mitzvot of the Creator

46. withering,
    Of course you are right, pure rational thinking is certainly not here (this does not prevent me from thinking rationally on other issues). But the fact that the establishment is irrational (this paradox between faith and religious life) does not prevent me from looking at this whole thing as a whole as irrational. A person who does not think rationally would not admit that there is something irrational here.

    buddha,
    I don't live my life based on that feeling. It's just my way of life to a certain extent, and I've grown to see it and live it as a given. As I wrote to Camilla, this does not prevent rational conduct in other areas.

    "It seems to me that before engaging in dissonance, one should ask what makes a person even begin to believe in something." I doubt it is possible because the very belief is a paradox. I cannot answer your question because I cannot quantify a psychic connection. Quantifying the relationship means looking rationally at this whole. I can tell you that when I look at the whole story, as a whole, from the outside, then surely the likelihood that a man named Moshe lived and acted as described in the Torah is extremely low to zero (again, biblical criticism).
    But again, the question is how the believing person, not how the absolute, rational person relates to the Torah. If he regards the Torah as reflecting truth, then it doesn't matter who its authors were and how they wrote the truth that they achieved, because "there is no purpose of truth - but to know that it is truth. And the Torah is true, and the purpose of knowing it is to do it." (Introduction to part of the chapter, Rambam's interpretation of the Mishnah). And again, I don't know if the definition of a believer is indeed valid for me.

47. R.H.

    thank you for the answer.

    What I understood from you is:

    You have a strong emotional connection to the Jewish religion. This is about emotions and every emotion is legitimate of course. Every person experiences an endless amount of clearly irrational emotions every day. However, you should be aware that it is just feelings. nothing less and nothing more.

    The dissonance you are talking about is certainly new to me and all the religious and ultra-Orthodox people I know do not experience it in my opinion and at least do not report it. That's why I was very interested to read your approach, but that's not what I wanted to deal with.

    It seems to me that before engaging in dissonance, one should ask what makes a person even begin to believe in something. I wanted to make it difficult and ask since you said "I don't know at all if I believe" what do you think about the following sentence:

    "Moses our Lord spoke with God or alternatively reached a very high level of personal development and because of this experienced and knew the existence of the true divinity"

    1. I'm sure it's true.
    2. I am almost convinced that this is true but I have a slight doubt.
    3. This may or may not be true. 50% each way.
    4. I'm almost certain it never happened but there's a small chance it did.
    5. I'm absolutely sure this never happened and it's just a story.

    Which option do you choose? I choose option number 4.

48. R.H.
    Thanks for the detailed answer. It's hard for me to say that I understand better, I need to read again here and in the link and think about it a bit even though my gut feeling says that rational thinking won't help here... 🙂

49. buddha,
    I will try to answer your words in order:

    It should be precise: the belief, as far as I'm concerned (I don't know if it's my belief, because as I've written here several times already, I don't know at all if I believe), can exist in a rational discussion as long as it is not rationally analyzed. That is, I can discuss the consequences and derivations of the belief within a rational discussion, but not the belief itself. The belief itself, of course, cannot be proven rationally or any other illogical nonsense.

    When I say (and I meant for Leibovitz to say this, but to a large extent this is also true for me): "I do it in the way outlined by the Jewish religion, because I am Jewish", it means that I have a deep emotional connection to the Jewish religion by virtue of the fact that I grew up in it and was brought up in the light. This relationship cannot be rationally analyzed either, because there is a lot of overlap between it and the concept of faith, and I will elaborate on this a little further below (this overlap is not complete; this is why I have difficulty saying clearly that I *believe*, because I don't know if I believe).

    "On the other hand, you believe in the God of Judaism, according to one interpretation or another ("Interpret the biblical creation in one or another allegorical interpretation.")". Again, this is something I have trouble testifying about myself. I certainly have a mental connection to this concept, due to the connection I have with Judaism, as a religion, as a whole, but I cannot decide on this matter.

    "Do you believe that the God of Judaism exists, that is, do you believe that there was somewhere in the past some divine being who made contact with some human being (Abraham our father or Moses, etc.) and told him what the commandments were that he must keep? This is a section that I simply could not understand from you and neither from Leibovitz. If you don't believe that this really happened, it means that the commandments were simply invented by humans and therefore I don't understand how they became of any value to you.
    If you believe that it did happen, on what basis do you base this belief or assessment? It is true that the idea of ​​God cannot be disproved by science, but a report by a certain person who claimed to communicate with him can be disproved. Alternatively, even if the caller's report cannot be refuted, what reason is there to believe him? There must be some basic reason to do something."
    You asked for a simple answer and I will try to give one:
    The concept of a divine being that maintains a relationship with humans (prophecy), sanctifies a certain people ("You have chosen us") and gives them a book of laws (the Torah), indeed sounds very illogical. Remember my words about the dissonance felt by every believer? This is the most basic dissonance. The dissonance between common sense, and the claims of Judaism (which are not much different from the claims of the other established religions). Maimonides resolved this dissonance in a masterful manner, and forgive me for simplifying, as follows:
    Man is distinguished from other living creatures, and from the rest of the world in general, by being intelligent. The intellect is the uniqueness of man, it is the "image of God" in man - the "shape" of man. Through the mind, man can achieve prophecy. Prophecy, according to the Rambam, is not the creation of a relationship between God and man, but a XNUMXth-XNUMXth-century process in which man realizes his potential - the intellect - in order to come to know God. The prophet is the person who has reached intellectual perfection (through intellectual study) and moral perfection (moral perfection). In light of this concept, the status of the Torah must also be interpreted: the Torah was not given to humans by God (which is not possible since God is completely transcendent). The Torah was written by Moses, who is the prophet who reached the highest knowledge of God, more than all the prophets after and before him, when he "looked at the act of creation". That is, Moshe reached the highest intellectual perfection and "understood" the act of creation. This understanding of Moses was expressed in his writing the Torah, so that the Torah actually expresses the deepest knowledge of God that a human being has reached.
    This is, in a very, very quick summary that does Rambam a tremendous injustice, the basic Maimonist concept: the Torah is not a book sent down to the world by God, but a book written by a human being, who has reached the true knowledge of God. Within the Torah, according to Rambam, there are bodies of knowledge that express the truth in relation to reality, but you must dedicate your life to intellectual study in order to reach them. In this sense, the Torah is true Torah, according to Maimonides.
    It's really really on the edge of the fork, and don't think that I'm an expert on Rambam: that's how I simply understand him, and it's likely that if an expert on Rambam reads these lines, he'll be filled with rage.
    In addition to this, it must be remembered that it is customary to see Rambam as an esoteric thinker, that is, a thinker who writes both for the common people and for philosophers, and encrypts his philosophical position in the text, so that the common people will read his words and not understand them properly and, God forbid, will come to indulgence (what arrogance. Rambam was definitely a very arrogant person). In this way, with the "powerful hand" Maimonides wrote the thirteen principals and included in them the main "Torah from Heaven" in which every Jew is obliged to believe. In practice, it is likely that his personal perception of this concept was very different from the perception of this concept among the common people, and it is very difficult to reach it if you are not an in-depth philosopher, with extensive knowledge of Aristotelian philosophy (and I, of course, have not read Morah Nabukim and came directly to his position My understanding of Maimonides is mainly from the commentators of Maimonides, even if of course I try to study MoN and try to compare my understanding of Maimonides with this complex text).

    It was about Maimonides, and now to my own positions:
    So first, I'm not a total Maimonist. I mean, I'm very influenced by him of course, but I don't claim that my position is his (unlike Leibovitz).
    I definitely recognize the dissonance experienced by the believer (by and large, this definition includes me as well, as someone who comes from this background), between the findings of modern science and religion. This is a sharp and difficult dissonance like no other, even if it is mainly theoretical. When things concern evolution and the big bang versus creationism, then we have a multitude of theological interpretations (http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94_%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A2) and we can reconcile that dissonance pretty easily, so it's really not a problem.
    The dissonance becomes acute and really difficult when we discuss the findings of archeology in the Land of Israel, alongside the findings of biblical criticism. These findings collapse like a magnificent house of cards the classic Jewish religious concept, which rests in its simplicity on historical claims (the Exodus from Egypt, the kingdom of David and Solomon). Religious society, and of course ultra-orthodox society as well, avoids a real engagement with these questions, much more than they avoid engagement with evolution. Any moderate religious Zionist rabbi you ask will tell you that there is no contradiction between evolution and Judaism; When you get to the biblical review his answer will be much more embarrassed. I can tell you that personally, this contradiction occupied me much more than the interest of evolution. Then I met Leibovitz. What attracted me most about Leibovitz's method was its complete neutralization of historical events: religion is actually ahistorical; Historical events have no religious meaning, just as the historical dialectic (if it does exist) has no religious meaning. Observance of mitzvot has a religious meaning and nothing else. (Of course, later I got to know Leibovitz's overall religious concept, and it is the one that really captivated me).
    With all the problems I see today in Leibovitz's concept, I still accept the neutralization of the historical element from religion as the best solution to this dissonance that I have ever heard. However, I do not find it appropriate to avoid meeting the questions raised by archeology and biblical criticism. Even if the Torah was written by different authors in a long historical process, this does not hinder the acceptance of Rambam's approach, for example. If we accept the Torah as reflecting truth, then of our own accord we understand that those authors reached an intellectual achievement, like that of Moses. Even if Moses himself did not write the Torah letter for letter, the Torah reflects what we consider to be true about the world.

    I'm afraid my response wasn't that simple, I hope you understand.

    withering,
    You may have already begun to recognize my position from my words to the Buddha, but I will try to refine them from another point:
    In the first place I do not believe in God who is the cause of causes. I don't believe in a Deistic God and of course I don't believe in Spinoza's God of Nature. My belief in God is from the beginning a belief in God who is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This is the irrational belief that I might be said to hold. The tremendous wealth you describe is not "derived" from belief in God who is the cause of causes.
    According to you, two elements of religious life must be distinguished: the canonical element, which is stable and standing and on which all religious life is founded - written Torah, and the changing element, which actually manages religious life and from which the existence of a religious establishment (in Judaism!) derives - Torah XNUMXP. The majority of this wealth comes from the Torah in Israel, which is the foundation of the religious way of life. These are "all the thousands of rules of the game, many of which change over time and which are obviously much more a consequence of human social dynamics and consensus".
    You're actually wondering what the connection is between the postulate I put forward (accepting God's existence as a given fact for any religious/theological discussion), and everything else. The connection is that the rest - that is, the religious life - does not arise from the belief in God (who is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and not a deistic God), but that the belief arises from the religious life! That is, I do not believe in God and therefore I observe these and those mitzvots, but the mitzvots constitute the foundation from which faith grows.
    If so, you must ask: what is the religious life for? And the answer to that would be: in order to uphold the value of God's work! Then you will surely say that I only know this value because I know the reality of God, and I know his reality only because of the religious life. There is a logical paradox here, certainly, but according to Leibovitz's article this is not a religious paradox.
    I'm afraid, in fact I'm sure, that I didn't clarify my position properly for you either. Forgive me, but I refer you to the source itself: http://tpeople.co.il/leibowitz/leibarticles.asp?id=31.
    Write to me if you understood my words, and I will try to formulate things more clearly.

    Wow, that was long this time :-).

50. R.H.
    If we can add to Buddha's question:
    When you write: "The illusion of God is in the nature of assuming an origin for dealing with religious questions" it is not clear to me how all that tremendous wealth that appears, and in fact characterizes and distinguishes the different religions on the different currents and factions even within the same religion, is derived from the assumption of the origin, a wealth that is expressed in the texts, in the Torah orally, in ceremonies and customs. I can understand the premise of the postulate "there is a God" (even though this postulate is incredibly ugly to me, just as a postulate in the scientific game would be ugly to me if it were as complex as the phenomenon I want to investigate, let alone if it were composed of it) but I don't understand how it Postulate, even he will only be the "God of the Jews" (as opposed to just a general god) including all the thousands of rules of the game, many of which change over time and which are clearly much more the result of human social dynamics and consensus than the management of a supreme providence. Where does the postulate end in a god that cannot be proven or disproved and where does the rest of the belief, equally arbitrary to me, begin in all the other rules of the game?

    In your opinion, does the great hostility that exists between different religious currents of the same religion indicate that the main thing for many religious people are the rules of the game that distinguish them and not necessarily the "founding" postulate of one or another god?

51. R.H.

    Another small thing, I found in Wikipedia that it is written about Rambam: "..from this is also derived his position, that the Torah was given directly from heaven by the Creator to Moshe Rabbnu, and whoever does not believe in this, he is like someone who has excluded himself from Judaism..."

    1. Is it true that Rambam thought so in your opinion?

    2. Do you believe that the Torah was given from heaven to Moshe our rabbi?

    I'm really asking to simply understand your position. I know wise people who have repented because they believe that it is impossible for the world to exist without a purpose, and hence it was created by God, etc. I can easily understand that even though I don't agree. I would appreciate it if you could shed some light on the matter.

52. R.H.

    After thinking a bit about what you wrote, I was left with one simple question.

    On the one hand, it is clear that you believe or know the theory of evolution and you appreciate that it is true.

    On the other hand, you believe in the God of Judaism, according to one interpretation or another ("Interpret the biblical creation in one or another allegorical interpretation.")

    So far it is understandable.

    Do you believe that the God of Judaism exists, i.e. do you believe that there was somewhere in the past some divine being who made contact with some human being (Abraham our father or Moses, etc.) and told him what the commandments were that he had to keep? This is a section that I simply could not understand from you and neither from Leibovitz. If you don't believe that this really happened, it means that the commandments were simply invented by humans and therefore I don't understand how they became of any value to you.
    If you believe that it did happen, on what basis do you base this belief or assessment? It is true that the idea of ​​God cannot be disproved by science, but a report by a certain person who claimed to communicate with him can be disproved. Alternatively, even if the caller's report cannot be refuted, what reason is there to believe him? There must be some basic reason to do something.
    I would appreciate a simple answer.

53. R.H.

    What I understood from your words is that your belief stands outside of any reasonable discussion. In this you do resemble Leibovitz. well ok

    When you say "I do this in the way outlined by the Jewish religion, because I am Jewish." It's like asking someone why he is a fan of Hapoel Be'er Sheva and what does he even care which team wins and he will answer: "Because I was born in Be'er Sheva". I guess you don't understand what doesn't make sense in this approach. Niha

    Regarding the aliens and human rights, here you are completely right in the example you gave and therefore I do not advocate human rights because in my opinion it is completely equivalent to believing in God.

54. buddha,
    What to take seriously?
    Well if anything then me too:

    1. "I do not claim that all philosophical problems have been solved by science. I claim that some of the traditional philosophical problems ceased to exist following scientific findings and some did not. Since the discussion is a philosophical one anyway, why do you belittle my opinion with phrases like "hahahahaha"". I did not understand from you which scientific findings "solve" the psychophysical problem, but I assume that on this issue there will no longer be agreement between us.

    2. "How do you know what I learned and what I didn't learn?" I estimate that I am twice your age and I spent most of my years in school. Maybe I learned many important things that you haven't learned yet? I have no doubt that the opposite is also true." It is clear to you that I was not referring to you personally, but to the attitude according to which philosophical study is meaningless. In light of this approach, it is clear that Leibovitz's words will be meaningless. I was surprised to find that you actually accept Leibovitz's philosophical move almost in its entirety.

    3. "The most important thing! If you claim there is a third option, what is that option?" http://www.tpeople.co.il/leibowitz/leibarticles.asp?id=47 Ahhhhh.
    That is, the third option is that both options are religiously meaningless.
    A fourth possibility is to interpret the biblical creation in one or another allegorical interpretation.
    A fifth option is all the other Hocus Pocus of sorts.

    4. You accept most of Leibovitz's philosophical argument, according to which facts are value-neutral, etc.
    ""Man's will is his essence and personality" is a widespread opinion in philosophy. In my opinion, man has no essence and personality and desire is essentially a chemical phenomenon that can be monitored and controlled by chemical means because man is a machine. Any neuroscientist will tell you that." I'm not sure Leibovitz would have signed the claim "man's will is his essence and personality". Moreover, it is possible that he would have said that the worship of Hashem which expresses the essence and personality of the person is within the scope of worshiping Hashem for its own sake, not to mention the Psalms. In this way, the value decision does not have to express the essence and personality of the person.
    Anyway, you can't expect Leibovitz to express your materialist position. I tend to believe that most of the "evidence" you speak of was found after his death in 1994. So he takes a different philosophical position than yours - this is not an unreasonable position, and many have taken it. There is nothing unreasonable here.

    5. ""The Jewish religion, on the other hand, is concerned with knowing man's position before God." God does not exist. He is an invention of primitive people who lived in the old days. Not only is there no evidence for the existence of God, but there is not a shred of evidence for it. On the other hand, the simple psychological structure of man explains well how and why humans invented the concept of God, etc. Hence all this is complete nonsense. If you still don't understand it or you have an emotional problem to admit it, we will be happy to help." First of all, no thanks. I understand the need for enlightened atheism to get my primitiveness out of me, but I'm afraid it will have to put up with it.
    The philosophical discussion of proofs for and against the existence of God is terribly boring. There is nothing that has not been said about it in the last thousands of years, and it is very difficult to innovate anything about it. The existence of God cannot be proven and cannot be disproved, and even Dawkins (who you know is not exactly my cup of tea) admitted this simple fact.
    That a person has a psychological tendency to "believe" (in the broadest sense) is not evidence against the existence of God. Our ability today to explain the need of humans in earlier times for God, testifies to humans and not to God.
    And you must understand why I feel disgust towards "primitive people" type references. This is literally a return to the atheistic arrogance of the 19th century. Really pathetic.
    In any case, for primitives like me, the illusion of God is tantamount to assuming an outlet for dealing with religious questions. I don't understand where the illogicality is here.

    And one more note: values ​​do not exist in the reality before our eyes. So are human rights, and so is the imagined concept of "nation" or "nation". An alien who comes to Kedova and reads the "Declaration to all the world about human rights", will not understand what rights are being talked about. He will also look at all the peoples of the world and not understand what that group of people has in common that makes them members of the same people. how do you say "Illusion of the Mind". All these concepts exist only in the minds of men, and have no material existence. So is God, and this is the meaning of Maimonides' third principle that I keep quoting.

    6. "To Leibovitz or to those who claim that God is a matter of faith and there is no way to prove his existence, I ask a simple question: Why did you decide to observe the mitzvot of the Jewish religion? After all, you didn't discover them and didn't experience enlightenment, etc. These are simply the materials you received from your parents and the society you were born into... If you are to believe it, then it is better to find some nice cat in the yard and worship it and observe its commandments. At least be original." I say: because I fulfill the mitzvot of the Jewish religion because I am Jewish. Leibovitz will say: Because my value decision is to worship Hashem, and I do it in the way outlined by the Jewish religion, because I am Jewish.
    I have no emotional connection to a cat, what's more, in my opinion it is a cat.

    7. "By the way, even if there is an intelligent planner, there is no relationship between him and the God of the different religions and he really doesn't care if you observe mitzvot or not." Oh no, sensational news. what will i do now

    8. "My conclusion is that the guy probably suffers from a flaw in his perception of reality, which most of the time does not harm his skills as a scientist." As far as you are concerned, the guy is flawed, but that doesn't raise or lower his quality as a scientist, so what do you care? He does not support the design approach, and he accepts evolution in its entirety. Let him continue his nonsense, why do you care?

55. R.H.

    Reporter:

    "In order to understand Leibovitz, you have to study philosophy (well, you didn't think you'd get away with it). Whoever claims that philosophy is nonsense because all philosophical problems have been solved by the great and mighty science (hahahahah), will not understand what the professor is talking about."

    1. I do not claim that all philosophical problems have been solved by science. I claim that some of the traditional philosophical problems ceased to exist following scientific findings and some did not. Since the discussion is a philosophical one anyway, why do you belittle my opinion with phrases like "ha ha ha ha" etc.?
    2. What does "what is the professor talking about" mean? who is the professor Who is the one who will not understand? And how do you know he won't understand?
    3. How do you know what I learned and what I didn't learn? I estimate that I am twice your age and I spent most of my years in school. Maybe I learned many important things that you haven't learned yet? I have no doubt that the opposite is also true.

    Reporter:

    "Either God created man in his image or man evolved from a monkey that evolved from a bacterium." Or we have evolved, a little, from the level of thinking of a child in the second grade. in your life

    1. What is the connection to the level of thinking of a child in the second grade?
    2. There are children in the second grade who are smarter than both of us together. I happened to meet a few of them.
    3. Most important! If you claim there is a third option what is that option?

    Now about Leibovitz. From what I have learned about Leibovitz, in my opinion, there is no sense in what he says about science and religion. I accept the inner logic of my ultra-Orthodox members who keep mitzvot. I claim that Leibovitz's words are nonsensical because he does not provide any reason for observing the mitzvot.

    Leibovitz claims:

    1. "Knowing the facts of reality cannot oblige a person to any action." - I agree.

    2. "There is no connection between a person's knowledge (knowledge of the is), from which conclusions about the existing arise, and his desire" - I agree.

    3. "Man's will is his essence and personality" is a common opinion in philosophy. In my opinion, man has no essence and personality and desire is essentially a chemical phenomenon that can be monitored and controlled by chemical means because man is a machine. Any neuroscientist will tell you that.

    4. "The Jewish religion, on the other hand, is concerned with knowing man's position before God." God does not exist. He is an invention of primitive people who lived in the old days. Not only is there no evidence for the existence of God, but there is not a shred of evidence for it. On the other hand, the simple psychological structure of man explains well how and why humans invented the concept of God, etc. Hence all this is complete nonsense. If you still don't understand it or you have an emotional problem to admit it we will be happy to help.

    To Leibovitz or to those who claim that God is a matter of faith and there is no way to prove his existence, I ask a simple question: why did you decide to observe the mitzvot of the Jewish religion? After all, you didn't discover them and didn't experience enlightenment, etc. These are simply the materials you received from your parents and the society you were born into... If you are to believe it, then it is better to find some nice cat in the yard and worship it and observe its commandments. At least be original.

    By the way, even if there is an intelligent planner there is never a connection between him and the God of the different religions and he really doesn't care if you observe a mitzvah or not.

    The fact that Leibovitz was a genius has nothing to do with the fact that his words on the subject of religion make no sense. I have already met geniuses who spoke nonsense on various topics related to faith. For example, some time ago I met a genius scientist in the field of biology who had to his credit very impressive successes in the companies he founded, etc. This is not a religious person. Each of us was "envious" of him both thanks to the success of the ventures and in the field of economic success that followed them and made him a multi-millionaire. I have no doubt that easily that person knows much more about biology than I do... well he claimed to me that in every living cell there is a soul that enters or is created in the cell as soon as it is created. According to his words, this is also true of all the billions of germs that exist in the universe... My conclusion is that the guy probably suffers from a flaw in his perception of reality, which most of the time does not harm his skills as a scientist.

56. Orly
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-study-in-the-holyland-240912/comment-page-31/#comment-378723

    When you do not write Noah in seven errors in your responses, I would be happy to refer to your criticism on this topic (ie - logical and logical arguments), and if you would like to practice some rational thinking, you are welcome to refer to the many (very) arguments that I have raised both in this discussion and in many other discussions on the Idan site. What are we supposed to understand from the fact that you didn't address even one such argument, which really isn't hard to find here? What are we supposed to understand from "your suspicion of trying to cover up a lack of real arguments" when such arguments are scattered in abundance? Didn't you bother to check before the accusation? That you checked but you don't recognize rational thinking when you encounter it and therefore you blame? Or did you read and understand but distorted the reality and created a false representation by placing a spotlight on a style (which I use mainly towards people who attack rational thinking and in the same breath also lie shamelessly) and ignoring all the detailed arguments as if they never existed, isn't this demagoguery on your part?

    I don't remember writing that I respect a person regardless of who they are. I do not respect people who knowingly lie repeatedly like a certain troll in this discussion. And in general I don't respect criminals, from murderers and rapists to crooks who engage in theft and it doesn't matter if it's property or mind. All of these have a striking common denominator and that is a striking lack of respect for and towards others. On the contrary, I believe that they deserve any condemnation from the environment, don't you think that there are people who deserve condemnation? Whereas you believe that there are people who deserve condemnation, and not only deserve but are actually condemned by others, will you not condemn the former while exposing their actions? Even in the latter, those who do condemn, can't you see people who respect a person for who he is?

    I have no problem accepting criticism, whatever its style, as long as it also has relevant content. Suspicions about a reality that you have conjured up in your fevered imagination, one that does not coincide with the reality that can be simply checked, is not relevant content, "poya" is also not relevant content. When you have something relevant to write about the arguments I have made so far I would be happy to try to discuss those topics with you. Your attack on my style while ignoring the content (usually in the very same comments) combined with nonsensical sentences as pointed out by others and as exists for example in the p.s. section. Yours ("...if you continue, you are contradicting yourselves." Really? Re-read what you wrote and check what doesn't make sense in what you wrote) makes me strongly suspect that this is an attempt to cover up a lack of actual arguments.

57. buddha,
    To understand Leibovitz you have to study philosophy (well, you didn't think you would avoid that). Whoever claims that philosophy is nonsense because all philosophical problems have been solved by the great and mighty science (hahahahah), will not understand what the professor is talking about.
    "Either God created man in his image or man evolved from a monkey that evolved from a bacterium." Or we have evolved, a little, from the level of thinking of a child in the second grade. in your life

    Shmulik,
    It is not clear to me why you are so interested in the theological interpretation that Orly gives to explain the contradiction. In your opinion it's nonsense, isn't it? If so, why are you doing it? It does not aim for your children to be taught lies like the intelligent planning approach.

    Orly,
    I keep arguing with xianghua because I'm a little boy who has to prove that he's right (read a little more below). It is clear to me that xianghua will not be convinced if he is not convinced by now, but I want to present my position properly, both for myself and for those who may be reading this discussion. I want to show that the intelligent design approach is wrong, logically and philosophically. I think that all such litigation should be sought to be exhausted to the maximum. Why not actually?

    Your words about Judaism are partially correct from a historical point of view: they are very accurate regarding the Yahweh (Rambam, Raba'a, Ibn Gabirol, and countless other names), and less accurate regarding the period of the Sages (A.B.: A] "In the polemic of Titus - he decreed, etc., that a man should not teach his son Greek", and it is very likely that these words are also said in Greek philosophy, that Greek is necessary for learning it). They are also less accurate in relation to the modern era, when the Jewish people ceased to function as one people, and foreign influences began to penetrate into it. These foreign influences also included an attitude of negation towards the sciences, which, according to you, is more characteristic of Christians than of Jews.

    xianghua,
    I don't understand what "created them from scratch" is. I also don't understand the constant repetition of "let's say for the purpose". If the planner's approach is scientific, at least one can expect to be able to say something about the planner: what is his nature? Where did it come from? Is it singular or plural? For how long did he create all the animal world? Did he also change the structure of the website? etc. All these questions are questions for which the planning approach does not give any answer.
    It is impossible to treat the planner's approach as scientific as long as there is no serious attempt to answer these questions. As I already wrote to you - a scientist is never allowed to stop following the chain of causality. Even if I accept your point that the animal world points to planning, this planning cannot remain amorphous and dim from a scientific point of view: one must try to find any details about it, otherwise this approach is not at all different from the Rambam's God "who is not a body and will not be reached by those who achieve the body", meaning that it is impossible to deal with it scientifically.

    "Who decided? Just as the theory of evolution tries to explain how the organisms on earth developed, so does intelligent design. Nor does the theory of evolution deal with the formation of the first cell. So what?". I think you are mixing up two different fields in biology: the field that studies the question of the origin of life (abiogenesis), and evolution. There is, of course, an interface point between these fields: the assumption that life on earth began from a certain cell, as required by genetics, is an assumption of origin for evolution, and of course it does not deal with the question of how this cell was created - there is another field that investigates this question.
    In complete contrast to the study of the origin of life, the intelligent design approach does not aim to offer an explanation for the question of the formation of the primitive cell: it simply explains the formation of life (and not only the cell) through an intelligent designer, and does not explain anything about it. On the other hand, the prevailing approaches in the study of the origin of life aim to offer a natural explanation for the formation of life: they claim that given these conditions the basic biological molecules could have formed, that given certain conditions (different or identical to the first conditions) could have coalesced into a stable structure that could have replicated itself, and which was essentially the first cell. We have not yet reached a solution to this problem, but we strive to offer an explanation, and not push the explanation to an unknown designer who answers all our questions.

    I think I am far from understanding you. Also, there is no doubt that I failed in my attempt to show that it is possible to prove the incorrectness of the intelligent design approach from the philosophical or logical point of view and not only from the scientific point of view. I tried to do it because it seems to me that this discussion has not been done enough, both here and in general. It is still clear to me as the sun at noon that the intelligent design is flawed even at the most basic logical level, but it seems that I do not have the skills and abilities to prove this clearly and directly. That's why I really think we should finish. You are of course allowed to respond to the claims I made above.
    All in all, I really enjoyed the discussion with you, all the best :-).

58. Orly,
    The claim about Judaism's non-apologetics is incorrect. If we assume that the earliest date on which the Mishna was signed is in the third century, that is, three hundred years after Christ, then at this stage, the Greeks already knew how to calculate in a not bad way at all, the movement of the stars, that is, their astronomical knowledge was years better than the Jews' and so was the knowledge Their science and it's quite clear that it spilled over to us as well. You are welcome to read:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_astronomy#Hellenistic_astronomy
    The Jews were not considered to have made a significant contribution to scientific knowledge in the ancient world.

    Now, you may say that the knowledge that the mishna compiled was the Torah in the Bible and therefore, you can always always pull out a modern interpretation and claim that it was actually said 5000 years ago and there is no argument that I can make that would contradict this claim. That is, from your point of view, the Torah in the PF, is a laundromat that whitens every argument. How convenient that the Torah says that one should not interpret literally those things that are completely hidden by science. In fact, it is not convenient. I think this is mental laziness and an inability to deal with the real contradictions in the Torah. We have a kind of rolling explanation that can always adapt to reality without apologizing for the mistakes it made in the past.
    I suggest you do a short experiment: tell a story to someone around you and ask them to tell a third person and then ask the third person to tell you the story. What you will get will be used to only roughly resemble your original story. Now go back 5000 years. The people lived about 20 years? They lived extremely hard lives (there was no writer like today) and they had no time to study the Torah because all their time was wasted on survival, but do you believe that it was they, the ignorant people who once lived, who thought that every witch, every Amalek should be killed (even today they should be killed, according to Judaism) that they see, that the Egyptian gods did help the Egyptian priests in the battle of "Dumbledore" against Moses, that slavery is allowed and proper, that a woman is not worth more than an animal, that the daughter must be sold at the age of 12, it is better when she is a virgin, otherwise she is worth nothing, it is they who favored Remember the Torah in the seventh century? Even the Sages of the Mishnah did not think so and that is precisely the reason why they wrote the Mishnah!
    Of course I know the answer to that: a generation is getting smaller and smaller. Again an argument that I have nothing to do against.

    Let's now assume that the Mishnah did indeed say that creation should not be interpreted as a language, and that she did not draw this information from another culture (is that a shame?) and the question being asked is, what did all those Jews who lived and did not conceive the Torah (there were, after all, some Jews who were not privileged rabbis, who were You should at least try to survive the very difficult life that existed 2000 and 3000 years ago and did not study Torah all the time but worked and died at the age of 20. From the many talks about Sages, you can think that most of the Jews of the past were Sages and also when Sages were publishes a halachic ruling, the ruling would be sent by email to the other believers). All Jews, except the most educated, in my opinion, thought that this was exactly how creation was, because they were commanded to believe in the Torah and accept creation exactly as it was written. In addition, even if creation is metaphorical and there is no heaven, why can't it be exact? Why, even on a metaphorical level, the description is completely wrong. Every single sentence there is about wrong. Why is this? Why is it written there that the woman was created from the man's rib (other than to explain why the woman is inferior to the man), let's not talk about the small light that has no light at all (since God wrote this, according to you, he should have known that the moon is not light).

    Nowadays, when the evidence is overwhelming that ours and the monkey had an ancestor (and not as you wrote, the monkey is not the ancestor of man), indeed poses a tremendous challenge to the believer, despite what you write. Do you think there is no "soul" for man?
    I did a simple check with the believers around me, and no one accepts what you write so easily. If you do accept the issue of the ancestor, you still need to explain (at least to yourself) what is actually the abysmal difference between man and the other animals, if the process by which man was created is a natural evolutionary process (that is, there is no soul and in fact there is nothing qualitative that distinguishes us from monkeys the person).

    Regarding the issue of the rabbis, I think it's a roll of the eyes on your part. I challenge you to check with some rabbis you know, today, what their opinion is about evolution and I would be happy if you actively ask them if they are in favor of studying the subject in schools. I think you will be surprised and if not, I will be very happy. I agree with you that the Christians and Muslims were more active throughout history in their war against the theory of evolution, mainly because they were the rulers and the ones with the power and money, but I repeat that the reason, according to the professor of biology, that most Israeli students are not exposed to evolution, is because of sensitivity to religious people and Arabs. How about that?

59. Orly,

    With all due respect, there is no minimal sense in believing in the God of Judaism on the one hand and evolution on the other. Either God created man in his image or man evolved from the monkey that evolved from a bacterium.

    The theories that apparently try to bridge the gap, and primarily Leibovitz's approach, lack a trace of basic logic. With all due respect to Leibovitz as a scientist there is no sense in his explanation of how he bridges religion and science.

    Even if you don't agree if it is the majority of religious people understand it immediately and therefore they oppose the study of the theory of evolution, not only in Israel but mainly in the USA.

60. Answers to the response (perhaps Shmulik's) to my previous post.
    From the writer's assumption that if there were advanced evolution studies, religious organizations would rise up against it, a simple statement emerges that Judaism opposes evolution like Christianity, and this is what I came to refute, even though he did not write it explicitly.
    Yes, I don't have a problem with the descent of man from the monkey, yes, Para XNUMX is also part of Genesis, the division into chapters is Christian and not Jewish, so it is not significant in terms of interpretation.
    Although there are no rabbis who actively call for teaching evolution, this is not proof that they have something against it... as I said - in all generations and even now there are serious religious people and spiritual giants who were at the same time scientists or studied science. Judaism is not afraid of science and does not feel at war against it.
    The second approach, which opposes science, is a new approach that has recently come, and is external to Judaism. Those who hold it neither do not know science nor Judaism... and the internal phenomenon of filtering out parts of the Jewish religion and history unfortunately exists...

    Someone used the phrase - the lawyers of the religion who invented ways to combine the two approaches - so I took the trouble to emphasize that the approach I presented is 2000 years old and therefore should not be suspected of this.

    post Scriptum.
    I don't understand why you keep arguing with Kesinghua, if every response to him starts with words - you are repeating yourself and your logic is flawed. If it really is, just stop referring. If you continue you are contradicting yourself.

    PS
    Kamila, although you haven't written recently, your way of expressing yourself is really illogical and logical. When I come across words like dark, stupid, nonsense, vanity, stupid, etc., I see demagoguery and emotional manipulation and suspect an attempt to cover up a lack of real arguments. If there is a structured, logical statement, we don't need this emotional humiliation campaign... and certainly I don't see in front of me a person who respects everyone regardless of who they are... Puja.

61. xianghua,
    You are wrong to equate evolution with the intelligent builder. If you assume that the intelligent builder is not scientific, there is nothing to learn in science classes, regardless of other, erroneous things that are taught in schools, and this is exactly what the court determined that threw the Discovery Institute out of all steps in the famous Dover trial. It is so simple and therefore there is no reason to tie the failure to study the intelligent builder to the study of evolution. This is at the basic level.

    On a practical level, we study Newton because he is good enough to give intuition to our normal life here and his formulas allow us to build houses and exactly the same with evolution and you are welcome to enter the following links to read:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_medicine
    http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.apld.html

    On the other hand, the intelligent builder does not offer any positive prediction that allows one to build and plan anything and everything with it. On the contrary, accepting the intelligent beaver would have caused us to abandon the idea that bacteria will develop resistance to antibiotics (despite the overwhelming evidence on the subject)
    I watched the debate between Miller, LeBah and Demsky and the question, "if I want to be a theorist of the rational builder" comes up immediately and the answers are stammered. Listen, your company doesn't respect you. here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmMVgOTCukQ
    And so I ask you, let's assume now that the rational builder is scientific. What exactly do you want to teach there, in science classes (and not in history classes), especially in light of the fact that the amount of publications of the intelligent builder tends to zero. Here, Lawrence Krauss checked out some existing publications for the intelligent builder
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=RMzdR1tepig
    So the question is: what exactly do you want to teach in schools?

62. Eric,
    Be calm. I ask xianghua a simple question and use his lingo. You can always skip my posts. Thanks.

    xianghua,
    Why can't you answer a simple question? It is not grinding water if you answered directly and did not evade the question: if the multiverse exists, could it be that we are in a universe where evolution and natural selection is as the evolutionists describe?

    You are wrong in what you wrote because you mix interpretation with facts. You state that there are all kinds of systems that, due to an appallingly low probability (your words), it is impossible for them to have developed through an evolutionary process, and therefore you claim that the studies show that life did not develop gradually, but now we assume that the multiverse exists, that is, there may also be systems with a low probability that developed all at once, so I asks again:
    If the multiverse is true, is it possible that we are in such a universe so that life was created according to what the evolutionists claim?

63. RH, when I say "at once" I mean that the manufacturer created them from scratch and not gradually over several years. An average car manufacturing plant makes at least a few a day I guess. That is, let's assume for the purpose that a cat was engineered in year a. whereas the Eilat fish in the year b.

    If we do accept the assumption that living beings were created at different times - how do we know that the planner is the same planner? Maybe it's different planners?" - this is also a possibility according to the intelligent planning. But they do not deal with this question.

    "Even if all the evidence indicated that the heavens and the earth and all their hosts were created in one moment, in hocus pocus - it is still impossible to say that this is proof of a planner." few) argue that this is unacceptable. Clear probability weights.

    ” Only after touring the Galapagos and making animal observations. He created the theory from the evidence he found in the field, not the other way around. "- In fact, Darwin himself understood the probabilistic problem and proposed a refutation test by saying explicitly that if he found an organ that could not possibly have been formed in small steps, then the theory would be disproved. And today we found thousands of them.

    ” It is impossible to claim that something is the work of a planner without dealing with the planner. You can't just stop the chain of causality like that, you have to keep investigating." - Who decided? Just as the theory of evolution tries to explain how the organisms on earth developed, so does intelligent design. Nor does the theory of evolution deal with the formation of the first cell. So what?

    "Are you also challenging conventional genetics, which miraculously fits the conventional evolutionary concept?" - The above sentence was said sarcastically of course :)

    ” In order for a particular theory to be worth studying, it needs to be a small part of a more cohesive theory, which integrates with discoveries in other research fields (again, biochemistry, genetics, etc.). "- and the theory of the planner does fit in with these manifests, in contrast to the theory of evolution. For example, very recently a new study was published that found certain genes in completely distant species that completely disprove the expected tree. Again, the planner theory explains this well, while evolution does not.

    "If evolution is really disproved, I will expect there to be a "hole" in the curriculum on the subject, so that students will not learn theories that are not consolidated." - So since I showed you that the predictions of the theory were disproved (finding fossils out of place), then it should be removed from the curriculum. Not that it's really there anyway, as this article deals with.

    "And it seems to me that we are also grinding water and I am also starting to get fed up" - so shall we part as friends?

64. xianghua,
    I don't understand - how is it possible for two cars to be produced in different years and at the same time be produced at the same time?
    I can understand the thought that they were produced by the same manufacturer, but that does not make the production process one time. If the production process is indeed one-off, then both cars were produced at once, at the same time.
    What you imply is that the main thing is not the time of the creation, but the source of the creation. This is already a much more problematic point in my opinion.
    If we do accept the assumption that living beings were created at different times - how do we know that the planner is the same planner? Maybe these are different planners? This is also an option that should be acceptable, alongside the option of creation at once and evolutionary development.

    "Obviously, the creation of life in Mecca is proof of a planner" in my opinion, absolutely not. Even if all the evidence indicated that the heavens and the earth and all their hosts were created in one moment, in hocus pocus - it still cannot be said that this is proof of a planner.
    The direct and instinctive connection we know between the formation of a thing and someone who created it, cannot be applied to non-human categories, but it seems to me that I have already dug enough on this point.

    "That's why, as I said, they conceived the theory of evolution. which decomposes the probabilistic problem into small steps. ” As far as I remember, Darwin conceived of evolution (at least evolution in its Darwinist version, centered on the principle of natural selection), only after touring the Galápagos and making observations of animals. He created the theory from the evidence he found in the field, not the other way around.

    "Irrelevant to the theory. The theory deals only with the planner's products and not with the planner himself." But that's exactly what I'm saying - you can't claim that something is the work of a planner without dealing with the planner. You can't just stop the chain of causality like that, you have to keep investigating.

    "How can we accept the assumption that living things existed and reproduced from generation to generation for 4.5 billion years with the help of a special replicating machine?" Through the modern evolutionary synthesis, which unites discoveries in genetics, cytology, biochemistry, evolution and other fields. Do you also challenge conventional genetics, which miraculously fits the conventional evolutionary view?

    "But let's assume for the sake of discussion that you are right and that intelligent design is not scientific. Since I showed that evolution is also not scientific, do you think it was fair enough not to teach both in science classes, or alternatively, yes to teach both as potential explanations?" Definately not. Let's assume that everything you said is true (and I don't think so - I know it's not true), it's still not enough. In order for a particular theory to be worth studying, it needs to be a small part of a more cohesive theory, which integrates with discoveries in other research fields (again, biochemistry, genetics, etc.). By all accounts, you don't have it, your theory is not worthy of being taught anywhere, and the fact that evolution has been disproved (according to your method, of course, not mine) does not mean that now both can be taught together. If evolution is really disproved, I would expect there to be a "hole" in the curriculum on the subject, so that students will not learn theories that are not consolidated.

    And it seems to me that we are also treading water and I am also starting to get fed up.

65. R. H.,

    The possibility that the designer could have created different creatures at different times does not disprove the possibility that they were created at once. For the purpose of the theoretical discussion, we can find a car of a certain company model 94 and a layer above it a car model 95. Both were created at different times at once and not gradually. In order to disprove the claim that the cars were designed, a possible gradual way to go from car A to car B must be presented. Whoever does this will prove that evolution is theoretically possible.

    It is clear that the creation of life in Mecca is proof of a planner. Therefore, as I said, they conceived the theory of evolution. which decomposes the probabilistic problem into small steps. I don't think you will find a single scientist who claims otherwise. The world of RNA, for example, was conceived because it is impossible to imagine the simultaneous formation of DNA and proteins necessary for its replication and translation (ribosomes, 20 aminoacyl transferase RNA synthetase proteins, 20 tRNA molecules, polymerases, helicases and more).

    "Suppose we came to the conclusion that the designer created the multitude of living things in one "stroke", as you claim. But to remind you, we know nothing about that planner." - not relevant to the theory. The theory deals only with the designer's products and not with the designer himself.

    "How can we accept the assumption that it has existed for hundreds of thousands and millions of years," - how can we accept the assumption that living things have existed and reproduced from generation to generation for 4.5 billion years with the help of a special replication machine?

    But let's assume for the sake of discussion that you are right and intelligent design is not scientific. Since I showed that evolution is also unscientific, do you think it would be fair enough not to teach both in science classes, or alternatively, yes to teach both as potential explanations?

    Shmulik,

    As I have demonstrated in this thread, there is no evidence that life on Earth evolved in any gradual process. If anything, all the studies show exactly otherwise. I have already answered everything else. It seems to me that we have melted and we are grinding water. And I don't like grinding water.

66. By the way, Shmulik, maybe enough of your inventions regarding the 'multiverse' and the possibility that 'things will be created in one fell swoop' is brain garbage..

67. Shmulik
    What is this nonsense 'things are created in Mecca'? And how does it relate to evolution?

68. Here is a short clip (from a longer discussion) about the "science" of intelligent design
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=RMzdR1tepig

    The next thing I'm going to watch is the Miller LeBah showdown
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmMVgOTCukQ

69. Uncle,
    Search this site. Here, there are at least 2 articles on the subject and regarding everything in Mecca, as I wrote, there is overwhelming evidence that this is not the case and I added that it is possible that everything was created in Mecca, so that everything looks as if it was not created in Mecca. I have no problem with that. Here is a short clip on why the earth is not young:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkrJsvxZyYo

    All I want to hear from xianghua is a direct answer to my question, not by way of a question (as he unfortunately did again, also in the previous post): If the multiverse exists, is it possible for natural selection to create Shotton, etc. exactly as biologists and evolutionists claim?

70. Friend, what is this multiverse that everyone is talking about, sounds very interesting
    I would love to receive information about that
    Shmulik, I think you are right - if the multiverse is true then any probability is possible,
    But you put yourself in a mousetrap in front of xianghua, in that every probability is possible then as well as still
    No evidence does not disprove that things were created in one fell swoop - so the multiverse is playing against you here.

71. xianghua,

    Yes, if the multiverse exists, everything can be created in Mecca, but in our universe, things were not created in Mecca because the evidence and evidence show otherwise (and even more so, even if things were created in Mecca, they were created so the evidence is that they were not created in Mecca.

    Let's get back to the question. I didn't ask what biologists believe (they don't believe, they shape their opinion according to the evidence), I asked you: if the multiverse is true, is it possible for natural selection to create Shotton, etc. exactly as biologists and evolutionists claim?

72. xianghua,
    I don't have time to extend my response but say this: if the designer could create different creatures at different times, then your theory can't really be disproved. I understood from your words that the refutation test is the proof that all living things were created at once - according to your opinion, this is the conclusion you draw from the refutation of evolution: there are two possibilities, evolution or the creation of all living things in one "stroke", which you claim indicates planning (I still don't understand why) . So, if not all living things were created at once, but different living things were created at different times, there is a refutation of your method and then we are in a scientifically empty space. If you claim that there is no problem here and the creation of different living beings at different times does not disprove your method, then you do not have a rebuttal test and according to the definitions we have established, your approach is not a scientific approach.

    "What is the problem? Look at the world of human engineering and you will see quite a few "extinctions", of cars, planes, cell phones and what not? And of course, new models of those objects are created all the time." I'm trying to get to the root of your thought and I seem to understand the parallel you make between an unknown intelligent designer who creates animals and the person who makes engineering products. But this parallel is problematic: suppose we came to the conclusion that the designer created the multitude of living things in one "stroke", as you claim. But to remind you, we know nothing about that planner. If he is not the Shia in his own right (if he is an alien, let's say) we cannot know that he could create different animals at different times. How can we accept the assumption that he existed for hundreds of thousands and millions of years, so that he created the living creatures in different periods? And a more general question: where did he have the abilities to create the entire animal world in all its details?
    It is impossible to answer a scientific question in this way because it places a wall in front of us, which prevents us from continuing to find the continuation of causality. In this respect, the intelligent design approach is deeply opposed to scientific thinking, which never stops the chain of causality.

73. R. H.,

    "Do you mean that the planner is the most likely explanation if evolution has been disproved?" - not only. I mean that even compared to the evolutionary explanation, the claim of intelligent design is more reasonable. Mainly because of the statistical problem, which intelligent design answers perfectly and evolution does not. Evolution, for example, has difficulty explaining how about 100 endogenous retroviruses underwent fixation in the gorilla genome in only 6 million years. While the studies show that approximately 100 million years are required for this. Evolution, for example, has difficulty explaining how a biological system requires thousands of all-or-nothing DNA bases (most biological systems are like this: for example, try to remove 2-3 genes from the synthesis of a "them" molecule and see what happens).

    "Even if I accept your claim that the entire animal world did not develop in an evolutionary process but was created all at once, this still cannot testify to any being," - this is not what the scientific world claims. The theory of evolution itself was put forward to try to solve the statistical problem. Otherwise there is no need for it and we can claim that the world could have been created at a stroke and we will all go to sleep.

    "Why exactly is this particular level of complexity the one that requires planning?" - because of the problems I raised above and a thousand times more along and across.

    Regarding the extinct creatures - what is the problem? Look at the world of human engineering and you will see quite a few "extinctions", of cars, planes, cell phones and what not? And of course, new models of those objects are created all the time.

    In fact, I have no problem disputing the second, seemingly unequivocal claim, of course backed by scientific research. Besides the fact that we find "modern" creatures next to "old" ones (which means that the dated layers do not indicate geological time on the moon but the specific habitat), I have already brought some scientific evidence that the world is younger than Mandama. Like triceratops dino DNA samples, apparently 70 million years old.

    ” That is, there are species of living beings that did not exist in a certain period. Doesn't this disprove the intelligent planning approach?" - see above, absolutely not. According to the intelligent design, the designer could create different creatures at different times.

    "Actually, I think there is a certain problem with my claim. Let me put it this way: If we do not have remains of the ancient man that contain genetic information that is completely identical to ours, so that there is a distinct genetic difference between him and us, would you agree that this constitutes a problem for the intelligent design approach?" - Not really, to the point of absolutely not.

74. xianghua,
    "What they are saying is that it is the most likely explanation. This is a claim that, in my opinion, can be tested by presenting a statistical model of molecular changes in a certain organism." Do you mean that the designer is the most likely explanation if evolution has been disproved?
    Again I ask: how is it possible that in a scientific view we can explain any phenomenon by attributing its creation to a factor we do not know?
    Even if I accept your claim that the entire animal world did not develop in an evolutionary process but was created all at once, this still cannot testify to any being, with consciousness and intention, who created the entire animal world. This is logically bound.
    Do you have such a statistical model, which "cuts" the complexity scale? If it exists, why exactly is this particular level of complexity the one that requires planning?

    ” We also don't know if there are stars made up of yellow cheese or flying pink unicorns. This does not mean that we should take seriously the possibility that such objects exist. We also don't know if there are stars made up of yellow cheese or flying pink unicorns. This does not mean that we should take seriously the possibility that such objects exist." It is interesting to hear this from someone who ascribes intentional creation to a being we know nothing about.

    And one more question: we know that there are living creatures today that did not exist in the past. Again, I start from your premise, that evolution was disproved because fossils of living creatures were found that did not match the period to which they belonged based on chemical tests, and the period to which they were supposed to belong genetically. However, we have evidence that in the past, creatures living today, such as man, did not exist. I assume that you don't dispute them (it's hard for me to see how they can be disputed).
    According to your claim, the refutation of evolution inevitably leads us to the conclusion that all living things were created at once (by a mysterious planner). If so, how is it possible that there are living beings today that did not exist in the past? That is, there are species of living beings that did not exist in a certain period. Doesn't this disprove the intelligent design approach? After all, it is clear that if at some point they did not exist, then they were not created together with the entire animal world at the same moment when the planner created the other creatures. Hence a certain process of development is required until their creation. How is this consistent with intelligent design?

    Actually, I think there is a certain problem with my claim. Let me put it this way: If we do not have remains of the ancient man that contain genetic information completely identical to ours, so that there is a clear genetic difference between him and us, would you agree that this is a problem for the intelligent design approach?

75. Shmulik,

    It is not about gaps, as I have already explained in this thread a number of times. At least you admit you don't know. But evolutionary scientists claim they do know. And as I have demonstrated they are wrong.

    "Evolution is a fact because we see it in the laboratory every day that passes." - You don't see anything in the laboratory except bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics or a hormonal change that occurred in them. This is absolutely not what the theory of evolution claims. According to the theory of evolution, a bacterium can develop complex biological systems such as shotton or atp synthase or photosynthesis or a thousand and one other things. Something that has never been demonstrated, not even in Lansky's experiment in question. Whoever believes that a frog can gradually turn into a cat or a princess (speaking of science fiction), let him believe what he wants, just know that there is no scientific proof for his claim.

    Does the multiverse solve the probabilistic problem? Before they prove that there are receiving universes. then we'll see. Meanwhile, evolutionary scientists themselves are trying to calculate probabilities of abiogenesis and evolution (if you follow the scientific literature you will find some). And if that were true, then they would have no problem accepting that all of nature was created in Mecca. But it is a fact that no evolutionary biologist claims this, for obvious reasons.

    R. H.,

    "If the planner is indeed scientifically obligated, then the likelihood of this obligation must be formulated mathematically." - True. But intelligent design scientists do not claim this. What they say is that it is the most likely explanation. This is a claim that, in my opinion, can be tested by presenting a statistical model of molecular changes in a certain organism.

    "Why are there only 2 options? If science knows nothing, then it knows nothing." - We also do not know if there are stars made up of yellow cheese or flying pink unicorns. This does not mean that we should take seriously the possibility that such objects exist.

    "You cannot use a planner you know nothing about as a scientifically acceptable explanation" - who needs to know anything at all about the planner. The theory only comes to show that the probability of its existence is high. It does not deal with his identity, origin, etc. Just as the theory of evolution is not about the big bang or the rna world.

76. Wow, friend, I entered this POST again, hoping that it would close, and they are extremely annoying, it should be noted
    Shmulik, how did you not give up on this POST yet?
    The whole thing with an intelligent planner is a leap of faith. I sent links to Wikipedia and I'm already tired of explaining,
    So don't try to extract from xianghua any kind of admission about a scientific theory about an intelligent designer
    Because people of faith treat the Creator as a being from whom everything originates and do not try to prove them in a scientific way, even if he proves that this is a scientific fact, he is only representing himself.

77. xianghua,
    It's already completely puzzling. I have already addressed all the questions but I will do it again and we go round and round.
    You wrote: "So describe the stage from which you start without the help of intelligence. What is the first step on the way to a mousetrap that should develop gradually?"
    who knows? A rectangular structure that absorbed sunlight and thus received its energy and then changed its function because an asteroid hit the Earth, 500 million years ago, and the sunlight decreased and the descendants of the rectangular structure were no longer just a rectangular structure but following some mutations, they developed other abilities . Voila

    and in another way. Let's assume that I have a hole in my knowledge and that I don't know how to answer you. Just like 1000 years ago, they couldn't explain why the apple falls from the tree to the ground. So what? I proudly admit that as of now I do not have an answer and I am investigating, while you, you fulfill the law with the rational builder. This is the God of the Gaps Argument. Isn't that so?

    You wrote: ""Your question, has evolution been disproved, is, again, wrong, because evolution is a fact" - how is it a fact if the test of disproving/proving it fails?"
    I am a layman in the field, while you, it seems, have more specific knowledge than I do, and you are still wrong and misleading. Evolution is a fact because we see it in the laboratory every day that passes. You may mean that natural selection has been refuted and here the scientific consensus does not agree with you, and when I write the scientific consensus I mean the millions of people involved in science and technology development many of whom disagree on many things and every now and then one of them makes the rest of them change their minds, so that it more closely matches the facts And I am with the scientific consensus because it is the only tool we have brought so far.

    Now write that the consensus actually believes in God, because you read some article in the post that says so, and I'll send you the Wikipedia page that shows that you're wrong here too, and I'll add (again) that the claim you took from the post is especially dangerous for you, because all it says is that although most scientists believe in God, Those scientists really don't put him in the lab, don't accept the fact that he is the force that drives evolution and natural selection and at most imagine that maybe somewhere there is a Dawes who created the laws of physics but since then he doesn't interfere and as evidence I brought the 68 national academies (the list contains the most advanced countries in the world) who call To teach evolution in schools and those testifying against the Dixbury Institute in the famous Dover trial where they testified, among others, the microbiologists' associations representing hundreds of thousands of scientists in the US alone

    You wrote: ""Why does the refutation of evolution require intelligent planning? What is the refutation test of intelligent design?" - the test is the proof of evolution. After all, there are only 2 options according to science - gradual or all at once (one-time creation by a planner). So that a contradiction/confirmation of one possibility will be a proof/refutation of another."
    Again, this is not true. At the time I told you that I could think of 5 options:
    1. Completely natural.
    2. A deist who created the laws of physics
    For these two answers it should be added: that evolution will work exactly as we think and it can be assumed that the laws of physics include several more laws that we have not yet discovered or fully proven (the theory of the Myetherians, multiverse, etc.)
    3. God who guides and directs every movement of such an electron and proton wherever it is (for some reason, through the laws of quantum mechanics)
    4. Matrix: We are a virtual world whose rules were determined by the programmer. You may think this is the same as God's solution but religious people will disagree with you
    5. Something I hadn't thought of

    Beyond that, even if we assume that there are only 2 alternatives on the table: gradual evolution or all at once by the intelligent builder (by the way, did you notice that you also refer to him as the intelligent builder? You wrote: Creation by an intelligent designer which is exactly an intelligent builder. Planner Mind you, this is a deus of my point 2) and suppose you have proven that natural selection has been disproved, this still does not solve your problem because you have to prove that there are only 2 options and no additional options will ever be possible (even God by himself cannot think of additional options) or alternatively, prove that an intelligent builder exists independently and you have not done that, unless you tell me that you have seen the intelligent builder.

    In conclusion, is the following statement true:
    In your opinion, the biggest problem that exists (from what I understand from what you wrote) is the problem of probability. For example, since there is some probability that the shoton will be assembled at once, and since there is no physical brake that prevents this, your argument is that the probability of this is too low and therefore you are not willing to accept random things like this and therefore you activate the intelligent builder to explain the shoton?

    From here, honestly (as you managed, after much effort to admit, that intelligent design is not refutable) answer clearly: if the multiverse exists, is there no need for the intelligent builder? If in our lifetime we receive good evidence that the multiverse exists, will you give up on the intelligent builder?

    I would love for you to answer my last two questions without asking a question as an answer, without trying to ask me questions about evolution (it seems that you know it much better than I do) because your answers regarding the intelligent builder should not depend on what one of you, Mollik, thinks about evolution. I would be happy if you answer directly and then you are welcome to ask questions such as if it is proven that the multiverse does not exist, will I change my mind, etc.

78. buddha,
    When you talk about drugs with two consciousnesses, and about different "feelings" and "feelings", you are already entering the psychic/mental/spiritual world of the individual, and trying to sort and categorize it. I have no problem with such sortings and catalogs, and in fact - I don't even claim that one "feeling" is real, and another "feeling" is false. I am saying something that is much more basic: science is unable to examine the mental/psychic contents of the individual, because it does not have the tools to do so. He does not have direct access to the world of the individual and has no way to describe these contents mathematically, as is done in science. From this I draw the following conclusion: if science cannot describe the mental/psychic contents of the individual except with his help (that is, according to his testimony) then science cannot disprove their existence or confirm it, just like God or the intelligent planner. What science can do is use what it can describe and analyze, the nervous system of the individual, and in combination with a psychological analysis of the individual (which is still based in one way or another on what can be called the "testimony" of the individual) to arrive at some kind of better picture of his psychic world /conscious. I would say that this is actually the central theme of neuro-psychology, isn't it?

    Again, the psychic world of the individual can be composed of different and even conflicting emotions and feelings. I did not say that the psychic experience of the individual is necessarily fixed and static (unlike Descartes). But you cannot dispute the very existence of this experience. Even if it changes and is not clear and is affected by different physiological and chemical factors, it still exists. A person cannot be unconscious, just as you cannot imagine yourself as an unconscious zombie. As long as you live you have consciousness. You yourself wrote "we can feel all kinds of things", right, and we can't say that we don't feel. In other words: the psychophysical problem is not affected by the various types of psychic contents of the person. The only cause of the problem is the very existence of a psychic experience, alongside the recognition of a material existence. It is the existence of the material and the psychic together that leads to the problem.

    And I ask you again: What is the scientific evidence that tips the scales in favor of one of the positions regarding the psychophysical problem? How do they tip the scales?

    xianghua,
    "If it is not possible to cut the complexity-complexity scale. So it can be said that nothing requires planning" I will go ahead and say that this is indeed my position. Yeah yeah, not a car on Mars either. I've argued this before and I'll argue it again: if a car is found in space it's likely that researchers will consider this hypothesis, but it won't be scientifically and logically binding. Of course, I ask you to cut the scale knowing that this is impossible.

    "But still, it seems to me that the lower the chances of a certain object being formed, the more complex it is. And in the case of evolution, the chances are indeed slim, so that the biological objects are included in the complex scale for me." You didn't actually say anything. I ask you to quantify these chances and say from what level of complexity a planner is required. If the planner is indeed scientifically obligated, then the likelihood of this obligation must be formulated mathematically. What is meant by "tiny"? 1 in 10000000? 1 in 10000000000? Why exactly does this likelihood require planning?

    Why are there only 2 options? If science knows nothing, then it knows nothing. point. It is impossible to accept the intelligent designer's approach from the denial of evolution. All we know, according to you, is that evolution is wrong. If there is indeed a scientifically plausible option here, you should be able to say something about the creation of the animal world at once. How did it happen? What are the substances found on Earth that brought about this miraculous occurrence?
    You must understand that using the experimental intervention of an unknown planner in the world can only be the escape of science, in the absence of any other possible explanation. The approach of the intelligent designer was supposed to, apparently, return us to the theory of spontaneous creation for example. The problem is that the theory has already been disproved by Pasteur, so we cannot accept it scientifically.
    In short, if you want to present the planning approach as scientific, you must formulate a complete theory that explains the creation, referring to the reasons that led to such a creation. You cannot use a designer you know nothing about as a scientifically acceptable explanation.

79. R.H.

    I will try to explain why the psychophysical problem does not exist.

    You wrote: "My consciousness cannot be described by scientific tools".

    What is the consciousness you are talking to?

    In my opinion, when you talk about consciousness, you actually mean a certain "feeling". Science explains well what feelings and sensations are and knows how to show in repeated experiments the ability to predict (example: we give you a certain chemical substance and it will cause you a certain feeling or feeling)
    Those who have experimented with psychedelic drugs know the feeling well. So this is already a person who experiences completely different types of perception of reality and consciousness. What does this say about the nature of consciousness? Is one of the above perceptions of reality "real" and the rest fake? We can feel all kinds of things.
    What about (rare) people who suffer from severe split personality? They are actually several consciousnesses that live in the same body... If we listen to Descartes each of the characters can say "I think means I exist". Split personality for Descartes is a bit like Siamese twins for evolution deniers. It is not for nothing that our friend xianghua did not in any way agree to discuss the topic of Siamese twins with me.

    How is the consciousness you speak to different from any sensation or feeling that you can experience and report to?

80. Shmulik,

    It is asked: "Do you think such a process can take place *without the use* of Miller's intelligence?"
    The answer: absolutely yes. "- So describe the stage from which you start without the help of intelligence. What is the first step on the way to a mousetrap that should develop gradually?

    "The second reason is the technology that this consensus created." - the same consensus that believes in a planner.

    "Your question, has evolution been disproved, is, again, wrong, because evolution is a fact" - how is it a fact if the test of its refutation/proof fails?

    "On the other hand, I, as a layman, managed to get you to admit (after much effort) that there is no way to disprove the rational builder" - and you still haven't internalized that the test of proof also determines as well as the test of refutation.

    RH, if it is not possible to cut the complexity-complexity scale. So it can be said that nothing requires planning. Neither is a car on Mars. But still, it seems to me that the lower the chances of a certain object being formed, the more complex it is. And in the case of evolution, the chances are indeed slim, so the biological objects are included in my complex scale.

    "Why does the refutation of evolution require intelligent design? What is the refutation test of intelligent design?" - the test is the proof of evolution. After all, there are only 2 options according to science - gradual or all at once (one-time creation by a planner). So that a contradiction/confirmation of one option will be a proof/refutation of another.

81. buddha,
    Correction: "If these *things* remain within the scope of philosophical disagreements between Buddhism and *Western* philosophy, then I have no problem either."

82. buddha,
    I also greatly appreciate Buddhist thought, and I didn't say that in my eyes Descartes' argument is really cutting and decisive.
    If the things that do not remain are philosophical disagreements between Buddhism and scientific philosophy, then I have no problem either. My problem begins when you claim that there is any scientific evidence for the materialist position. That's why I ask you - what is that evidence? How do they tip the scales in favor of materialism? Again, in my opinion there can be no such evidence at all, so the whole matter is incomprehensible to me. Again, because in my eyes the psychophysical problem cannot be discussed scientifically, just as my mind cannot be described with scientific tools, but only my mind (and from the scientific description of my mind you can describe my mind).

83. R.H.

    When you define the problem as a philosophical problem only, the discussion becomes philosophical and that's another story.

    However, I also like philosophy but I just think that issues that have been solved scientifically are pointless to continue discussing them philosophically. For me, discussing the human mind-body relationship is just like discussing the computer's mind-body relationship. There are enough interesting philosophical/scientific problems like where did the "is" come from or what was before the beginning of time, etc.

    Regarding Descartes, in my opinion he formulated the great mistake of the Western concept "I think means I exist". In the East they figured out the matter thousands of years ago (long before Buddha). It is actually true to say "what I think does not mean that I exist".

    See the parable of the chariot that appears for example here:

    http://www.masa.co.il/article/1431/%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%91%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%93%D7%94/

84. buddha,
    Personally, I do not think that the psychophysical problem is a scientific problem - I think it is a weighty philosophical problem, and I find it difficult to understand how serious people dismiss it with such shallowness.
    I think it is most likely that neuroscientists will address this problem and avoid accepting the materialist position. And I have no problem with the materialist position; Like any position in a philosophical debate it has stronger points and weaker points. In my opinion, it is impossible to deal with the psychophysical problem in an occupation that is not philosophical but purely scientific, because this problem is this very seam, between what we can investigate scientifically and what we cannot investigate scientifically. So when I claimed that there is a "scientific" occupation in the psychophysical problem, which also takes into account discoveries in brain research but still takes a philosophical position, I meant this occupation.
    However, I have a problem with the claim that such and such discoveries in brain research have settled the psychophysical problem. I just don't understand her. What discoveries and findings can lead us to the conclusion that "I" does not exist. All we can study in neurobiology is the physico-chemical processes that take place in our brain, and of course the structure of our brain. We can claim that we found a match between the physico-chemical process X and the psychic/mental/mental process Y, and we found that process X occurred in area Z of the brain. We cannot investigate the psychic process itself - we have no access to it, we can only accept the testimony of the man whose mind we are investigating about the psychic process he went through, and thus come to the conclusion that there is a match between the two types of processes here. So when I hear publications that scientists have found the area in the brain that is responsible for a certain type of cognitive activity, I can agree, but there is a long distance between such a claim and the claim that the mind is an "illusion of the mind", as you say.
    And again I ask: how can an illusion be presented to an unconscious robot? It's like presenting an illusion to a stone, it's not really an illusion. For there to be an illusion there has to be consciousness, otherwise nothing happens here.
    This, by and large, is my problem with your position, that I also do not understand what the scientific findings are that bring you to it, and how such findings are even possible.

    Regarding Chalmers and philosophers in general: I don't know why you think he speaks from emotion. He explains his concept in detail in "The Conscious Mind", and you can also read about it in his article: http://consc.net/papers/facing.html. I really don't understand where this nonsense comes from that everyone who is not a materialist speaks from emotion. I didn't read the whole article, but according to what I did read, it really brings mainly logical - philosophical arguments.
    Your empiricist approach is not very innovative, and it doesn't say anything that wasn't already said in the 17th century. The "proof" of the existence of the soul was already devised by Descartes, and I assume you know his famous argument (which if it was a scientific argument would have overturned his whole move).
    You know the story about the fisherman who declared that fish cannot be shorter than 10 cm, and went fishing with a net that had 9 cm holes in it?

    xianghua,
    "Just remember that when we get into the definitions the business gets complicated. In my opinion, everything in the world cannot be defined. Dawkins' definition seems appropriate to me." - Would you prefer us to continue the discourse of the deaf? These words can certainly be defined, and I see no obstacle to our defining them. If so, "our invisible planner also prepares the entire system, and also arranges the details in it". How do we know this? Because of the complexity of the animal world, when complex it is: "1. connected from different parts. 2. Complicated, difficult to resolve. 3. That they put it together." If so, we know that the planner prepared the entire system and arranged the details in it, because it is complex, that is, because - a. It has different parts or because b. Assemble it. You understand on your own that definition B is a tautology and tells us nothing, and hence cannot be used as evidence. Definition A is the interesting one. Here I and we again require the scale of complications or complexity, which you were supposed to cut off at a certain point to say that from there on we already require planning, and of course, you were also supposed to explain why precisely from this point.
    So I don't despair and I ask again: where do you cut the scale of complications? Why there?

    Regarding the refutation of evolution - great for you, you refuted evolution, you can throw it in the trash can of science. Now: Why does the refutation of evolution require intelligent design? What is the rebuttal test of intelligent design?

    If you answer seriously, inhale. If not, I think I'll be done.

85. xianghua,
    You asked: "Do you think such a process can occur *without* the use of Miller's intelligence?"
    The answer: absolutely yes. This is exactly the claim of natural selection, but my opinion is really not relevant here, as I have written repeatedly, but the opinion of the scientific consensus. Those who read only this response of mine (and don't read the rest of the thread), may mistakenly get the impression that this is a scientific example and nothing else, but I have already explained why I accept the opinion of the scientific consensus. Indeed, the consensus changes from time to time, even because of one scientist who thinks differently, which is one of the two reasons why I accept the opinion of the consensus. The second reason is the technology that this consensus created. Your question, has evolution been disproved, is, again, wrong, because evolution is a fact and the answer to the question of whether natural selection has been disproved is no, because the consensus says no and I, as a layman, outsource this issue as in the vast majority of issues in life. Like the rest of us and this is why I claim the vast majority of creationists are closet atheists.

    On the other hand, I, as a layman, managed to get you to admit (after a lot of effort) that there is no way to disprove the rational builder and for some reason still read that you support the rational builder, as a scientific theory and it's just weird.

86. There is no problem in learning about the fact that there are two theories of equal weight, not only between evolution and intelligent design, for example between the theory of human culture through sex and the theory of Hasidah. For example the movie SEXPELLED

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGcXccZ_SzU

87. xianghua,

    Thank you for your honest answer. I haven't seen the movie but I read a bit about it here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

    I will try to find time and watch the movie. Ironically, I think that the theory of evolution and progress in general certainly made possible the great holocausts of the 20th century mentioned in the review and if it weren't for the scientific revolution these holocausts would not have happened. There is nothing in these things to harm science, etc. Since, as I mentioned in previous posts, I am a person without values, I have no interest in whether science in general or the theory of evolution in particular is good or bad for the human race. In any case, the topic is certainly interesting.

    R.H.

    You wrote "The double preoccupation with the psychophysical problem, both from the neurobiological scientific point of view and from the philosophical point of view

    I claim that science does not deal with the psychophysical problem. Only the remnants of philosophy deal with it.
    If you claim that this is a scientific problem, please provide a reference for this.
    If this is only a philosophical problem of philosophers who are not ready to accept science, then let them continue to deal with it on my part.
    David Chalmers speaks only from emotion and does not bring any scientific argument to any of his statements.
    Dualism talks about body and mind (or soul) If you claim that a soul exists then please provide proof of that. like God or the teapot etc.

88. buddha,

    If a considerable part of the scientists supports the planner theory (as I showed from the above survey), then the world of science should have no problem accepting it. So the claim that most of the scientific world opposes the design theory is not true. This may only be true in a formal statement by the academies that employ them. There are quite a few reasons for this:

    a) The theory of intelligent design is relatively new in the scientific arena, compared to the theory of evolution which has been studied as a consensus for over 100 years.
    b) Many jobs depend on the correctness of evolution. And did you think what research thousands of evolutionary biologists would do if they discovered that evolution is nonsense?
    c) There are clear and well-known attempts to silence the evolutionary side. For these or other reasons, as clearly documented in the movie expelled.
    d) Since intelligent planning is not taught in the academy. After all, no one criticizes the theory of evolution at all. Which means that it is taught as the only accepted theory. So how exactly do you want them to oppose it? Even Michael Behe ​​was not at all aware of the problems in evolution until he came across the book of the biologist Michael Denton - evolution, a theory in crisis.

    "Are you able to bring us a parallel document signed by institutions of the same size and opposed to evolution?" - I don't know if it exists and it doesn't really interest me either. As I said, as far as I'm concerned, all biologists in the world will also believe in evolution. That doesn't make it right.

    R.H

    ” That is, our invisible planner both prepares the entire system, and arranges its details. Is the definition acceptable to you?" - Let's say yes. Depends on what you mean. Just remember that when we get into the settings the business gets complicated. In my opinion, everything in the world cannot be defined. Dawkins' definition seems appropriate to me.

    ” Do you want a rebuttal test for evolution as the historical process as presented by science? If so, then the rebuttal test will be by finding a fossil that does not match the period to which it is genetically dated and the period to which it belongs based on the other tests (such as carbon 14). "- Excellent. Hundreds of such fossils have been found:

    http://creationwiki.org/Anomalously_occurring_fossils

    The theory of evolution disproved?

89. Oops... Father, please delete the first comment.

90. buddha,
    Regarding the Haretz article: I also did not say that it attacks the materialistic view of the mind, I just brought it for your reference and so that you can see that there are opponents of Sompolinski's prophetic view.

    I have no confusion, and I wrote about this matter explicitly in the previous response: "The psychophysical problem differs from evolution in that it is discussed by philosophers and scientists at all times, while evolution is discussed mainly by scientists (although many philosophers have dealt with its theoretical implications, and unfortunately nowadays there are certain scientists who tend to do this on a not very deep level in my opinion). The dual preoccupation with the psychophysical problem, both from the neurobiological scientific point of view and from the philosophical point of view, makes it very difficult to find evidence that indicates an academic consensus on the subject."

    Your starting point is that philosophical engagement with the psychophysical problem is unnecessary. But this assumption also rests on your materialistic view, according to which only the natural sciences have something to say about this problem. There is a problem here: you rule out in advance all perceptions that differ from your own based on the perception you hold. You are basically saying: I hold a materialistic position -> my materialistic position makes philosophy redundant -> any philosophical answer is unnecessary for me, because I hold a materialistic position.
    If I hold a non-materialist position, and claim that philosophers also have something to say about this problem (and you cannot deny the fact that there is more logic in philosophers dealing with a psychophysical problem than for literary scholars to deal with it), then even if there is a scientific consensus on the matter (and I do not sure of that), I don't perceive him as having the last word on the matter. This is in contrast to evolution, which is a matter for scientists only, as mentioned.

    I admit that I am not sure how to check what the neurobiologists' opinion is regarding the psychophysical problem, because most of them simply do not deal with it as a problem but as a field of research. Unlike evolution, the psychophysical problem does not require reference. In principle, I see no obstacle for a neurobiologist to hold a dualistic view, and a neurobiologist can also hold a dualistic interactionist position, let's say, which does not reduce the scope of his research at all. On second thought, I don't understand at all how there can be a consensus on this matter.

    Regarding Chalmers: I agree that I too was a little disappointed by the somewhat simplistic things he says there regarding Buddhism. ACP, his concept is interesting, although in my eyes it has some problematic points. Somewhere in the interview he says that in the past he held a materialistic position and he supposedly "disillusioned", so it is difficult to say that these things stem from his emotional difficulty in accepting the negation of the "I" (a negation that I really don't understand how it derives directly from some possible discovery in neurobiology, and how it is "forced on I got to know").

91. R.H.

    The article in Haretz does not even attack the materialistic view of the mind in a single word. He only claims that the predictive ability that many researchers claim is exaggerated and that people are taking advantage of the hype in the field for immoral things, etc. It is not interesting and has nothing to do with the fact that the mind is a machine.

    David Chalmers is a philosopher, not a scientist. You have some confusion here. When I talk about science (from the field of natural sciences) that is carried out in a recognized academic framework, it is one thing. The fact that within the academy there are also non-scientific fields such as literature, Talmud and philosophy is not related to the issue. Besides, David does not make any scientific claim in the interview or describe any experiment that supports his dualistic view (because there is none). Regardless, I think he clings to his "I" concept because it's hard for him to give it up emotionally like many other people. In my opinion, he also does not understand at all what Buddhism is, which basically talks about the illusory nature of the feeling of "I". etc. But of course this is just my personal opinion.

    Please bring me a brain researcher, biologist, scientist from the field or you will be forced to admit that there is a scientific consensus on the subject. Academic consensus does not interest me. I don't care what professors of Talmud, literature or psychology think about the subject.

    The fact that the psychophysical problem was discussed in the past by scientists and philosophers is no longer relevant today just like the practice of astrology and alchemy. The latest developments in brain research are destroying the right of existence of philosophy and psychology and therefore many people are stressed by it. Anyone who still wants to practice philosophy is welcome to do so.

92. Buddha, for your reference:
    http://www.haaretz.co.il/misc/1.1309740.

93. xianghua
    If all the systems were inseparable, then the organism was created in its final complexity, what is the problem here

94. buddha,
    When I claim that there is no consensus regarding the position you present, I mean specifically the materialist - physicalist position you present, which claims that the psychophysical problem has been solved.
    The psychophysical problem differs from evolution in that it is discussed by philosophers and scientists at all times, while evolution is mainly discussed by scientists (although many philosophers have dealt with its theoretical implications, and unfortunately nowadays there are certain scientists who tend to do so at a not very deep level in my opinion). The double preoccupation with the psychophysical problem, both from the neurobiological scientific point of view and from the philosophical point of view, makes it very difficult to find evidence that indicates an academic consensus on the subject. It is quite logical (and almost self-evident) that most neuroscience experts in the world would take a materialistic position, but it seems to me that in philosophy the situation is different. David Chalmers, for example, is a dualist who deals with the philosophy of mind quite intensively (here is an interview with him: http://www.philosophos.com/philosophy_article_138.html).

    Now, let's make the move you yourself made with xianghua:, only on the psychophysical problem: if dualism is currently outside the academic consensus (and I deliberately do not say "scientific", for the reasons I detailed above), how is it possible that the Australian National University employs the man as a senior lecturer to philosophy? After all, if the academic consensus around materialism/physicalism is similar to that around evolution, they would not hire the man as a philosophy lecturer, just as no serious university would hire a biologist who denies evolution.
    The answer is that such an academic consensus simply does not exist regarding the psychophysical problem. The physicalist materialist position is indeed more dominant, and today it is even more dominant among scientists and even among philosophers, but it is not a matter that has been decided scientifically like evolution - that was my whole argument (in my opinion, it really cannot be decided that way, certainly as long as philosophers deal with it ).

    xianghua,
    I was quite tired of going round and round in terms of definitions, so I turned to the Even Shushan dictionary, which defines the verb "plan" as follows: "make a plan". The definition did not satisfy me, so I checked the definition of the name of the action "editing", which is: "preparation, arrangement of things", as well as the definition of the name "plan", which is: "1. Line drawing showing the different parts of the thing. 2. The system of details of a thing". If we take definition 2, then the definition of the action name "planning", regarding the animal world of course, is more or less like this: preparation and arrangement of the detail system of the animal world. That is, our invisible planner both prepares the entire system, and arranges the details in it. Is the definition acceptable to you?

    And since I already have the dictionary with me, I also checked the definition of the word "complex": "1. connected from different parts. 2. Complicated, difficult to resolve. 3. That they put it together."
    It is easy to see that the definition I gave during the discussion is definition 1, while you use definition 2 and definition 3 together, and draw, in my opinion, a wrong conclusion, from 2 to 3. But definition 3 is also not clear to me at all: it is clear that it is
    In the definition that attributes an action to an external entity, but it is not clear what the essence of the action is. If we define definition 3 according to the two definitions that preceded it, then there may be two possible interpretations of the verb "component": a. Put something together from different parts. B. It complicated something, and made it difficult to resolve.

    All these definitions are only meant to simplify the discussion and make it more clear, so that we have a common language and can understand each other's argument.

    I'd bring you a rebuttal, but I'm not sure what you're disputing. Do you want a rebuttal test for evolution as the historical process as presented by science? If so, then the rebuttal test will be by finding a fossil that does not match the period to which it is genetically dated and the period to which it belongs based on the other tests (such as carbon 14). If you mean a refutation test for the principle of natural selection, then I admit that I have a hard time coming up with a refutation test for it, mainly due to it being more of an algorithm than a refutable principle (as Susan Blackmore, author of "The Meme Machine" says here: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/he/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes.html).

95. Avi,

    My response from December 27 is still awaiting approval. Can you please confirm it?

96. "He claimed that once upon a time the trap was not a trap but was used as a tie holder and then its function"-Yafa. Do you think such a process could occur *without* the use of Miller's intelligence?

97. xianghua,
    Yes, they gradually became faster and the trap became better because suddenly the traps stopped receiving food and only a minority of them, who managed to cope with the increasing speed of the mice, survived. But, that's not all Miller claimed. He claimed that once the trap was not a trap but was used as a tie holder and then its role was decided and from what I understand, there is no physical brake that would say that something like this is not possible. You have to prove that such a case is not possible, in order to show that there actually exists (and not as a philosophical concept), in nature, a system that is inextricable (and we still haven't given up on the definition of the term complex, and not as a circular definition)

98. Come on Shmulik, this is exactly the scaffolding theory. Do you agree with Miller's claim? Can you demonstrate how a minimal trap could have evolved incrementally where each step served a different function/trapping fat and slow mice?

99. xianghua,
    A good mousetrap requires the amount of components you said.
    What Miller claimed was that once the trap was not a trap and I would add that perhaps a degenerate trap could be used to catch ancestors of mice that were fat and slow
    Your problem is that, in order to prove that in nature, inextricable systems actually exist, he has to hold back the wheel of time and show that the rational builder himself introduced the inextricable system into the animal world.

100. Xianghua My topic was not the refutation of the matter of the inextricable complexity following the findings in the field, that's what the biologists are for. I focused on the subject of 'failure from ignorance' and the god of gaps that is pushed there

101. Shmulik, a minimal trap requires at least 2-3 components. In other words, Miller failed to demonstrate that a mousetrap could evolve by adding one component at a time. He failed miserably at this. Which means that instead of proving the claim of evolution, he actually proved the claim of its opponents. without noticing.

     Eric, the quote is an instructive example to demonstrate to you the nature of the evolutionary values ​​in Wikipedia. He links to two articles in the field (5,6). The first article by Carroll and Thornton, which deals with the attempt to demonstrate the evolutionary development of 2 receptors (gr and mr). The ability to bind to the hormone was already present in the same receptor, and by changing a few individual HAs, the specificity was improved. This is an improvement of an existing feature. Without any trace of the inextricable complexity of which Bihi speaks.

     The second link links to a paid article. I was not lazy and found the details of their article elsewhere. There the researchers give as an example the lack of the hexokinase enzyme from the glycolysis process and the lack of the p53 gene from mice. And here, they don't answer at all the main problem Bihi was talking about - minimal complexity.

     RH, it's a shame that you don't want to get into a scientific discussion and leave it in the philosophical layer. But that's your right.

     I was talking about the psychophysical problem in man. And I agree with you that it is indeed a complicated and complex subject in which much of the hidden is over the visible.

     "I'll go ahead and say that evolution experts also hold to his claim that the systems in nature developed all at once, so there is evidence of planning here." Here we again require your definition of planning" - since I am not a philosopher, I would like to hear the philosophers' opinion on the matter. Pulling from the hip I would describe planning as foresight while freely choosing from several possible situations. I think someone has already thrown a similar definition here.

     "But for the purpose of our discussion, I am ready to accept the principle of rebuttal as a decisive test." - Good. Can you suggest a way to disprove evolution? Remember that if evolution cannot offer such a test, then it is not scientific either and hence your assertion that it should be taught in schools is incorrect.

102. R.H.

     Reporter:

     "We both know that the consensus around evolution is completely different from the consensus around the severe materialist position taken by Buddha."

     Can I please provide a reference from the scientific world for this statement?

     On the subject of free will, Eric shared the lecture of Professor Haim Somplansky.

     http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%99

     http://multimedia.huji.ac.il/video/outreach/0910/madua/08.html

     Are you claiming that Chaim Somplansky does not represent the scientific consensus on the subject? If so, I would appreciate it if you brought at least one article by a researcher of the same magnitude who claims otherwise. I have read a lot of studies on the topic of brain research from the last few years and I have not found even a shadow of doubt regarding the above topic or evidence that any recognized scientist disagrees or thinks otherwise.

     I hope that you, unlike friend xianghua1, do not think that what is written in Wikipedia is nonsense (although there are mistakes there). Please read what is written in Wikipedia regarding "free will in science":

     http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%91%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%94_%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%AA

     From Wikipedia:

     "Until the discovery of quantum theory by Einstein and Niels Bohr, science was dominated by the stream of determinism that opposes the existence of free will. According to their concept, man is a product of his genetic load on the one hand, and the environmental influences that affected him on the other hand. Since a person has no influence: neither on his genetic load (because this is determined before his birth) nor on the external environmental influences that affect him - how is free choice possible? One of the thinkers expanded on his words and said that if he had known the condition of the earth at the beginning of its creation, he could have predicted the entire future.
     With the discovery of neurons and their mode of operation in the 20th century, the deterministic concept was strengthened: if the brain controls a person's behavior and decisions, and this brain is composed of units whose activity is determined by some electrical charge threshold (of external origin) - how is the person responsible for his choices? Nor did the current of cognitive psychology, which compared the human brain to a computer, leave any room for free choice.
     The discovery of quantum theory raised a renewed question about determinism: if the observer influences the observation, and if the behavior of the system can only be predicted statistically - perhaps there is free choice after all, and not everything is predetermined. But on the other hand, it can always be said that the influence of the observer on the observation had to occur due to the set of circumstances, and the prediction is statistical only because we do not yet know how to calculate causality in the quantum world. This does not mean that this Torah lacks causality."

     Well, in the case that Wikipedia uses the phrase "ruled by science" it is definitely a scientific consensus.

     To the best of my knowledge, the open issue that remains concerns the effect of quantum mechanics on the idea of ​​determinism, but the aforementioned issue is not at all related to the issue of free choice in the brain, as I have already explained and as explained well by Professor Sompolinski in his lecture and many others.

     In conclusion, I have no problem if you choose not to accept the above concept, but I would ask you to admit that this is the scientific consensus or provide evidence for your claim.

103. Shmulik and Kamila,
     Sorry for the late response,
     Saying this: Like you, I also find many flaws in the arguments that xianghua brings here, and I really do not give them legitimacy. However, I believe that the starting point of xianghua is genuine; That is, even if he too is willing to distort the face of things in order to fit his arguments, then he does so from a very honest point of departure - he thinks that intelligent planning is a correct approach. This is what I meant when I claimed that he was acting in good faith. His behavior is wrong, I agree - but the starting point is real.
     And one more thing: you supposedly don't notice, but xianghua is really not Amnon Yitzchak. I have no doubt that xianghua has a lot of knowledge in biology and maybe also in science in general - and unlike Tinny Yitzchakim of all kinds, he is talkative. Even though I think his views are fundamentally wrong.
     All in all, I find no reason here to use aggressive expressions towards me, which in my opinion should be reduced to a minimum. But this is just my opinion - do as you wish.

     xianghua1,
     Sorry again for the late response.
     As I have already told you, I have no desire to hold with you the trite discussion about the correctness of evolution, which I also know is pointless. I would still like to return to the point before Buddha's response - you wrote as follows: "It is true, because the concept of planning can be ethereal for certain people. We all know what that means, but it's hard to define exactly. And if we try, we will get into a psychophysical problem and this will require another thread."
     Have fun, let's go in, I have no problem. I do not hold Buddha's approach regarding the psychophysical problem - I believe that the psychophysical problem is still strong and exists. Regardless, I also think that the use that Buddha makes of his approach to the psychophysical problem in this discussion is somewhat problematic, since we both know that the consensus around evolution is completely different from the consensus around the severe materialist position that Buddha takes.
     If so, I will begin - what is the connection between the Ertilian concept of "planning" (about which we know nothing) and the psychophysical problem? To remind you, the psychophysical problem deals with the question of the nature of the relationship (if indeed they exist) between our body, which we know very well what it is, and our consciousness, which is a more complicated and ambiguous matter and requires a definition in itself.
     You know nothing about the planner's body or his mind. So what's the connection?

     In addition to this matter, you wrote: "I will go ahead and say that evolution experts also hold the claim that the systems in nature developed all at once, so there is evidence of planning here." Here we again require your definition for planning. I, the ignoramus, do not understand the compromise of this assertion, and from you, who so easily challenge the assertions of the great evolution experts, I would expect to show a little more skepticism.

     "Assuming that this claim is true, do you agree that evolution is also not worthy of being taught in schools? In addition, I am not clear from you what the agreed upon criteria for a scientific theory are. Do you agree that Popper's principle of refutation is decisive?". Evolution not only deserves to be taught in schools, but must be taught in schools, as I wrote here a long time ago. This is my position.
     I don't really agree with the claim that Popper's refutation principle can really decide what a scientific theory is (simply because science doesn't work that way in practice, even though it's a beautiful principle on paper). But for the purpose of our discussion, I am willing to accept the rebuttal principle as the decisive test. I must point out that I do not understand why there is a need for any kind of decisive test - in my eyes the intelligent planning approach is wrong on a logical level, and from this it follows that it is unscientific anyway.

104. post Scriptum
     This reinforces the fact that Ken Miller certainly agrees that evolution is gradual, what he certainly does not agree with is the argument from the aforementioned ignorance.

105. "Regarding the scaffolding theory - what they claim is that every such complex system developed gradually, when with each addition of a new part the function of the system changed to a different function. See here to understand the general idea:..”

     Xianghua, in the link you brought to Wikipedia, the exact point they were making here is mentioned by the way:
     "Evolutionary biologists have demonstrated how such systems could have evolved,[6][7] ""and describe Behe's claim as an argument from incredulity
     Emphasizing that this is an 'ad ignorantiam' - 'argument from ignorance'. Or as Shmulik calls it: 'god in the gaps'..

106. xianghua,

     I looked at the material you sent about irreducible complexity as well as about specified complexity.

     Simply put, these two theories seem to be the most serious basis of intelligent design supporters as written in Wikipedia.

     Wikipedia also explicitly states that the majority of the scientific community does not fully agree with these theories.

     I see no point in continuing the debate as to whether the above theories are true or not.

     What interests me is why do you think the majority of the scientific world is so opposed to the above theories?

     Why does Wikipedia present these theories the way it does?

     And in general, why do you think that evolutionists act in bad faith?

     Please, don't write to me that everything written on Wikipedia is nonsense, etc.

     Evolutionists have good reason to suspect creationists of bad faith because of the issue of a religious agenda. What reason do creationists have to be suspicious of evolutionists? After all, atheists have no opposing agenda.

     I'm interested in thinking what your real opinion is on the matter.

     The reason I brought up the story of Bar Ilan University's disavowal of Professor Natan Aviezer's creationist film is to show that all (or almost all) recognized academic institutions in the world accept the theory of evolution. I was looking for a way to show you what the official opinion of the world's recognized institutions is on the matter and I didn't find it. Now I found this:

     http://hofesh.org.il/articles/science/evolution-iap/evolution-iap.html

     Here, we are not talking about scientists of this or that, but about official bodies. Maybe someone has already posted this here before so I apologize in advance. Are you able to bring us a parallel document signed by institutions of the same size and against evolution?

     I ask the questions really in good faith. Unlike perhaps some other people on the forum who "accuse" you of a religious agenda.

107. Xianghua If we end up even agreeing, then great

108. xianghua,
     So there, I was right again and you admit it. You took what he said, and interpreted it. Your interpretation is something I, and the others, disagree with.
     To say that evolution should be gradual, a concept I already wrote that I don't exactly understand what he means, does not logically require us to assume that in practice there are systems that cannot be reached gradually. Evolution should provide an explanation for the existence of a system such as the Shoton, and the scientific establishment, which I trust claims that such an explanation exists. Your side must prove that there is nothing that a system like the Shoton has evolved, but in order to prove such a claim, your side has to actually turn back the wheel of time and watch the evolution in the Middle East and show that the Shoton did not develop gradually. There is no way to prove that, under any circumstances, a certain event did not occur (unless it contradicts a basic physical principle, which is not the case). I don't understand why you put yourself in these holes?
     All you are doing is trying to jump over a hole that exists for science and fill it with God. God of the Gaps, we already said.

     Regarding the mousetrap, I don't see what's wrong with Miller's argument? It shows that while a mousetrap must have all its parts (although, an ink mouse, can still be caught in a trap without a spring)

     Regarding scaffolding, I will read

109. Eric, good for them. I guess you don't agree with them. as well as me

     Shmulik,

     "He's just saying that evolution should be gradual. Anything beyond that is your interpretation. Why aren't you accurate? "- In fact, this is exactly what I said, only in other words.

     Regarding the scaffolding theory - what they claim is that every such complex system developed gradually, when with each addition of a new part the function of the system changed to a different function. See here to understand the general idea:

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

     Take a good look at the mousetrap example.

110. xianghua,
     You cannot say to prove the theory because the "intelligent builder" has no right to be called a theory and also there is nothing to prove what cannot be disproved in advance.
     Regarding Miller, I don't want to say the explicit word because I don't want the discussion to deteriorate, but here is what you said: "I said you are invited right to the 0.50 minute in the video. There Miller explicitly admits that he agrees with the claim that evolution cannot create a system that requires several components to function *without* selective selection in the middle. He says it in black and white." And that's not what he says. He just says that evolution should be gradual. Anything beyond that is your interpretation. Why aren't you accurate? If it's on purpose, you need to get really frustrated in the mirror and ask yourself what you're trying to achieve, and if it's not on purpose, then learn to listen.

     Regarding the polls, I am responding because I am not ready to leave one of your claims unexamined and I am right here, in my opinion and in your opinion.

     Regarding the scientists who believe, as mentioned, I brought surveys that show that less than 50% believe in God and in the upper cadre a negligible minority believe in God, but even if this is not true, it only shows that despite their beliefs, the absolute majority themselves are not ready to bring God into science. Voila

     I showed you, in the small example of George Bush, where evolution enters into everyday life. There are many more examples

     Regarding the things you are not willing to comment on, there are problems with searching in science, and if you wouldn't just come in to argue, you could tell me what the scaffolding theory is, the fact that you didn't do that, says a lot about you, and not good things. What happened, you can't just contribute information?

     And here, I have admitted, for the fourth time, that your intelligent designer is God. Don't say again that you didn't say:
     You wrote: "100% of scientists would tell you that they believe in God, so what? Did he get into theories? - Yes, there is a theory called intelligent design."

111. ^*Fundamentalists

112. Dear Mr. Xianghua..
     As I wrote to you, (and I can't understand why you insist, the things are clear) as Professor Sompolinski accepts the data that indicates the absence of free will even though it contradicts religious dogmas and somehow reconciles it with his religious world. The same goes for Kent Miller, evolution, and other fields.

     Of course there are fundamentalist Christians who are not ready to accept reality, there are also those who insist that the earth is flat because it does not fit their interpretation of the Bible.

113. Mr. Eric, you are invited to review the Wikipedia entries for the terms "Christianity" and "Creationism" to see that they do agree with what is said in the Bible, namely that the universe is only thousands of years old and that evolution did not occur at all. Therefore it seems that Miller does meet the definition of creation. Unless you know another definition of creationism.

     Shmulik, the principle of proof is a principle that says that if you can prove the theory or show that it is very reasonable - then it is scientific. Contrary to the theory of evolution for example.

     "You should ask Kenneth Miller how he integrates the contradiction you think exists, but according to his testimony, books and writings, he does not accept any of the claims you make," - I am not interested in what he believes. What interests me is whether he is able to prove evolution. And the answer to that is negative.

     "The only thing he agreed with was that evolution should be gradual, but he did not agree that there are systems in nature that are inextricable. You do not listen but subordinate what you want to hear to what is said. Again, you're not listening." - This is exactly what I claimed earlier. So maybe it's you who isn't listening.

     "Regarding polls, I don't understand the claim "according to logic". You brought one survey, while I brought a Wikipedia page that contains a larger number of surveys that show the opposite." - A moment ago you said that it is not relevant anyway because in countries with high percentages of faith we will get higher results anyway. So polls do not determine anything according to the criteria you yourself have set.

     "I don't really care if the majority of scientists believe in God, that they believe what they want." - If so, the evidence is important to you and not the belief of the scientists. That's exactly what I'm claiming. So we conclude on this topic.

     ” 100% of scientists would tell you they believe in God, so what? Does he go into theories?" - Yes, there is a theory called intelligent planning. Those who ignore its existence do so for non-scientific reasons. Do you think that for nothing in the US the supporters of evolution are waging war of attrition against the supporters of intelligent design? They know they have a convincing case and try to repel them at all costs until reaching the courts. There are many more reasons but I really don't intend to go into them right now. And on the other hand, since when does the theory of evolution belong to science? In my opinion, the practical value of the claim of common descent is zero.

     I have already responded to everything else a number of times. as well as other questions.

114. xianghua,
     Regarding evolution, of course I do not agree with you and I have already written why. Beyond the claim that I repeat that evolution is a fact, I accept, because I am not from the field, the opinion of the scientific establishment, which overwhelmingly and completely claims that natural selection is scientific and the best explanation we have to explain evolution. Beyond that, all your claims have been answered by those who have the tools in their hands, and even the questions for which we do not have good answers, do not disprove evolution, but are good questions waiting for good answers.
     Quantum mechanics also raises many questions and doubts, but since it allows us to produce technology from it, we use it and exactly the same in evolution:
     http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/george-w-bush-denies-evolution-warns/

     Here is the difference between evolution and natural selection and the "intelligent builder": the intelligent builder can be ignored because it is not scientific and evolution is a tool that also provides predictions

115. xianghua,
     Good, then we agreed, the intelligent design (another name for God) cannot and never could be disproved. Thanks.
     Everything else is no longer relevant. I did my thing.

     Camilla, if you are still around, in the continuation of my troublesome post I ask about a theory that Stefan Wolfram puts forward in connection with natural selection, are you familiar with the subject?
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science
     http://everything2.com/title/Stephen+Wolfram+vs.+Charles+Darwin+on+natural+selection

     xianghua, back to you
     You are welcome to write here what the proof principle is.

     Regarding the rest (which is no longer relevant)
     Like I said, you're not listening (or reading): you should ask Kenneth Miller how he reconciles the contradiction you think exists, but according to his testimony, books and writings, he doesn't accept any of the claims you make,
     Not the claims of the creationists and he is not in the minority. In all the public debates with Christians that I have seen, and it has been discussed for many hours on the subject, not one holds the creationist idea, of a young God, etc. And the worst thing, and unfortunately I am drawn to such words is the distortion you are doing to what Kenneth Miller said, at minute 0.50 in the same clip that Camila brought: the only thing he agreed with was that evolution should be gradual, but he did not agree that there are systems in nature that are inextricable. You do not listen but subordinate what you want to hear to what is said. Again, you're not listening.

     Regarding gradualism, I don't know exactly what that means, but as I asked Camila, there is no obstacle that an organism can go through more than one change at the same time between generations, after all, nature is not reductive like a laboratory experiment, so I'm not even sure that what Miller agrees with, she claimed True, but I'm really not in a position to judge.

     Jews and Muslims can work at the Discovery Institute, but their strategy is, as I wrote, to introduce the Christian example into the world of science and most of it as a whole is funded by creationist Christians. If they write it, what else is there to add? They are trying to bring Christianity into the schools, through the back door because the first amendment to the constitution forbids them to enter there through the front door and if they tried to bring Islam or Judaism into the schools, the riot of God would break out. You just have to listen and this again shows that you continue not to listen but to deny the facts, and yes, I have already answered you about that and given the example that the USA does have Jews and Muslims, but it is a predominantly Christian country (despite the first amendment to the constitution)

     Regarding the polls, I don't understand the claim "according to logic". You brought one survey, while I brought a Wikipedia page that contains a larger number of surveys that show the opposite. Again, you're not listening. Beyond that, I don't really care if most scientists believe in God, believe whatever they want. What is important is what they put into their laboratory, into their experiments, into their theories, and therefore even if I agree with the closed poll you brought (52%? Do they accept certain truths in religion? Which truths? That it is permissible to marry 12-year-old girls to men who rape them? That women who are raped are to be murdered? Everything is in the Torah) it just shows that for science, despite the large amount of believing scientists (again, if we accept your survey), God does not enter and, as happened in the trial in Denver, he was thrown down all the steps and did not enter the curriculum.

     By the way, if it is not clear why one should not conclude from this survey conducted on American scientists, what is happening in the rest of the world, the situation is bad. Only recently was an article published that talks about the fact that a huge part of the psychological research is carried out on American students and therefore the ability to draw conclusions from them, regarding the rest of humanity, is questionable. What I am telling you is that if this survey had been conducted, for example, in the Muslim countries, 100% of the scientists would have told you that they believe in God, so what? Does he go into theories? Is Iran developing a ballistic missile, are they putting God into their equations? Is there a Muslim science? Is there a "prayer" parameter there that improves the chances of the missile hitting Tel Aviv? All this survey does is damage your position:
     Science, despite the percentage (and again, according to the Wikipedia page the percentage is actually in my favor) does not include God in theories

     Regarding the scaffolding theory, I have no idea what it says, I'm not a biologist and I've never studied evolution, but is there a physical barrier (like breaking the law of energy use, mass, momentum) that prevents evolution from producing something bigger than a "Hatchacon"? By the way, on this topic, I read that Stefan Wolfram has another idea behind natural selection. Have you ever tried to challenge your worldview and examined the topic (this is big for me):
     http://everything2.com/title/Stephen+Wolfram+vs.+Charles+Darwin+on+natural+selection
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science

     Beyond the spoon I claim that the term "intelligent design" itself is false because you actually mean to say "the intelligent builder" so do yourself a favor and change the term to this because an "intelligent designer" can be intelligent enough so that it is planning the laws of physics that will support evolution and natural selection

116. Mr. xianguah Kent Miller the Christian is not a 'creationist' because as I already wrote to you he accepts evolution and science. And not perverting it through religion, just like Professor Sompolinsky and others. (Do you enjoy making me repeat myself..?)

117. xianghua
     You can be a chess grandmaster

118. Eric,

     Anyone who believes in the biblical story of creation is a creationist. So I don't understand how Miller reconciles the creation story with his belief in evolution. And even more, I don't understand how Camilla claims that he opposes creationists. After all, he himself created them.

     buddha,

     I don't know and I don't really care why the university chose to download the video. They were probably subjected to some kind of pressure press. I don't see how this is related to the current discussion.

     "I agree that various ideas that were recognized as scientific consensus turned out to be wrong. Still those who advocate science will choose to accept the scientific approach at any given time. "- unless his knowledge of the subject in question is sufficient to determine otherwise. As I said, I have no problem arguing with the greatest evolution experts in the world or holding a one-on-one discussion with them. Which I have already done a number of times.

     Shmulik, grind water again?

     Kenneth Miller not only contradicted intelligent design, he also disagreed with the idea behind intelligent design. Kenneth Miller is a Christian-Catholic. So what?" - So he is creation by definition. So how does he oppose creationists?

     "And again, it should be emphasized, in the YouTube clip that Camila included, the thing that Miller agrees with, is the claim that evolution is gradual and not with a principle that created it." - True. And in the response I said that you are invited straight to the 0.50 minute in the video. There Miller explicitly admits that he agrees with the claim that evolution cannot create a system that requires several components to function *without* selective selection in the middle. He says it in black and white.

     "Regarding the question of whether most scientists believe and what that means, I also referred to that. You brought one link, closed, and I brought a Wikipedia page that includes many more surveys and where the picture is much different." - According to this logic, since the majority of the world's population believes in creation, most of the samples should show that most scientists in these countries support creation. Otherwise, it is not clear why you claimed that the polls depend on countries. And what's wrong with US scientists? The splendor of Western culture.

     "At most, you sent some link to an article that says that the probability of producing something that is not a Hachacon is very low, but you ignored that there is no physical barrier to evolution. As usual, you don't listen." - I said that the barrier is statistical for that matter. To that end, I asked here again and again the same question about the scaffolding theory.

     "There is much more I could write, but you are not listening, so I will dwell on the most important topic: The Discovery Institute is a charlatan institute whose secret document tells about its strategy to introduce Christianity into science." - Did you know that some of the institute's scientists are Jews and Muslims? How exactly does this align with your claim regarding the introduction of Christianity into schools? (And yes, I know the document in question)

     Now, let's try again and try not to be a politician but to be fair and write clearly, without dragging evolution anywhere, without asking me a question as a response (I've already written what I think about evolution about 100 times):
     Do you agree that there is no way to disprove intelligent planning?" - according to the way you suggested, I agree. But as I said - a scientific theory that offers a principle of proof can be a scientific theory without the need for the principle of refutation. And now that you have answered, do you agree that evolution is not scientific?

     "The prediction: you won't be able to give an answer because like Professor Dawkins said,"-then the professor said...

119. Shmulik, why are you wasting your time talking about xianghua, as I wrote to you in the previous post and you probably didn't read, otherwise you would have avoided all these skirmishes with xianghua
     An intelligent planner/builder is not a scientific theory, the religious people I know do not treat him that way, therefore I think he represents his own opinion and you are arguing with a person who represents his own opinion - it's just a waste of all the energy

120. xianghua,
     It's already really amazing. Either you don't read comments but random ones, or you read and then ignore anyway, amazing.
     Regarding Miller I already wrote:
     What's amazing is that xianghua is unable to access Wikipedia to find out basic information. Kenneth Miller not only contradicted intelligent design, he also disagreed with the idea behind intelligent design. Kenneth Miller is a Christian-Catholic. So what? The young man will be honored and read a little about him:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller
     Miller, who is Roman Catholic, is particularly known for his opposition to creationism, including the intelligent design (ID) movement. He has written two books on the subject: Finding Darwin's God, which argues that a belief in evolution is compatible with a belief in God

     And again, it should be emphasized, in the YouTube clip that Camila included, the thing that Miller agrees with, is the claim that evolution is gradual and not with a principle that created it.

     I don't care how Miller reconciles the contradiction you think exists but as a matter of fact, he opposes everything you are trying to argue here. I have seen many debates between scientists and Christians and there was not one who claimed that God is young, that evolution is wrong, etc. so he is really not in the minority on this issue.
     As usual: you don't listen.

     Regarding whether most scientists believe and what it means, I also addressed that. You brought one link, closed, and I brought a Wikipedia page that includes many more surveys and the name of the picture is much different. Here again:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science#Studies_of_scientists.27_belief_in_God
     As usual: you don't listen.

     You agreed that evolution is capable of producing khachakon (whatever that means) and I asked you if there is a physical barrier that prevents evolution from producing elements that are not khachakon. At most, you sent some link to an article that says that the probability of producing something that is not a hashcon is very low, but you ignored that there is no physical barrier to evolution.
     As usual, you don't listen.

     There is much more I could write, but you are not listening, so I will dwell on the most important topic: The Discovery Institute is a charlatan institute whose secret document tells about its strategy to introduce Christianity into science. This is undeniable and known to all. The institute was thrown out of all the steps in the trial held against them in Denver, when the issue was whether the intelligent design is scientific, and therefore it is appropriate to enter the study material. That is, the question asked in the trial is whether it is possible to disprove intelligent design and whether it provides predictions. Now, let's try again and try not to be a politician but to be fair and write clearly, without dragging evolution anywhere, without asking me a question as a response (I've already written what I think about evolution about 100 times):
     Do you agree that there is no way to disprove intelligent design?
     If you think that your rebuttal argument (which was copied from Babah) is valid, I invite you to be tested in a truth machine to see if you believe your argument yourself. I already wrote about it.

     By the way, what's funny is that the term "intelligent design" is false in the way creationists use it, and if anything, I use it correctly. When the creationists use the concept of intelligent planning, they mean the "intelligent builder", because they mean that the planner not only planned but also built the shoton, man, etc. because they say that there is no natural way for all of this to be created by itself, whereas I, when I say that there is no way To contradict a designer, I'm basically saying that it can always be argued that the same intelligent designer designed evolution and natural selection so that it looks natural to us, and therefore the name intelligent designer is appropriate only in my use and not in the use of the creationists.

     The prediction: You won't be able to give an answer because, as Professor Dawkins said, creationists don't listen.

121. xianghua,

     I will waive the discussion on "what is the official opinion of the world-renowned universities on the subject of evolution" and everyone can interpret as they wish. I have just one question for you. Why did Bar Ilan University rush to withdraw its sponsorship from Natan Aviezer's film?

     http://mada-duh.com/2012/08/14/when-darwin-was-wrong-the-response-of-professor-nathan-aviezer-and-the-end-of-the-story515/

     I agree that various ideas that were accepted as scientific consensus have turned out to be wrong. Still those who advocate science will choose to accept the scientific approach at any given time. You choose to advocate a different approach from the consensus both on the subject of evolution and the structure of the brain. Well, time will tell who is right.

     In my opinion, you are completely wrong in the statement ""In my opinion the world is not deterministic" - then you should have no problem accepting the claim of free will. This is exactly the problem that arises from quantum theory."

     Conte mechanics is completely irrelevant to the issue of free will as Professor Sampolinski explains beautifully in his lecture. I will give a simple example from the field of computer science for those who don't want to watch the movie.

     Imagine two simple computer programs:

     1. Software that receives as input two natural numbers and produces an output of the sum of the numbers. For example input = 5, 3 output = 8

     2. Software that receives as input two natural numbers and produces an output of the sum of the numbers plus a random number (for example by reading a Geiger counter value.).

     Agree with me that plan number 1 is deterministic and has no free will.

     I argue that plan number 2 is not deterministic but even if it is and if it is not it does not have free will.

     It doesn't matter if the human mind is equal to plan 1 or plan 2.

122. You are a demagogue. On the one hand you say that Ken Miller is a 'creationist' on the other hand he is not..
     Ken Miller accepts what the scientific establishment states, and combines it with his religious beliefs. (Just like
     Professor Sompolinsky on the topic of free will..)

123. buddha,

     "To the best of my knowledge, all or almost all institutions recognized as universities in Western countries recognize evolution as the exclusive scientific theory today." - What do institutions mean? After all, according to the survey I brought, most of the scientists are in the USA (by the way, Shmulik, the fact that it is the USA is not really relevant, but I won't go into that). So most of the scientists employed at the universities there definitely accept the planner theory.

     Regarding free will - we again return to the argument from consensus. And as I explained back then, it doesn't really hold water. Many theories that were once considered a consensus have turned out to be complete nonsense.

     "I would appreciate it if you could tell us about one or more neuroscientists who are active in some prestigious university and claim otherwise. I have no idea if there is anyone like that and I would love to learn if there is." - I have no problem finding you even a few. But it doesn't matter anyway because then you can categorize it as creation. So I don't think anything came of it. That's why I also warned in advance that if we get into the psychophysical problem it may require a whole thread.

     "In my opinion, the world is not deterministic" - then you should have no problem accepting the claim of free will. This is exactly the problem that arises from quantum theory.

     "Regarding your claim that you "disagree" with Professor Sempolinski, there are many experiments and studies on the subject that this is not the place to detail them and they all point to the same result."-Again, a result that demonstrates what? The course of the experiment does not rule out free will at all. I gave some examples.

     Camila, this is getting funnier by the minute. Just as an example, I will bring two questions that have been asked and not yet answered by you:

     You said at the time:

     A)" As in the same simulation that shows how a watch is created in an evolutionary process without planning."-

     and answered:

     The video you gave does not demonstrate this at all. The pendulum itself requires at least 2-3 components to begin with. So how can this be called small steps?

     your reply?

     Another claim of yours:

     "And to distort the words of Ken Miller, one of the greatest opponents of the creationists,"-

     and answered:

     Miller as far as I know is a devout Christian. Christians as far as I know believe in the biblical story of creation and hence they are creationists. Does that mean Miller is actually a creationist who opposes creationists?

     your reply?

     Please be precise with the facts.

     "You really buy that xianghua claimed (several times) in good faith that Prof. Ken Miller supports the creationists' claims against evolution, at least on the topic of "inextricable complexity", and this despite the fact that it is completely the opposite and is evident from the videos and the text in which Ken Miller speaks the scientific facts and his opinions about them in a way that is not ambiguous? "- If you followed my comments you would see that I did not at all claim that Miller agrees with the creationists. Yes, I said that he agrees with the principle of the claim - that is, if we found a system that requires several components that are required as one, then evolution cannot create it gradually.

     Shmulik,

     "After it was explained to him repeatedly, the planner's disclaimer is not equivalent to refuting the planner, completely, he still maintains that his refutation test is valid." - Let's assume for the purpose that your claim is correct. For K, is it the principle of refutation that determines or also the principle of proof? (That is, let's say we have a way to prove that some theory is true or very likely, does that make it scientific?). Do you therefore accept that evolution is also unscientific?

124. Kamila, they explain to you nicely that there is a way to conduct a discussion, otherwise you are harming your own interest. Is 'the last Camila' a variation on 'the last word at any cost'..?

125. Shmulik ,
     Don't take it seriously, I'm afraid you're desperate for this whole business if you've come to the request to be tested on a real machine.
     xiangua only represents himself and not the religious sector, because they certainly do not think that an intelligent planner or the creator of the world is scientific, they have taken the leap of faith which is the leap of faith and believe without question and from self-consideration as I wrote to you in a previous post, I know that simply I asked many religious people who work with me and some of them even mentioned this concept.
     Remember the movie:
     G Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
     There, George Lux mentioned the concept of THE FORCE, so it's exactly faith, either you have this inner voice or you don't: follow the force
     It's a shame that you invest so much nerves and energy on someone who represents himself, Mila Amnon Yitzchak represents a larger public and is worth confronting, simply unnecessary.

126. R.H.
     Do you really buy the fact that xianghua claimed (several times) in good faith that Prof. Ken Miller supports the creationists' claims against evolution, at least on the issue of "inextricable complexity", and this despite the fact that it is completely the opposite and is evident from the videos and the text in which Ken Miller denounces The scientific facts and his opinions about them in a way that is not ambiguous? Do you attribute good faith to quoting quotes from the same commenter that are found out of their original context, and this on several different occasions (such as the same example that Ken Miller gave in which he presented the creationist argument to which he opposes in great detail immediately afterwards, and presented as if it was evidence that Ken Miller supports creationists and actually denies evolution)? This behavior happened time and time again, even after the words were brought in the real context. I see no point in repeating all the actions included again, but they are many and varied and I have detailed them several times in the past.
     It is unfortunate that you legitimize such behavior here as if it were a proper discussion culture. I don't understand why you make such a strange distinction between an immoral idea or claim and between conduct that is clearly immoral (for example, a person lies repeatedly and knowingly about obvious things, such as what Ken Miller's arguments are and which side his words support). Do you really respect such behavior? Is there some kind of limit to telling lies or indiscriminate conduct such as knowingly taking things out of context, since in your view it would be considered an immoral act worthy of condemnation?

127. R.H.
     I don't test kidneys and heart but the behavior of xianghua reminds the behavior of a preacher such as Amnon Yitzchak. He repeats and firmly claims that intelligent design (when he has already written several times that the designer is God) is scientific and I do not understand why he is trying to make a Paininic agreement of "if mine is not, then neither is yours, as if there is a connection between natural selection and intelligent design."

     How many times have we asked him to provide a rebuttal test for intelligent design? This is how he wrote:
     "The test of refutation is to prove that the biological systems developed gradually. That way it eliminates the need for a planner because we have a natural scenario."

     An observant person would try to explain why he thinks that the claim: "the planner is unnecessary" inevitably leads to the claim: "the planner does not exist". After it was explained to him repeatedly, that the planner's disclaimer is not equivalent to refuting the planner, completely, he still maintains that his refutation test is valid. Why? for no reason. This is not how a sane person behaves.

     I will add and mention that I challenged xianghua on the issue by offering an intervention: that he be tested in a truth machine, regarding his belief in his claim, this is because I do not believe that he himself believes in the argument he brought. He did not accept the challenge

128. withering,
     Of course, that's exactly what I meant. We do not agree with the person we are having such a discussion with, that is clear.
     One should be tolerant of any idea, as long as the idea itself is moral. If it is immoral, it is clear that it must be denounced. But xianghua for example, did not make any claim that is not moral. In your eyes, his claim is clearly illogical, but there is nothing immoral about it, and therefore you should listen to it like you listen to any other claim. This is about the nature of the claim.
     Regarding the nature of the litigation - I understand that it upsets you when your questions are ignored and not answered. Why? On the contrary, it actually works to your advantage. Those who read the things from the outside understand very well that those who ignore your questions do so because they do not have an answer. If he had a good answer he would write it down.

     So you are right, this is a scientific site and there is really room to expect a minimum of logical coherence from those who respond here. As I said - the idea of ​​planning is flawed in my eyes at a very basic level and that's why I entered the discussion. But I don't understand what the binding connection is between maintaining logical coherence and morality. Buddha wrote that in his eyes everyone who comments here does so in good faith, and I tend to agree. If I thought that xianghua was not responding in good faith I would not have entered the discussion because I would have known in advance that it was impossible to convince him. I tend to believe that in the eyes of intelligent design supporters there is something very basic that is not explained in evolution, and intelligent design offers a solution to it. I believe them that they think so, and therefore I want to show that it is a mistake, and in any case, intelligent planning is also not acceptable (in some cases, and knowing that the supporters of intelligent planning do it for religious reasons, I would start with the tedious preaching of "there is no contradiction between religion and science, go and read the These and these books". Not for me, but for them, and so that religion would not be an obstacle for them to receive scientific facts. This is not the case here, because it is clear to me that xianghua knows all the "localities in question" very well.)
     So xianghua does not maintain logical coherence, but I find it hard to believe that he does so on purpose. But even if he had done it on purpose, I would not find it appropriate to speak out against him vehemently (of course I would find it appropriate to prove him, even in the current situation I am trying to prove him).
     And a small correction: I think that every person should be respected, unless he has committed a scoundrel. Giving my respect to another is really not conditioned by the question of how much he respects me, as in democracy (contrary to the fascist position that is sometimes heard) there are rights even without duties. And again, in this case I believe that the words are written in good faith, and not out of conscious disrespect.

129. R.H.
     Do you think we should be tolerant of every behavior and every idea? This is an extremely important principle point in my opinion. Why do many make claims about style and not make claims about the content, which includes telling lies, for example, or reusing invalid claims? Have we forgotten that we are discussing a place where the rules of the game are those of a science website? where people come mainly out of interest in these fields, even if they are not professional, and even if they do not deeply understand the ideas presented, it is certainly possible to criticize many of them and still remain within the rational framework. Why should we be tolerant of repeated reasoning that is performed consciously, of ignoring specific requests for answers, just so that we are polite in our eyes and in the eyes of others? Under normal conditions, I agree with you, on such a site, at least in my opinion, it is very important not only to present rational thinking and bring existing knowledge, but also to point out the failures and factual errors if they exist in things, and also condemning those who insist on not conducting a discussion within the minimum requirements that are expected here. I have never made claims to a person who does not know and is curious to learn new things, I have never made claims to a person who presented a logical fallacy but stopped using it after the fallacy was clarified, I have never made claims to someone whose opinion differs from mine as long as he relies on coherent arguments and real findings. The troll in question and his ilk are impolite, immoral, do not behave in a fair and decent manner, the opposite is true. I'm very sorry, in my opinion not every conduct deserves a polite and accepting response and not every conduct deserves to be respected and the person who carries out such conduct. It's that simple. You feel the need to respect even those who do not respect you, it is your full right to do so.

130. withering,
     I agree with what you said about the need to tell the truth. I think that the intelligent design approach is an unscientific approach that is wrong at the most basic logical level, so I am having this whole discussion with xianghua, to show that this is indeed the case.
     However, you wrote that - "It is not really important how they say the king is naked". So that's it, that is important. If we want to be tolerant towards those who think differently than us, even if in our eyes he is talking nonsense, then we must treat him with respect. Believe me that during the discussion with xianghua I had several times a strong desire to speak out against him more harshly, and in some of them I didn't hold back enough for my taste. I tried as much as I could to avoid expressing myself that way, because I think it is inappropriate. It also doesn't respect the other side and it also hurts me at the most basic level - the more harshly you express yourself, the weaker the voice of reason becomes. I believe like you in the importance of the voice of reason, and I also have a voice that revolts when I hear such and such religious people express themselves in a demagogic manner (no, this time I really do not mean xianghua. You will find plenty of examples in "Hidbarot" and websites like XNUMX). It upsets and infuriates me, but I try to hold back as much as I can.
     Discussion culture and rules of etiquette are not a luxury - they are a must and a necessity in any society that considers itself open and tolerant. This does not make any nonsense a scientifically valid argument, but it does mean that we should treat with respect the person who thinks this nonsense. This is not a matter of lip service - it is a matter of speaking respectfully and fairly to all those around me, who think differently than me, what to do. I don't need to flatter the religious - I don't find any obstacle for you to say things as they are from your point of view, without bias. But respect for others does not mean flattery, it is an elementary duty.
     But as I wrote before, it is not only a matter of respect for others. It is a matter of our interest, mine and yours: our interest is that the voice of reason be heard, and that it be heard clearly and clearly. The moment we express anger, we inevitably weaken in the eyes of the other party, he inevitably begins to think "maybe I upset something with them". In this matter, xianghua is simply an example: he is insulted, slandered, and he absorbs everything. You will not hear from him expressions like "demagogue" - he understands very well that when he expresses himself like that he is automatically weakened. Opposite example: when you see a talkback found against the "Hasmolani", you automatically filter it and do not take it seriously - exactly for the same reason.
     Beyond that, there is also the matter of the attitude towards religion in general. Obviously we disagree on this matter so I am not objective. However, I can repeat the same argument: a condescending and condescending expression certainly alienates religious people, just as an condescending and condescending religious expression will alienate secular people (such as an "empty cart", "a baby that was born" and perhaps also "the donkey of the Messiah" by the Kokian). This is not a matter of special consideration of religious feelings (as is unfortunately the case in today's evolution studies), there is a matter of fair treatment. Unfortunately, among many secularists there is a widespread belief that the "vanity beliefs" of the religious make redundant the need for a proper and tolerant expression towards them, and therefore it is permissible to say whatever we want about the religious. True, there are religious people who also do not treat secular people with respect, and that also upsets me. Believe me, when I have the opportunity I try to prove them as well.

     xianghua,
     I will respond to you tomorrow.

131. xianghua,

     First, regarding what is a recognized university. Each state has different laws regarding which institutions are recognized as a university by the state. To the best of my knowledge, all or almost all institutions recognized as universities in Western countries recognize evolution as the only scientific theory today. In my opinion, the Discovery Institute does not meet the above criteria, and even if it does, it is in the minority. I would appreciate it if you could tell us about one or more bodies that are recognized as universities in the country where they exist and advocate the theory of intelligent planning. By the way, in Israel, for example, recognition is determined by the Council for Higher Education established by state law, etc.

     Regarding free will.

     1. In fact, there is no proof that free will actually exists, so if you claim that it exists, it is up to you to prove it. (Like if I claim that a computer has free will you will ask me, and rightly so, to prove it)

     2. To the best of my knowledge, the scientific consensus on the subject among neuroscientists in the world is that man does not have free will and the human mind is a state machine comparable to a computer. Eric has already brought Professor Sempolinsky and there are many others. I would appreciate it if you could tell us about one or more neuroscientists who are active in some reputable university and claim otherwise. I have no idea if there is anyone like that and I would love to learn if there is.

     3. Regarding "uncertainty in a deterministic world" this is not really relevant to the topic. The question arises how do you define "deterministic". In my opinion, the world is not deterministic because it has quantum processes, but this has nothing to do with the issue of free will. Deterministic systems (like a computer) can be isolated in a non-deterministic world that are deterministic at least soon enough for all intents and purposes. Are you claiming that a computer is not deterministic? In any case, the brain is the law of the computer.

     4. Regarding your claim that you "disagree" with Professor Sempolinski, there are many experiments and studies on the subject that this is not the place to list them and they all point to the same result. The professor brought only a small number of examples in the lecture. I see no point in opening a discussion on the subject. If you have evidence from updated information about the existence of free will we would be happy to learn.

     https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-will-0810113/

132. xianghua,
     The challenge still stands

     Regarding the article, oh oh oh. Really embarrassing
     If you want something a little more solid than a Washington Times article:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science#Studies_of_scientists.27_belief_in_God

     These polls (although most of them show that the majority do not believe in God) are always conducted in the USA which is a very religious country. What do you think would happen if they were held in Europe, which is much more secular than the USA? in China? In India (however, 2 billion people) in Muslim countries (about 100% would say yes)

     Hence, the question that should be asked (perhaps, I haven't thought enough about the subject) is (worded in the masculine): do you examine processes in the laboratory, do you put God in there.

     God, in all the claims you have made so far, he is God of the Gaps and leave it to him

133. xianghua
     It's your right to disagree.. :)

134. Buddha, let's continue a little more...

     you said:

     "1. The computer has no free choice" - agrees

     "2. A person does not have a free choice" - disagrees. Regarding Prof. Sempolinski's video: you can move someone's hand without them wanting to. Does this prove that he has no free will? What exactly is the connection? Regarding the claim that the subjects felt "intention". If you don't eat for a few hours you will have the desire/intention to eat. Does that mean you don't have free will? Again, no connection.

     "The popular opinion today is that quantum processes are not relevant to the activity of the brain as a system" - I am talking about the level of principle. How does uncertainty exist in a deterministic world?

     "Please bring evidence that the majority of scientists support the existence of a world planner." - Here is an article I have already brought before:

     http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/aug/14/20050814-115521-9143r/

     "And if this is indeed the case, how come you can't find almost any university that supports this?" - Since the scientists themselves are the academy, they certainly support this. And in fact, there are institutes that deal formally with creation sciences. Like the Creation Research Institute or the Discovery Institute of course.

135. xianghua,
     This is evolution - things evolve, at most, the mechanism is unknown and as even you wrote, there is no barrier to changes. You mentioned that there is research that shows there is a statistical barrier (whatever that is) but there is no physical barrier to changes.

     Here is an example of the dissonance you deniers live in. Who did George Bush turn to when the bird flu was raging and what did he warn?
     http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/george-w-bush-denies-evolution-warns/

     I did not understand what the principle of proof is.

     Regarding the scientificity of intelligent design, the reason I entered this discussion (in another thread) is that you claimed that intelligent design is a scientific theory. If I have understood you correctly, and I am guilty of this in my interpretation of you, your argument is (an imitation of Baha's argument) that a natural process would supersede the planner and therefore disprove it. This is of course complete nonsense. Meiter does not refute, and that is why no physicist claims that God does not exist, but at most, claims that God's role is diminishing.

     I'm willing to put money on it: if you're ready, come to a truth machine and we'll check whether you believe in your argument. Let's check how much this experiment costs and if it's not too expensive, I'm willing to pay if you turn out to be telling the truth (who knows, maybe I'll even get donations for that) and if you turn out to be a liar, and you'll pay. The results will be published here.

     Are you ready?

136. withering,

     I don't think anyone here is brain damaged. All the commenters here are intelligent people.

     According to your approach, I should classify, for example, anyone who believes in the Jewish, Christian, or Muslim religion as brain-damaged because he believes in a Torah that contains many logical contradictions, etc.

     Smart people can believe things that are obviously not true in good faith. A lot of brain research points to this. If people also have a suitable agenda they are able to believe anything.

     All the logical arguments raised here from both sides regarding the planning of a car/watch did not speak to me and I did not address them because in my opinion the main failure is the understanding of the concept of "planning" as I explained in the previous posts.

     In conclusion, I agree with Shmulik that the theory of evolution is almost a "fact" (as Dawkins refers to the issue) and I was not convinced by any argument of intelligent design. Despite this, I think that the points raised by xianghua regarding the statistical models have a lot of merit as points for thought and research. A little skepticism never hurt science.

137. xianghua,

     1. The computer has no free choice

     2. Man does not have free choice

     3. There is no fundamental difference between man and a bacterium and a computer

     4. "Why does a person hesitate?" In greatness, a person hesitates because he is programmed (not by a planner) to hesitate until a certain stage and then make a decision. In the deliberation process, the brain or computer collects data, analyzes it and calculates a "score" for the various options. There is a certain system in the brain that is responsible for stopping the deliberation, because you can debate forever. There are people for whom this system is defective and they suffer badly from it and cannot decide anything. They can be thirsty and have a glass of coke and a glass of water and die of thirst due to inability to decide.

     5. "Have you ever seen a computer that hesitates?" - Yes. Any computer that plays chess for example with each journey limited in time performs exactly the same process.

     6. "How would you explain the principle of non-recognition?" - The popular opinion today is that quantum processes are not relevant to the activity of the brain as a system, although it is clear that they happen in the brain as everywhere else. The computer also functions as a deterministic system even though there are endless quantum processes taking place within it. There is a proper reference to the subject in the lecture of Professor Haim Sompolinsky that Eric published.

     Reporter:

     "As soon as they proved that there is no free will" - another question: you have two options when a person creates a car:
     a) His hands move by a random and blind natural process without any "intention".
     b) His hands move by intention and free choice
     Do you choose option A?

     - Of course I don't choose option b. I choose option A but I have misgivings about the words "random" "blind" "intentional". The brain has intention (or goal functions) like a computer. He comes up with ideas in a process that has a pseudo-random motif and selects them using the state machine.

     Please provide evidence that most scientists support the existence of a world designer. And if that is indeed the case, how come you can't find almost any university that supports it? After all, the academic institutions are run by scientists! And why don't the aforementioned scientists abandon the aforementioned institutions and establish universities that support intelligent planning?

138. Eric,

     You were a few minutes ahead of me.

     and also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svDg2vwx2J0

139. And at London and Kirschenbaum for those who don't have the energy for lectures:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH-HeU0DNl0

140. Professor Haim Sompolinsky (religious by the way), on 'brain physics and free will'.

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfKRuhHXcDk

141. withering
     There is no need to repeatedly mention the words: 'troll' 'spoiled arguments' etc. It might be a vain display of lack of interest and shame..
     In the end, the intelligent reader learns to recognize whether an argument repeats itself without justification, etc., etc.

142. Buddha, demagoguery or not, the arguments I make are also made by biology professors.

     "Planning is a process of choosing alternatives," - does the computer have free choice?

     "The psychophysical problem does not exist. The latest findings in brain research have solved it completely." - on the contrary - it exists more than ever. The experiments you are talking about also have simple logical failures. I will ask you a simple question: why does a person hesitate? Have you ever seen a struggling computer? In addition, how would you explain the principle of non-admissions?

     "As soon as they proved that there is no free will" - another question: you have two options when a person creates a car:

     a) His hands move by a random and blind natural process without any "intention".
     b) His hands move by intention and free choice

     Do you choose option A?

     "A well-founded scientific theory is a theory that is accepted as a consensus" - until you find evidence that refutes it. And such evidence was indeed found. Whoever ignores them is already his problem. Most scientists support a planned existence for the world. That is, according to your definition, the theory of creation must be taught.

     withering,

     "The entire history (technological and medical) of the knowledge obtained through scientific thinking. In my opinion, this is spitting into the well from which we all drink, and one should not be nice to those who spit into such wells" - a few things:

     A) Evolution does not meet the definition of a scientific theory as I have shown and hence is not science
     b) The practical knowledge gained following the theory of evolution, in my estimation, stands at a round zero
     c) The person who invented the mri was as far as I know their creator (and many more good ones). So according to your claim, a person who opposes creationism actually spits in the well from which he drinks?

     "And this is even after he clarified very well why the use of these terms is wrong in the context of his arguments" - and it was explained to you repeatedly why you are wrong. RH, do you understand now what I'm talking about? I refute certain claims without receiving a response to them, and then others claim that it was precisely the claims I made that were refuted. Well, probably some kind of humor.

     Shmulik,

     Do you really think that if you keep writing over and over again that "evolution is a fact" it will suddenly become true?

     The only fact is that small changes can occur from time to time (such as a mole on the forehead). But there is no possible transition between creature and creature, as I have well demonstrated again and again.

     ": Do you believe that the principle of refutation that you brought to intelligent design, really refutes intelligent design." - And as I said already then, the principle of proof also works perfectly.

143. buddha,
     Is it to be understood from your words that you believe that the troll is probably brain damaged? And this is because he repeats and refutes his lame arguments time and time again even after it has been clarified why they are lame?
     Or maybe you disagree with the opinion of some of the commenters here and you believe that arguments of the robot/car/replicating organic clock type are legitimate despite the main failure in them which has already been explained to Ayfa?

     Please explain how it is possible that these arguments of the troll, for example, are made in good faith? After all, if good faith requires ignorance or an inability to understand (as for the first, I know that this is not true, and for the second, it is evident from his responses that he is not mentally handicapped), then good faith does not exist here. Alternatively, could you explain why it is okay to be careful to use examples that we know are designed and produced by humans as analogies to objects whose origin we do not know, when this analogy is the basis for "proof" that even objects of unknown origin are bound by a designer/creator? Do you really see no logical fallacy here?

144. Shmulik, why do you get involved and struggle:
     "Do you believe that the refutation principle you brought to intelligent design really disproves intelligent design."
     Why are you looking for scientific proof of intelligent design? Intelligent design is not a scientific theory (period)
     Remember the movie:
     G Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
     There George Lux mentioned the concept of THE FORCE,
     So let me make it easy for you - can it be proven? No - but he worked
     The last Camilla
     Thank you for your detailed response, I don't think there is a disagreement between us

145. Regarding the question that xianghua1 (evolution of xianghua?) asked:
     "The intelligent design approach remains unscientific, and it is certainly not worthy of being taught in schools" - assuming this claim is true, do you agree that evolution is also not worthy of being taught in schools? In addition, I am not clear from you what the agreed upon criteria for a scientific theory are. Do you agree that Popper's refutation principle is decisive?

     Beyond the fact that we were already on the question of what a refutation is and in another thread, xianghua renounced Popper's principle (I can send you links where he stated that Popper is irrelevant) the answer is of course that evolution must be taught in schools. Evolution is a fact, we see it in action in the laboratory and the scientific establishment (which proves itself day after day) states that natural selection is scientific and the best explanation we have, while the "intelligent design" approach can be shown, and we have shown it in this thread as well, that it is not scientific because it is not Refutation and does not make any predictions. In order to do this, one does not need to be a scientist, but simply ask the question "how can the "intelligent planning" be disproved and what are the predictions of that planning and receive an embarrassing answer from the on duty creation.
     The same creationist Toran, is now trying to make a fancy, embarrassing and insulting agreement in which he compares his logic with the scientific logic. awkward.

     My challenge to their creation is still up in the air. If he is willing, you can find out prices for testing with a truth machine and if the price is not crazy, I am willing to fund the test if he turns out to be telling the truth and he will finance it, if he turns out to be lying and the results will be published here. The question will be: do you believe that the refutation principle you brought to intelligent design really disproves intelligent design.

146. withering,

     I'm inclined to bet that the arguments are indeed presented in good faith. I have no proof one way or the other.
     Some of xianghua's claims seem very wrong to me (especially the argument I had with him here regarding David Penny's experiment, New Zealand 1982)

     Nevertheless, he brought up one correct point in my opinion, as I have already written to you. I would love to see some statistical model of evolution or parts of it. For example, regarding the chance of evolution from ape to man considering time, population size, conditions, etc. You wrote me before that such a model does not currently exist.

147. buddha,
     And you still didn't call the troll a demagogue, you just implied it even though he provided plenty of reasons for it here and elsewhere.
     It is not a shame to tell the truth... unless you believe that the above uses the term robot\car\watch\spaceship with all kinds of obviously unrelated combinations like organic\reproduces\replicates for innocent reasons (and this is even after it has been made clear clearly why the use of these terms invalid in the context of his arguments). What did you think of his arguments so far? Are they justified? relevant? Presented in good faith?

148. R.H.

     I am aware of the attitude you are trying to represent and I still believe that in some things telling the truth is more important than the style of presenting things, even if it is unpleasant to the listening ear and the watching eye. It is important that the voice of reason is the one that will make the ear listen and not just hear, the logic is the one that should make the eye observe and see and not just look, and the logic is the one that will convince the thinking brain as opposed to the believing one. I have seen how discussions are conducted in which they try to "come towards" irrational thinking, just to maintain politeness and a pleasant discussion culture, I did not get the impression that when you allow a repeated display of ignorance, claims with broken logic and sometimes just ugly lies (with lip service of course) a positive effect on the discussion.
     It is not really important how they say that the king is naked, if that is indeed the case, the substance of things must be considered, if we want to conduct a salon discussion that is inclusive and allows every statement and claim, there are enough places where everyone is given the equal opportunity to write as much nonsense as they can think of (usually on websites spiritual of any kind, and also there it is amusing to discover that there is a competition of who believes in greater nonsense). Perhaps the two greatest advantages of rational thinking (and science in general) are that many claims can be tested and therefore it is also possible to say that some of them are nonsense, and that things that cannot be tested at all can be said to be outside the possible framework of scientific discussion (such as the existence of an almighty God who is not can understand these religious people who insist on telling him all the time that he is so limited because there is no way he could have produced a natural evolutionary process, you have to admit that there is something incredibly ridiculous about that, right?). And another advantage in my opinion is that within the framework of science there is much less fear that the belief in something comes from brainwashing from infancy as usually happens in the captivity of religion. And it is no wonder, because in order to study, understand and apply science at a high level, one must acquire several skills during several years of preparatory studies that do not at all deal with the scientific subjects themselves, in fact only within the framework of academic studies are most people exposed for the first time to the breadth and depth of the ideas, theories, tools and findings in the field a certain Every small child easily connects to the idea that there is an all-powerful authority, a supreme supervision, which punishes if you have not done what is good in its eyes and sometimes benefices when you have done so. This psychology is built into us towards parents in particular and towards any strong "adult" around. It is not at all surprising that children tend to believe in God so easily especially when the idea is instilled in them through the strongest source of authority in their environment.

     R.H.
     In essence, rational thinking is the only gift that manages to prove itself time and time again in a way that can be examined individually. I don't pretend to be a missionary of science, I don't "push" science to people in an inclusive way on street corners near yeshivots. Those who turn to me and ask questions about scientific issues receive matter-of-fact and polite answers for the most part, with the exception of the obvious cases in which Adam, it is clear that he insists on remaining ignorant or using arguments with broken logic even after being confronted with the fallacies. He who ignores and continues to fail others deserves all condemnation from those for whom rational thinking is meaningful, and in fact he also deserves condemnation from all those who enjoy the many fruits of this way of thinking. I know many people who wouldn't mind it if we used the imaginary circuit breaker that would turn off every religious symbol in the world, I don't know even one person that this is likely to be the effect on him if we do this on the entire history (technological and medical) of the knowledge gained through scientific thinking. In my opinion, this is spitting into the well from which we all drink, and one should not be nice to those who spit into such wells, the opposite is true.

149. xianghua1,

     So far I have refrained from calling you a demagogue since I did find some merit in some of the reasons you put forward.

     You wrote to R.H.:

     "" If you claim that something is logically bound, you have the burden of proof. "- You claimed that a genome does not require planning. What is the evidence for this claim?"

     Well evolution claims nothing about design. She simply says "things were created in a gradual process and there are thousands of proofs of this". We do not raise the issue of planning. Whoever claims that something requires planning or does not require planning - let him prove it.

     you wrote:

     "True, because the concept of planning can be difficult for certain people. We all know what that means, but it's hard to define exactly. And if we try, we will get into a psychophysical problem and this will require another thread."

     1. I don't know who certain people are, maybe you?
     2. Science knows how to explain quite well how the brain "plans" things. There is no mystery here. There are already computer programs that can meet the definition of "planner"
     3. It is not difficult to define what planning is. Planning is a process of choosing alternatives, testing them in one way or another simulation or in reality, finding the failures, changing components in the field of failures, and God forbid. A beaver that builds a dam or a bird that builds a nest also do it to a certain degree.
     4. The psychophysical problem does not exist. The latest findings in brain research have completely resolved it. As soon as they proved that there is no free will and the mind is just a machine. It seems to me that your desire to continue to hold on to the concept of the soul or mind makes you oppose the notion that humans evolved from bacteria. Do you believe that man has a soul? We would be happy to receive proof. (And again, an argument like "prove that a person does not have a soul" will not be accepted. Those who claim that the soul exists must prove it). If you don't believe in the concept of the soul then what psychophysical problem are you talking about?

     A grounded scientific theory is a theory that is accepted as a broad consensus by all universities in the world.
     Even Bar Ilan University did not dare to give its name to the film "Bereshit Bara" by Professor Natan Aviezer.
     If there is a certain topic about which there are several theories and there is no consensus, all the theories can be taught.

     Why does the Discovery Institute not receive university status? Do you think the reason is political? Conspiracy theory? Why is intelligent design not studied at any university?

150. R. H.,

     ” If you claim that something is logically bound, you have the burden of proof. "- You claimed that a genome does not require planning. What is the evidence for this claim?

     ” I also don't understand what you mean by planning, and you consistently insist on avoiding a serious answer to this question. "- True, because the concept of planning can be difficult for certain people. We all know what that means, but it's hard to define exactly. And if we try, we will enter the psychophysical problem and this will require another thread.

     As for the robot, great for me. I personally hold a different opinion.

     "Let's say that biologists have certain difficulties in the question of the origin of life. How does this make the intelligent planning approach scientific?" - I don't understand your argument. As mentioned, intelligent design offers a test to refute it, and hence it meets the definition of a scientific theory. Do you want to prove that intelligent design is nonsense? Please, prove that nature could develop through a gradual natural process, thus refuting it. Before Shmulik jumps in again with the usual claim, I will go ahead and say that evolution experts also hold his claim that the systems in nature developed at once, after all, there is evidence of planning here. That is, the contradiction of the design is given by proving that there are intermediate molecular stages between the system and the system.

     "The intelligent design approach remains unscientific, and it is certainly not worthy of being taught in schools" - assuming this claim is true, do you agree that evolution is also not worthy of being taught in schools? In addition, I am not clear from you what the agreed upon criteria for a scientific theory are. Do you agree that Popper's refutation principle is decisive?

151. xianghua,
     "And maybe they do oblige? Can you prove no?" - If you claim that something is logically bound, you have the burden of proof. In the meantime I have not received even a scrap of such proof from you. I also don't understand what you mean by planning, and you consistently insist on avoiding a serious answer to this question.

     "And the question here is whether a robot requires planning or not." No, a robot does not require planning. A robot that you and I know and we know that was created by humans does require planning. A robot we don't know, doesn't oblige. Logically nothing can necessitate the existence of a planning being, unless we know it ourselves. Is it that complicated?

     "Not as far as I know. In fact, some scientists have already abandoned this hypothesis and started messing with imaginary worlds of pna or molecules that are not known at all. One of the reasons for this lies in the fact that it is very difficult to synthesize the four nucleotides in the laboratory (and even when successful, they are very unstable, or alternatively, the conditions for synthesizing a certain nucleotide are not good for another). Add to that the fact that no scientist in the world has been able to demonstrate an autoreplicating RNA efficient enough to be the first to replicate, add to that the fact that it takes close to 200 genes to create a protocell, and you get an incredibly problematic problem." I disagree, but leave it at that.
     Suppose that biologists have certain difficulties in the question of the origin of life. How does this make the intelligent design approach scientific? As mentioned, all this is relevant to abiogenesis and not to evolution. The intelligent design approach remains unscientific, and it certainly does not deserve to be taught in schools.

152. R. H.,

     "I can testify for myself at least, that every time you asked me I gave you an answer, unlike you." - I was not talking about you personally but to the person I had the opportunity to argue with, I have yet to receive an answer from him to a question that has already been asked close to 20 times in this thread. To me personally it seems like evasion. It would be simpler to say there is no answer.

     "Then no - genomes, like the entire animal world, require planning, logically or scientifically. Why would they oblige?" - And maybe they do oblige? Can you prove no?

     "A cat can be defined as an organic robot that reproduces" - excellent. And the question here is whether a robot requires planning or not.

     "The chicken and the egg problem you are talking about is the question of what came before what - the enzymes, which accelerate the processes of DNA replication, transcription and translation, or the genes that code for the creation of the enzymes in general. From my biological information I would say that nowadays there are already different possible answers to this question." - Not as far as I know. In fact, some scientists have already abandoned this hypothesis and started messing with imaginary worlds of pna or molecules that are not known at all. One of the reasons for this lies in the fact that it is very difficult to synthesize the four nucleotides in the laboratory (and even when successful, they are very unstable, or alternatively, the conditions for synthesizing a certain nucleotide are not good for another). Add to that the fact that no scientist in the world has been able to demonstrate an autoreplicating RNA efficient enough to be the first to replicate, add to that the fact that it takes close to 200 genes to create a protocell, and you get an incredibly problematic problem.

153. xianghua,
     Fix:
     "So no - genomes, like the rest of the animal world, *do* not require planning, logically or scientifically. Why would they charge?"

154. xianghua,
     Come on, you're like the kid who hits and goes around complaining about being hit. If you don't give serious answers, at least don't complain that you don't get any when you do. I can testify for myself at least, that every time you asked me I gave you an answer, unlike you.
     So no - genomes, like the entire animal world, require planning, logically or scientifically. Why would they charge?
     A cat can be defined as an organic robot that reproduces, the only question is how you define "robot" (no, I do not define a robot as a planned system of any kind).

     I do not advocate Leibovitz's approach in every way, and one might say that I disagree with him even more than I agree with him. My words about purposefulness are indeed influenced by his approach, but not only by it. In any case, in "Development and Heredity" Leibovitz deals with the question of whether heredity explains development. Not the development in the evolutionary sense, which, as you know very well, he accepts without question and without placing planners of any kind (unlike you) but in embryological development, i.e., the development of the living being, with its billions of cells and their differentiation and organization, from the zygote/sprout. I have many objections to the claims Leibovitz makes there, but everything he claims there has nothing to do with evolution, so I really didn't know, because I can't know anything that isn't true. The chicken and the egg problem you are talking about is the question of what comes before what - the enzymes, which accelerate the processes of DNA replication, transcription and translation, or the genes that code for the creation of the enzymes in general. From my biological information I would say that nowadays (the book was written in the 70's I think) there are already different possible answers to this question. In any case, as you said yourself - this question goes back to abiogenesis and is not at all relevant to evolution. Leibovitz, to the best of my recollection, explicitly states there that the genetic systems developed gradually, and he really does not claim that a deliberate hand charted their course.
     In any case, the truth must be told - the book was written many years ago, and many changes have been made in biology since then. I'm not saying that Leibovitz's take on the question of life is no longer relevant, but I think that if he had been aware in the early 90s of those changes that would be renewed, it is not certain that he would have put his hand to the book. In short, all this is irrelevant, even if it has nothing to do with evolution.
     And I still don't understand your definition of planning.

     withering,
     I have long passed the stage where I am offended when I see that the stories of the Bible are called "vanities", and I fully share your fight for science studies to be properly taught in schools, including evolution, and that no subject be avoided for inappropriate reasons. Still, you must understand that your approach is problematic. It may be that in your eyes the stories of the Bible are nonsense, but when religious people see that scientists treat their beliefs this way, it doesn't exactly encourage them to study science. If we want the opposition of the religious public to the study of science to decrease, the first step is to change the rhetoric. I'm really not telling you how you should express yourself, but for the ND, this form of expression is not helpful, not to mention harmful. As mentioned, I do not say this as someone who is offended, but as someone who shares your ambition and disagrees with you on the level of tactics. In my opinion, this form of expression is not helpful, and sometimes it appears in an acute form. It's a shame, because it's just antagonism that could have been avoided. But, as I said, it is clear that you should express yourself as you wish, and not be motivated only by politically correct considerations. Do as you see fit.

155. Orly,
     The number of graduates who will be tested on evolution written in the article is taken from the MPM's answer to the subject of biology (to which I have already provided a link several times, also in this thread) and it is not a speculation or a hypothesis but the facts according to what they gave as an official answer of the Ministry of Education and the writer speculates that because of the small number of students of the subject today ( Perhaps different from what was the case 20 years ago), in the state education systems (I have no idea whether evolution is actually taught in the religious state education system today) groups such as the Christian pressure groups did not arise in Israel. The writer did not address the question of Judaism's position on the subject but, unless we look under a microscope, we will not find a single rabbi (respectable or less) calling for evolution to be taught in schools publicly. In any case, I have not come across one like this and I would be very happy if there were any or then they would be a counterweight to Lamanon Yitzhakim. Do you see a way to change this terrible situation?

     In addition, if I'm not offending, I'd love to find out what you think about living here? Do you think that man developed through an evolutionary process from an ancestor that we and monkeys share? Do you accept the fact that millions of years ago, man did not exist?
     And in order to try to define the limits of faith at the simplest level, and there is no hint of cynicism or desire to offend here, the story of creation is found in Genesis chapter XNUMX, but what about the story of paradise that appears in chapter XNUMX, the one that also includes the snake talking to the woman?

     Shabbat Shalom

156. Uncle,
     Read again and carefully my previous response, I answered you there about the question of the order of priorities in scientific investigation, if I repeat in summary then most of the tools and knowledge that we use today in goal-oriented research (for the benefit of finding drugs for example or certain technologies) is based on basic research that arose out of curiosity only and is sometimes done in different fields Completely from the fields in which the discoveries will be put to significant use in the end. The meaning of prioritizing as you suggest, i.e. dealing only with fields and questions whose benefits are clear and whose outcome is predetermined (finding a cure for cancer, for example) means a fatal injury to the progress of our understanding of the world around us in general and an equally fatal injury to the pursuit of finding solutions to specific problems. I'm sorry that you don't understand how much such an approach you present is a real threat to the ability of humans to exhaust the potential inherent in science. It is clear that there are many studies that do not lead to medical or technological progress, but there is almost no example of a significant development in these fields that is not based on a great deal of knowledge and methods obtained in research that is not goal-oriented. Everything that can be investigated within the framework of the scientific method, that is, the possibility of finding theories that can be tested in an attempt to explain the observed reality, is scientific by definition. The fact that you find it difficult to separate scientific research and philosophical thought is your problem and not the problem of the scientists. My problem and that of other scientists is when people with a similar view are in a place where they really influence the conduct of science, such as those who decide how to budget research institutions and try to reduce basic research as much as possible, or those who determine what to teach our children in schools when they prevent science studies as important as evolution and for poor reasons.

     And regarding what you wrote about the conflict between what is written in the Genesis stories and what follows inevitably from the understanding of the evolution process, the absurdity is that in almost every scientific field, including physics, chemistry and biology, there is a conflict with the stories of the Bible (a good name for what is written there), except that in some of the issues the lawyers of the religion invented interpretations so that the contradiction disappears (such as the age of the world, for example) and in other parts of the topics, such as in stories that are caught from the finger (for example, in archaeological-historical topics or zoological topics), the contradictions between the biblical stories and the reality revealed within the framework of science still exist. I would understand if they decided to expose the children to both things, despite the obvious contradictions, but prevent scientific knowledge because it contradicts the nonsense stories? This is stupidity of the first order. And if, as you say, the rabbi of the public is not enlightened, will the preservation of vanity stories, under the study of science, any science, improve the situation in your opinion?

157. Pierre, I didn't read the whole discussion. It may be that the topic has already come up, although I'm pretty sure it hasn't.

     I was disturbed by the premise behind the question at the end of the article: Why are there no similar agenda organizations (religious organizations that block the teaching of evolution) in the Land of Israel?
     The answer, truly dear writer, is that there is no conflict between the big bang theory of evolution or any other aspect of science that deals with the formation of the universe in particular and the universe in general and Judaism. point.
     Regarding science as a whole, there were great scholars throughout Jewish history who were also scientists,
     And regarding the creation of the world - in the Mishnah it is explicitly written that two places in the Bible are metaphors and should not be understood simply at all - the act of Genesis (the description of creation) and the act of Merkaba (the first chapters in Ezekiel).
     Now, the Mishna is a very ancient source, it is a written record of even more ancient PB traditions, which existed long before any first glimmer of modern theories of formation, so one cannot suspect here of apologetics or attempts to make excuses after the fact...
     The whole approach opposing evolution and co. is basically a Christian approach, because the Christians adopted the written Bible without the traditions that existed alongside it, they also interpreted these parts as they were, and arrived at the (wrong) model of the six days plus a few thousand years since then... Unfortunately, this model also fluttered into parts of our people, from a continuous cultural influence and populism in opinions, and also from ignorance in both science and religious education in their religion.
     It should be noted that I am a religious woman and the basis of my scientific education, including evolution from the Big Bang and the years of the world's existence, I acquired at the high school (Olapna) that I attended 20 years ago, which is an orthodox, conservative and girls-only place, and all this material is taught there without blinking and without even thinking about blinking at all... . 😉

158. Friends,
     Throwing sand in the eyes again. With all due respect to xianghua's "refutations", they were answered a long time ago, repeatedly. As he himself admitted, he will choose a life-saving drug that the medical establishment offers and not the one that the Discovery Institute will offer, so we all trust the scientific establishment that such claims, that natural selection is the best explanation we have now. Evolution is of course a fait accompli.

     What we do not see from xianghua is the admission that the refutation of natural selection does not in the least strengthen intelligent design (God) and above all we do not get an admission that the refutation he presented to intelligent design is wrong and insults intelligence. Here is the rebuttal test he proposed:
     ” The rebuttal test is to prove that the biological systems evolved gradually. This way it eliminates the need for a planner because we have a natural scenario"

     The fact that there is a natural scenario for something does not disprove the fact that there could be an intelligent planner behind that scenario. For example, the designer (God) can produce laws for evolution, laws some of which we have not yet revealed, which will make evolution work and I'm willing to bet money that if we were to test xianghua in a truth machine and ask him if you really believe that this is a refutation test for intelligent design, he would turn out to be a liar.

159. RH, I actually have no problem continuing. But to me it looks like we're stepping on the spot. It would be great if someone here would try to refute the claims I make against evolution. But not even that? I load a, then get an answer for b and God forbid. It doesn't really feel like a debate to me, but a war of attrition.

     Regarding the claim about the synthetic genome. For a change we will go in the opposite direction - do you think genomes require planning or not? And if not, why not? In addition, do you think a cat can be defined as an organic reproductive robot?

     Regarding the issue of inextricable complexity - I understood that you advocate Leibovich's approach. I hope you are familiar with his doctrine regarding the inextricable complexity of the living cell (the chicken and the egg problem). Did you know that this problem applies not only to abiogenesis but to thousands of systems that have apparently developed in evolution?

160. xianghua,
     "I mean a robot made of organic materials such as proteins and DNA. Remember that we have already met humans who created a variation of such a robot - Craig Venter's synthetic genome." You repeat the same mistake again: Venter did not create the synthetic genome from his fevered mind, but based on the model he found in the living world. You cannot use such an example as evidence for the possibility of intelligent design, because it itself relies on the animal world as we know it from biology.

     I'm sorry you choose to end the discussion. I'm even more sorry that you didn't clarify exactly what the line is that leads from the refutation of evolution (in your opinion, of course, not mine) to intelligent planning that is logically and scientifically committed. I couldn't understand your overall concept and I couldn't understand what serious reasoning is behind it. To me it seems like you give up as soon as you can no longer defend your position. It's a shame, because you were quite stubborn and I actually really like stubbornness (yes, even when it's stupid and unnecessary and just wrong. Stubbornness is always a better quality than obedience).
     All good 🙂 .

161. xianghua,
     Continued…
     I am not ready for them to try to teach me "false science" under the guise of religion and lies. Your refutation of intelligent design puts to shame the electrons that flowed to display it on my screen, and you know it. The fact that tomorrow you are holding after Bah, shames you. Be honest and thank you that what you wrote is not a rebuttal and you are actually unable to find a rebuttal to intelligent design.

     Regarding the theologian I brought, I hope that most of the readers who remain in this thread remember that he is not just a theologian but a mathematical doctor from Oxford (who, among other things, talks about the zero chance that evolution requires to exist) and I brought him as a demonstration to the mainstream of religious believers who does not humiliate himself by trying to claim that there is no evolution but (according to him) another force is behind it. This is evidence against interest and therefore so strong and it is fundamentally different from you, who denies evolution completely (not natural selection, but rather evolution)

     I'll write again: I don't care if natural selection is disproved and if tighter rules are found behind evolution. Nothing is sacred but the pursuit of a better explanation of the evidence, through scientific explanation rather than lies

     I was asked and I also answered about the multiverse. Assuming it exists, it actually means that anything that does not contradict the laws of physics, in that universe, will exist. If there is no contradiction in principle for an entire cell to be created at once, so be it. I showed you that the subject was studied scientifically and not just as a text.
     You are asked whether, assuming it exists, this solves the probability problem for you, and of course you did not answer. This is the difference between us: I am open to any explanation only that is not based on lies, you are not

162. xianghua,
     You yourself wrote both "God if you will" and also wrote that his abilities are beyond all imagination, but the imagination for some reason stops when you get to evolution. You are also confused about my abilities. I accept the scientific consensus which states that natural selection is correct and that evolution is a fact, just as I accept the fact that the scientific establishment tells me that the theory of relativity is the best theory we have today, to produce GPS, because I am not a scientist, mind you, not what I say one scientist or another, but the scientific consensus. What I can do is refute false claims for which one does not need to be a scientist and when it concerns intelligent design, which is all one big lie, try to laugh it off as much as possible and therefore I don't care if natural selection is disproved, replaced, whatever

163. Ugh, I'm going to invest in this response and rest for a few days

     xianghua
     Come on, I'll try to ask one substantive question which, in my opinion, is the central problem in our entire understanding of an intelligent planner / super being
     Do you think we can even use scientific tools to prove the existence of a super being/creator/intelligent planning
     I don't think so and I don't understand why you are trying to scientifically prove it.
     As soon as we assume that a certain group belongs to the created class then it is not at a level of understanding of its creator
     Because otherwise she would be the creator - very logical, that the golem would not stand up against its creator, therefore all engagement with such a being is in terms of a leap of faith see entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_of_faith

     The last Camilla:

     Thanks again for the detailed response
     But God forbid, I did not intend to clip the wings of science, only to set priorities for carrying out research according to priorities that save lives, dealing with the question: "What came before what" in my opinion is philosophical and not scientific....

     Shmulik :
     You are definitely preparing for a televised showdown against creationists of the xiangua type and here is your arena,
     And regarding your cynical response with: "Good morning students, it is possible to teach alchemy instead of chemistry and so on..."
     Just telling you that you are definitely reacting in a strange way here.
     I offered you what to do if you want to include evolution studies - then there is a democratic solution for this..
     No offense really, you are definitely a rare breed in the Israeli population, I would suggest you come down with your family
     In which country abroad does evolution have to be taught in kindergarten, where there is no anti-Semitism, where minorities are not disadvantaged,
     that there is no religious compulsion, that on their holidays you can work and you don't have to look for pitas from Druze and travel all year round on the roads, that there is no political corruption in their parliament and more and more...
     And don't forget to post a comment if you found such a country

     my father
     You are right, but in the simplistic view of evolution, they always associate with it the matter of finding a common ancestor for man and ape, and this will always conflict with the stories of Genesis, so it is impossible to teach both when there is a contradiction in the meanings of the message conveyed from both evolution and the book of Genesis, what can the majority of the public do if they are not enlightened .

     So far

164. Buddha, I recommend that you take a look at the article itself:

     http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/a_primer_on_the_tree_of_life_p_1020151.html

     The tree is absurd, black on white. Even in species that do not share gene transfer. contrary to the predictions of evolution.

     Rah, I have already stated the differences between creationism and intelligent design. Intelligent design and creationism definitely believe that many systems in nature developed at once. While there are some theistic evolutionists, they are in the minority.

     "I have no idea what you would claim if you found a robot breeding on Mars. What do you mean by robot? How is it assembled mechanically? chemical? If it is mechanically built in a similar way to the robots we know in our world, then we have a reasonable basis to consider the possibility that it was designed, "- I mean a robot made of organic materials such as proteins and DNA. Remember that we have already met humans who created a variation of such a robot - Craig Venter's synthetic genome.

     "One last final question: What is your position regarding biblical criticism?" - I am not familiar with it and the topic is not really familiar to me. So I can't express an opinion.

     Shmulik, if you don't understand that "for the sake of simplification" is not an explicit admission, I can't help here. You repeatedly claim that intelligent design cannot be disproved. However, you forget that on the other hand, evolution cannot be disproved by itself (for example, the evolutionary answer to the fact that the tree was disproved is that apparently in the historical past a horizontal transfer took place (fortifications that today do not carry out this transfer, i.e. the claim presupposes what is requested and is actually not scientific). So if you reject the designer's theory as scientific, you should also reject evolution.

     "The duty of proving that there are indeed objects that evolution cannot, in principle, produce, is entirely his" - a mistake on your hands. The burden of proof is on anyone who makes any strong claim. including the theory of evolution.

     Regarding the multiverse. You have already asked whether, assuming you accept, from your point of view even a living cell can be created in its entirety, or even a cat like that in a "poof".

     "Evolution is a fact because it is observed in laboratories and I have already brought a clip from YouTube of a theologian who says it outright." - A theologian from YouTube? Really impressive.

     In short, it seems to me that this discussion has exhausted itself. Apart from hand waving, not a single proof of evolution was brought here (an attempt to prove that the evolutionary scaffolding theory is possible), and on the other hand, the theory of evolution holds that even an organic robot can develop by itself, blessed is the believer. I think I ran out, I moved.

165. ?

166. Friends,
     Did my predictions not come true? I asked xianghua who the planner is, what his abilities are and whether he is God. And most of his answers are evasions and now also lies (unless there is another xianghua answering in his place).
     This is what he replied now: "I really have no idea and I didn't admit what you attribute to me (it's been a second since I've written this)." And this is what he wrote before. The following is his confirmation that the planner is God:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-study-in-the-holyland-240912/comment-page-15/#comments
     One must search for "God if you will" and here is another reference:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-study-in-the-holyland-240912/comment-page-9/#comments
     Look for: "Let's assume for the sake of simplification that it is."

     In another place, xianghua wrote that his abilities are beyond imagination (there is no link because there is a limit to how much time I will spend on this). The reason I make this point difficult is to show the ridiculousness of intelligent design. Since the designer is God, and his abilities are beyond all imagination, why does Behe ​​think that if Shoton is created in the laboratory, this will disprove intelligent design? After all, God's abilities are beyond imagination and as Harrison Ford said to Luke, when the latter offered him wealth beyond imagination to help free Princess Leia: I can imagine quite a bit. By the same token, do Behe ​​and Xianghua claim that God, with his abilities beyond all imagination, is unable to produce laws of evolution, including some as-yet-undiscovered rules that would eventually lead to the creation of a shotton in a laboratory?
     Beha added that he doesn't expect a shotton to be created in a lab, but that's just what evolution says. The baton was only created following the specific data that prevailed at the time, at the time of creation (most likely the process took ages upon ages) and it is clear that in the laboratory, these conditions cannot actually be imitated.
     Xianghua who does not accept Baha as a guru, proposed a completely different refutation test in fact, completely different from Baha's: thus Xianghua wrote: "The refutation test is to prove that the biological systems evolved gradually. That way it eliminates the need for a planner because we have a natural scenario." What's the connection again? The planner who has no limits to his abilities, which are beyond imagination, is not able to produce a process, which will seem completely natural to us but still be the force behind the process? What does it have to do with redundancy? Does the fact that I have a dishwasher mean that I don't exist because I'm no longer a dishwasher? Maybe the planner is humble and wants to work only through the laws of nature and therefore created the laws of nature, subtle laws like no other, some of which have not yet been revealed and let them run freely? This is exactly the reason why there is no such concept called an atheist, because there is no way in the world to refute such an argument and therefore in short, this refutation condition is ridiculous and stupid like no other and I have a hard time believing that people really believe this nonsense.

     Regarding complexity, xianghua's definition of complexity is: "I have already said that I define a complex object as an object that cannot evolve through a realizable natural process" but it is like defining a deaf person as a person who does not hear so this is also not a good definition and in any case, the duty of proof is that there are indeed objects that evolution cannot , as a principle, to produce, is all his and the refutation as questions that appeal to "the logic of a child in kindergarten" are not a refutation. Also, I have already presented him with the multiverse which has been studied scientifically, in order to check whether the multiverse, if it exists, eliminates the problem of times.

     Regarding my third question, I already expected him to write in the response that evolution is not scientific and it is not an answer. Evolution is a fact because it is observed in laboratories and I have already brought a YouTube clip of a theologian who says it outright. I asked for the intelligent design (to try to advance the discussion, I will not mention that God is the intelligent designer...oops) two basic things: a refutation, and I showed that the refutation he proposed was ridiculous, stupid and simply incorrect and a prediction when the only prediction that the intelligent design makes is that something will not happen, This is not a prediction, and if it is a prediction, then I predict that freaks prevent the destruction of the world every second and here, since the world is not destroyed, freaks exist.

     After the "discussion" with xianghua, which is full of evasions, answers as questions, circular reasoning, turning to "the logic of 4-year-old children" and all from the creator of xianghua, it becomes clear how important it is to teach science and evolution in schools and for those who want a nice book for small children about evolution, here it is :
     http://www.dafdaf.co.il/Details.asp?MenuID=1&SubMenuID=131&PageID=3348&Ot=%F6

167. Uncle,
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-study-in-the-holyland-240912/comment-page-27/#comment-376874

     It seems to me that you do not understand what the scientific spirit is which is fed by curiosity and an attempt to obtain as good a description as possible of the reality around us (what exists) which will provide an understanding of the phenomena (how things work and how they are created and perhaps even why precisely this way and not otherwise) all of this even without deriving any real benefit despite that history proves again and again that it is precisely the scientific investigation that leads to actual useful knowledge, in technology and medicine for example.
     Questions like what is the origin of life, did it develop more than once, could it have formed naturally from inanimate matter, etc. are fascinating questions that everyone who is curious wants to get answers to. Do you realize that when you come and offer a "solution" in the form of a God made hocus pocus and thus life was created, you are not actually really answering any questions? In science, proposing a possible solution is only the beginning of the road, immediately after comes the difficult phase of confronting the facts known to us as well as planning experiments that examine the proposed explanation. The facts around us all point to a chain of natural processes starting from the same event in which the known universe was created, we simply have a physical explanation that fits the observations and that has been confirmed countless times with an incredibly high level of accuracy, and that does not require any miraculous supernatural being, there is no scientific reason to think that precisely at a point in time A certain such entity appeared and did hocus pocus. But let's go to you, let's assume that we accepted the idea of ​​God creating life even without having a way to test it scientifically. What knowledge or understanding does this "explanation" provide us? Can you elaborate on what we learn about that process of creation? How is it done? When was it done? Was the creation of a single cell or a multicellular organism? Was creation from mud? What did that mud contain? exactly? Why do you need mud in the first place? How much mud does it take to create life?
     I can go on like this and fill in lines upon lines of questions that the curious person, not even a scientist but just a curious person, would be interested in getting answers to, but I don't see how we will get even one answer from the "solution" of God who created life. Therefore, what you suggest is that we knowingly close our eyes and give up our natural curiosity about all those questions, but that way, David, we will never get an answer. In the same breath you also "resent the fact that theories for the beginning of life are invented every time in order to confront the supporters of intelligent design", I don't know where you got the last part of this saying, I don't know any scientist who offered an explanation for the formation of life from an agenda of confrontation with Creationists, I do know quite a few scientists who work in the field and each of them has a different opinion regarding the formation of life and they are all motivated by the same basic curiosity regarding this question and it is also clear to all of them that all the evidence points to the fact that this probably occurred, not certain but probably, in a completely natural process. Each of them offers a different explanation with a fundamentally different mechanism, so far these are just suggestions, what is beautiful about science is that it is now possible to test these suggestions and check how good these suggestions are in accordance with existing knowledge and the ability to answer questions in the context of the creation of life from inanimate matter. As of this moment, there is no particular proposal that has been able to explain things in a convincing enough way that most scientists will adopt it.

     So in summary, on the one hand you offer an "explanation" that by definition cannot explain anything and does not make it possible to understand the phenomenon (if you disagree with this, please show what knowledge we do get from the "explanation" you offer) and on the other hand you rebel against making suggestions that actually do provide Explanations for some phenomena as well as offering realistic solutions for some steps that we lack in understanding how something inanimate became something alive. So I don't understand your words, how do you propose to obtain the knowledge regarding the formation of life? explain it to me please

     Regarding your further comment:
     "For science to be concerned with more significant matters such as the development of life-saving drugs and technology, it is dealing with philosophies of the beginning of life, it's simply a lost conflict, because logically it is not possible for a wheel to turn and reason ad infinitum, because for every beginning they will ask what the beginning was before it and we will not get out of it.... "

     You again show a lack of understanding regarding the conduct and progress of science and its products. A) Science is driven by curiosity and any question that can be examined with scientific tools is a legitimate question and worthy of research. b) Without basic research, and especially one that deals with questions that the immediate benefit of engaging in them is not clear, discoveries would not be made and the research tools would not be developed, on which all medical research and all technological developments are based. Almost all important and groundbreaking discoveries in science stem from basic research that arose from natural curiosity about the phenomena around us. Only after they were discovered and the meaning of these discoveries was understood were they used for further goal-oriented research to apply this knowledge for example in drug development research and technology development. I like to give the example of optogenetics, because it is an example from the last decade that illustrates this matter in a beautiful way, optogenetics is an amazing research tool that makes it possible to study the brain in a way that was not possible until now. This method is based on knowledge gained from basic research on algae's response to light, research that you would certainly dismiss in advance because it is not involved in drug development and did not advance any visible technology at the time. If you were the one who decides which research to budget for, then we would not have gotten to accept optogenetics (which immediately after its introduction was clear to all scientists that it deserves to be awarded a Nobel Prize for its developer). David, do you want good and effective medicine? Do you want amazing technology? Let scientists do what they know how to do best and we will all benefit, even those who insist on believing things that science has shown to be irrelevant or things that cannot be investigated scientifically by definition. I know a lot of secular women who don't get anything because they don't use religious "technology", I don't know even a single religious person who doesn't use medicines and technology derived from scientific knowledge, do you know any?

     And regarding the end of your response:
     "There is no doubt that evolution is an important and interesting science in itself, but all our educational problems are over and we have to run and teach evolution - really an idyll"

     This is really outrageous, replace the word evolution with the word genetics or mechanics or trigonometry, because there is no fundamental difference between them from the scientific direction. Why do you care about evolution? Because there are minorities who don't like to study science that doesn't fit their world view? Even though it is at least an established science like all the other subjects (sorry, if we are precise, then it is known that Newtonian mechanics is not the correct description, but only a good approximation in a certain range of values).
     David, what is the contradiction between education and studying science? Would you be willing to convert, for example, a Bible lesson or would you swear by the hours devoted to education? And what about history? exercise? Digits? Why do you think that studying evolution impairs something in education?

168. xianghua,
     I have no intention of discussing with you the correctness of evolution, it does not interest me. I'll leave that debate to those more knowledgeable about biology than you and me. By the way, it's interesting that you explicitly state that evolution has been disproved. This is proof that Avi Tzedek is right and the intelligent planning approach is indeed nothing more than creationism in disguise.
     But let's say evolution was disproved - how does this make the intelligent design approach scientific? She argued as follows: "The test of refutation is to prove that the biological systems developed gradually. That way it eliminates the need for a planner because we have a natural scenario." I did not understand. If the biological systems evolved gradually then what? So is there a planner? What does this "obligate the need for a planner"? So do you support or not support the intelligent designer approach? Are you willing to explain what the approach means, in your opinion?

     You must have already noticed that I try to prevent the discussion from spilling over into the scientific level and keep it at the theoretical-philosophical level. I do this both because there are better ones than me for the scientific discussion, and also because I think that the intelligent design approach is wrong at the most basic philosophical, and perhaps even logical, level.

     We repeat the same matters again and again and it's a shame: "I think that if I found a robot breeding on Mars, I would certainly claim that it is proof of aliens. Second, how will you know that the designer you see is the one who created the object in front of you? Or is he lying? And what will happen if you find an ancient pottery jar without a planner that you can ask for? In other words, even in the situation you described, there is no way to know whether the object was planned according to your method."
     I have no idea what you would claim if you found a robot breeding on Mars. What do you mean by robot? How is it assembled mechanically? chemical? If it is mechanically built in a similar way to the robots we know in our world, then we have a reasonable basis to consider the possibility that it was designed, but we can never know for sure that it was designed, until we meet the alien that created it. If we meet the alien that created it, and it seems to have the necessary technological capabilities to do so, then it probably did create it. With a probability of 99 percent, not 100 (like mine there is no absolute knowledge with a probability of 100 percent that you are a person and not software). If Ha is not mechanically constructed like the robots we know, and it is not composed of elements or compounds we know, and we also do not know the aliens in question, then no - we cannot claim that the robot is proof of the existence of aliens.
     If I find an ancient pottery jar, I will most likely claim that it was made by humans from ancient times, because I know other pottery jars from ancient times that I know were made by humans (because I have other archaeological remains that testify to the existence of those humans Adam. How do I know that these remains were also created by humans? Because I have a consolidated historical archaeological world picture consisting of a multitude of remains and evidence, what's more, the planners in the case in question are humans, which I know exist because I know that humans exist today and are the descendants of Those people - I and the other people in my day the proof of the existence of those people I attribute to their planning).

     Regarding ST: transmitting radio waves is an action that humans take, and they learned to do this action on their own. If we receive radio signals from space, we will know that those radio signals were transmitted on purpose, because we know how to perform this operation on our own. Just like the robot: in order for something to be evidence of the existence of an entity that designed it, it must be known to us by itself, or that entity must be known to us. This situation is different from that of the animal world, of which we ourselves are a part. Even when we created BAH on our own, we did so based on our familiarity with him.

     One last question to finish: What is your position regarding biblical criticism? What is your opinion regarding the picture of the world that emerges from the archaeological research of AI in the last decades? Do you accept the research claims in this field?

169. Touching never gets tired.

     The phylogenetic tree is alive and well more than ever. In 2009 there was a false publication in the newspaper New Scientist regarding the subject that received a lot of criticism and helped sell newspapers. The paper itself argued in its defense that this was a way to teach more people about evolution because they would buy the paper because of the sensational headline and then read the article.

     http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/the-new-scientist-has-no-shame-again/

170. Shmulik, I will go ahead and say that I have no guru. If anything, from what I've seen, you actually have some authority in matters of science. I personally have no problem disagreeing with biology professors.

     Regarding your questions - in fact I have already answered all of them. Do you think if you ask again you will get a different answer? In any case, regarding the first question - I have absolutely no idea and I did not admit what you attribute to me (this is the second time I have written this).

     Regarding the second question - I have already said that I define a complex object as an object that cannot develop in a realizable natural process.

     Regarding the third question - there are actually prophecies for the intelligent design. Unlike evolution, some of whose predictions have been completely denied by scientific research itself. For example, in 2009 an article was published that examined a series of studies in the field of phylogeny. The article stated unequivocally that there is no evidence for the existence of the phylogenetic tree. About which Dawkins said that it constitutes one of the most impressive evidences for evolution. And if the best evidence for evolution has been disproved, why is the theory still supported? Hint - the reasons for this are not scientific. And if evolution is not scientific, why do you consider it as such?

     R. H.,

     "It seems to me that I did not formulate my words properly because that is not what I meant. I meant that the inability of xianghua and his ilk to accept the evolution “- why would I accept it? Do you know proof of the theory? In all the 150 years that evolutionists have had, they have not been able to provide even one proof of the development of any system. All the latest studies repeatedly disprove her prediction and no one cares. What kind of science is this exactly?

     ” That is not what I claimed. I argued that if you claim that any object is designed, you must know the person to whom you attribute design. You can't claim that an entity you don't know designed the object, because you simply don't know, scientifically, if it exists." - I think that if I found a robot breeding on Mars, I would certainly claim that it is proof of aliens. Second, how will you know that the designer you see is the one who created the object in front of you? Or is he lying? And what will happen if you find an ancient pottery jar without a planner that you can ask for? In other words, even in the situation you described, there is no way to know whether the object was planned according to your method.

     "The term "planning" has no scientific meaning, because it only exists in our consciousness. I can claim again, the same claim in the 20th incarnation: the scientist's binoculars are blind to any such planning" - you must have heard about the seti program.

     ” What rebuttal test do you have? What are you even trying to refute? How can we disprove the existence of a planner we know nothing about? Like I said, like a chicken." - The rebuttal test is to prove that the biological systems developed gradually. This way it eliminates the need for a planner because we have a natural scenario. On the other hand, what rebuttal test does evolution have to offer? In fact, even if you accept the refutation test for evolution, it has already been disproved as stated above in studies. So chicken's bones are nothing compared to what happens on the evolutionary side.

171. Uncle,

     "Hello students, today instead of chemistry we will learn alchemy and instead of an astronomy lesson, we will learn astrology"

     Let's leave for a moment the assumption that evolution is completely correct, after all (albeit without proof) the reason that the religious are sensitive to learning the profession is precisely because they think it is correct and therefore it represents a huge challenge to their worldview (especially for children, because the children do not really understand what they want from their lives who say "God" And it takes years and years of indoctrination to instill in them the "fear of God") and not because they are defenders of the truth. For example, Newtonian theory breaks down at the edges (at high speeds or small enough sizes), but you don't see anyone from the religious sector standing on the back foot and demanding that the subject be stopped being taught because it is wrong.

     If you agree with this assumption, then what you are saying is that in Israel, in 2012, it is okay to scare teachers into teaching the scientific truth to my children and yours. Tomorrow they will decide that the sun revolves around Earth, because it is more suitable to the religious dogma, they will gain enough political power and threaten physics teachers not to teach astronomy to children and free people, who cares.

     What generation do you think will grow here? What do you wish for my children and yours?
     I find it hard to believe that I read a comment like yours, a kind of Mafinik agreement of what should be taught, on the science website

172. What does it matter if Judaism opposes or supports that man came from monkeys? (There is Rabbi Kook who supported evolution for example), what is important is what is true and what is not true, and evolution is truth. Truth is not hidden even if it is unpleasant to someone.

173. Shmulik
     What a strange response, both aggressive cynicism and explaining your position
     But I will try to explain the sensitivity without any sensitivity and forgive me for being blunt.
     Evolution = man came from the monkey, in its simple meaning that is known in the vernacular..
     The State of Israel = a Jewish state at least according to the Declaration of Independence
     Therefore, a Jewish state is connected to our origins and therefore it will be problematic to teach Jews a Torah that favors the birth of man from ape
     Obviously ? Very clear and very understandable
     right? I don't know, but this is the face of things,
     You can always gather a majority to form a party and issue a constitution for the State of Israel, which will enshrine evolution studies in a special section, but I don't think you will have a mandate, because as I argued, the public would prefer to invest more in education and internal security rather than in enrichment studies

174. Uncle,
     Wow, what a response.
     Who said the problems are over? Why sneer? What are you trying to achieve by doing this? What did you write your post for?

     You know what, you're right, I came off as a jerk and mistakenly responded without regard to the article that was written. I'm a troll.
     You know what, you're right, I came off as rambling and you shouldn't teach evolution because one David, in a weird post, said sarcastically that there is an idyll, meaning he meant that there is no idyll. I am a product of the education system so at first I didn't realize it was sarcasm but then I sat and reflected on his magnificent post and came to the conclusion that his last line was written with cool British sarcasm.

     The argument is that the teachers, by order of the Ministry of Education, are prohibited from mentioning the word evolution to the students, in order not to offend certain sectors, namely the religious and the Arabs. This is happening in Israel in 2012 and if you think that the discussion is the pedagogical element, you missed the issue completely. Oh well, you too are a product of the education system

175. the last camila,
     I'm sorry to disagree with you, but I don't think that knowing the planner leads to ignorance,
     All the intervention of the intelligent planner, if we accept it, is only in the episode of the beginning of life, from then on the Lego blocks are in our hands and we can do with them as much as we like without the limitation of knowledge.
     I resent the fact that theories for the beginning of life are invented every time in order to confront the supporters of intelligent design, instead of science dealing with more significant matters such as the development of life-saving drugs and technology, it is dealing with philosophies of the beginning of life, it's simply a conflict lost in advance, because logically it cannot be turned around And an endless reason, because for every beginning they will ask what the beginning was before it and we will not get out of it....
     Shmulik ,
     There is no doubt that evolution is an important and interesting science in itself, but all our educational problems are over and we have to run and teach evolution - really an idyll

176. Here is Cliff acting out what happened at the trial where Michael Behe ​​and the Discovery Institute were thrown down all the stairs:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBpW-m8soMY

177. Shmulik,
     If Leibovitz heard you compare his problem with the problem of the Christian....
     And you're right, really stupid.

     xianghua,
     If there are robots multiplying, then do yourself a favor - replace the watch with a robot or software or whatever you want, that's the first thing.
     Second thing - "and if it is not possible to determine in advance what a planned object is, then how can it be claimed that nature was not planned?". That's not what I claimed. I argued that if you claim that any object is designed, you must know the person to whom you attribute design. You can't claim that an entity you don't know designed the object, because you simply don't know, scientifically, if it exists. The term "planning" has no scientific meaning, because it exists only in our consciousness. I can make the same claim again in the 20th incarnation: the scientist's binoculars are blind to any such planning, whether it exists or not (I'm still waiting for the compliment on the metaphor 😉 ).

     I didn't say that the issue of inextricable complexity is all bullshit. I said that what you say reeks of bullshit. With your permission, I will not enter into the scientific discussion because you have already conducted it enough times and it is simply not very interesting. And no, you really don't need to teach me about the world of RNA, thank you very much.

     "It meets the definition of a scientific theory because it presents a refutation test. In addition, evidence supporting it is published in peer-reviewed articles." Okay, let's say we're all Poperians and we all think the refutation test really does apply. What rebuttal test do you have? What are you even trying to refute? How can we disprove the existence of a planner we know nothing about? Like I said, chicken legs.

     Regarding the evidence that was published in the peer-reviewed articles - your fallacy is called "ad vercondiam" and it is one of the fallacies I am most allergic to, so pay attention.
     Good night.

178. I don't really care how Miller reconciles his Christianity with science. This is not my problem but his, but as a fact, he is opposed, according to his actions, his music videos and the books he wrote on creationism, to a young God and the idea of ​​intelligent design. Is it hard to search online?
     I guess he will solve his problem like Isaiah Leibovich did.

     And here is the prediction: I will try again to ask xianghua three simple questions and I estimate that for each of the questions, the answer will be one of three:
     Ignoring (because he has no answer)
     Evasion by answering as a question
     Evasion in another "creative" way

     First question: Define the device, what are its capabilities. is he god
     Just a quick reminder, he has already admitted, at least 3 times, that the planner is God so it's hard for me to see how God can be disproved, but we'll see, maybe a miracle will happen here.

     Second question: Define complexity. Once and for all, come up with a definition that you can do something with. A scale without saying where to cut is not a definition. "Horrifyingly small chance", is not a definition

     Third question (and a follow-up question, both of which I have already asked numerous times): What is the refutation test of intelligent design and what predictions does intelligent design offer?
     Saying in response, offer me a rebuttal test for evolution is not an answer.

     To try and anticipate his response, I did a simple Google search, and here's what I found:
     http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-behe-on-falsification/

     The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that's just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don't expect it to happen, but it's easily falsified by a series of such experiments.

     This answer is so stupid, and this man is the guru of xianghua. One should pay attention to his answer: "If the scientists can grow Shotton, it will disprove intelligent design, as I understand it." Hmmm, is ownership of the idea of ​​intelligent design to be stared at?
     Let's assume that the scientists succeed in growing what Bhabha is asking for, how exactly does this prove that there is no intelligent designer behind it? Our intelligent planner talks to Beha and told him in advance what are the limitations he puts on himself? Can't the intelligent planner (God) intervene, deliberately, in a sophisticated manner and masquerading as the laws of nature, to blow a silent cosmic wind and hop, to create a shoton?
     So dumb, it's amazing.

     I'm clear that I've gotten myself into trouble by writing too much and instead of answering one of my three questions, xianghua might address what I wrote about his guru, but who knows, maybe we'll get an answer.

179. buddha,
     I am a traditionalist. Since the definition already touches me quite intimately, I will leave the job of clarification to Meir Bouzglou: http://www.morasha.org.il/Apps/WW/page.aspx?ws=b8fe2af3-36fe-4584-9a4b-4ea94407d625&fol=6ba0b4fa-78e6-4b73-842f-be8db0270bdb&page=395a707b-a72d-4fb6-904b-0c2d47066181&box=6749c4ef-cf57-42e9-85a3-82a394ec2301&_pstate=item&_item=e634f5d6-f19d-4f82-814d-1f97fa434c78

180. R.H.

     I appreciate your honest answer. I didn't understand one thing. Do you observe mitzvah?

181. Shmulik,
     I think I didn't phrase my words properly because that's not what I meant. I meant that the inability of xianghua and his ilk to accept evolution is the anarchist in my eyes. It is clear that evolution should be taught in schools, and it is clear that those who prevent it for irrelevant reasons must be fought. This struggle is extremely important and it is absolutely not bland. I meant that the theoretical-theological preoccupation with the question of "religion and science" has already pretty much exhausted itself, because many, many answers have been proposed, so that the dissonance felt by the believing person should no longer be so acute, let alone that it should not lead to opposition to evolution.
     I would say that everything that can be said on the subject of religion and science has already been said, and even Leibovitz did not innovate that much - Augustine in the 3rd century presented an approach remarkably similar to his approach.

     buddha,
     The truth is, I don't know. I grew up in a traditional home, so I know very well that the source of faith is at home and not in school or kindergarten. I really don't remember when I was first exposed to faith, and I feel like it's been there forever.
     The fact that I grew up in such a home did not prevent me from being exposed to children's science books and learning about the Big Bang and evolution at a very early age. I remember when I was about 5 years old I was bothered by the contradiction. In the end I lived this contradiction and it never stopped me from reading science books. In a way she even spurred me on.
     I have no idea if I believe as of today, because I have no idea how I am supposed to define faith. Something funny: when I was a child I had a tendency to describe God in my imagination as a kind of missile (and please don't go into all kinds of psychoanalysis - I already went there myself). I kept trying to overcome it because it's not allowed... In the end I let it go and this image seemed to disappear by itself, I don't even remember when. All in all, I can say that in the emotional sense I feel another kind of faith, which I am also not sure how to define. I don't know how to explain what it stems from and certainly I can't rationalize it of any kind.
     At the level of observing the mitzvot, things have remained for me more or less as they have been since the age of 13, so my faith (in this Leibowitzian sense) has not really changed.

     I cannot penetrate the consciousness of the man Leibovitz and I cannot say what he feels in an emotional sense towards the concept of God. As you know, Leibovitz claimed that faith is embodied in Judaism in keeping mitzvot and only in keeping mitzvot, so the term "faith" has no meaning other than keeping mitzvot etc.
     I can say that as a child he grew up in a Modern Orthodox family in Latvia. So in addition to the religious education he received, he also received a very open education. I find it hard to believe that there was a certain stage where he put his faith to the test, but that he went and perfected his concept over the years. He never asked "why" he was observing mitzvot, because he always had an explanation for it, but the explanation was perfected over the years. That's what I tend to think and I can't verify or confirm my opinion on the matter.

     I came to write to you about this matter that "it is possible to be religious and also be a brilliant scientist and that is not a contradiction", etc., but then I realized how anarchist it is. Rabbi Hirsch, the founder of modern Orthodoxy, died in 1888, and 124 years after his death, it is necessary to explain to people that a person can be religious and observe mitzvot and also be a brilliant scientist or just integrate into society. Really anarchonism.
     To you, of course, it seems unnecessary and "superstitious", but not to me, nor to many other people.

182. Buddha, a screw is basically one component with a certain design. If you want another example, then a sheet of paper can meet the definition.

     R. H.,

     "Sorry, I can't discuss Matrava watch, because I don't know Matrava watch. If a multiplying clock could exist, it wouldn't be a clock!” - Why not? Scientists have already created a breeding robot. So why didn't they create a matrave watch in the future? And if it is not possible to determine in advance what a planned object is, then how can it be claimed that nature was not planned?

     "I am not authorized to examine your claims on the subject of inextricable complexity, and to be honest, they are not very interesting to me either. Personally, I smell a bad smell of bullshit from them. "- The whole belief in evolution rests on this "nonsense" (if you follow the scientific literature as well as popular science). In fact, the best evolutionary minds are trying to solve this "nonsense", so it is no small matter. Do you think evolutionists invented the scaffolding theory for nothing? Have you heard about the world of rna? Do you know why they conceived it?

     "What interests me is how the hell you can claim that the intelligent design approach is scientifically equivalent to evolution," - the reason for this is simple - it meets the definition of a scientific theory because it presents a refutation test. In addition, evidence supporting it is published in peer-reviewed articles.

     Shmulik, so a devout Christian believes in the biblical story of creation or not?

183. True to my word, I recently read the book to my children: Charles Drouin, who discovered the secret of life on earth
     http://www.dafdaf.co.il/Details.asp?MenuID=1&SubMenuID=131&PageID=3348&Ot=%F6

     או

     http://www.nuritha.co.il/a350600-%D7%A6-%D7%A8%D7%9C%D7%A1-%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%A8-%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%91-%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8-%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9D

     Not bad at all

184. R.H.

     I agree with Shmulik about the great importance of the discussion and the struggle.

     You wrote: "The theological engagement with the subject of religion and science was so extensive that every believer can find the concept that suits him on the subject."

     I wanted to ask you what made you start believing in the God of the Jews in the past? Is it thanks to the initial explanation you received from the parents and the school? Is there a reason you still believe? Do you realize that what you were taught when you were little is a collection of superstitions?
     Why does Leibovitz believe in God? How was his belief formed? I did not find any reference to this.

     In my opinion, it is very important what the young children are taught. In first grade, evolution and science must be taught, not religion. Otherwise, when the children grow up religion will always be burned into their subconscious even though they can become brilliant scientists.

185. R.H.
     The occupation is absolutely not bland because the Ministry of Education is telling teachers not to dare to say the word evolution to students. The professor of the biology subject said, with dignity and herself, that the subject was not studied because of sensitivity to the religious public. This answer is not the answer of someone from the system but of the system itself. The spirit of the commander is in line with everything and I am convinced that the teachers do not want any problems and therefore are forced to line up.

     In order to avoid questions such as, when did the MPMRit say this, here it is:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/only-515-pupils-in-israel-examin-in-bagrut-in-evolution-040212/

     "...due to the sensitivity of the subject among certain groups, the in-depth study of evolution will only be taught as an optional subject.
     "I'm sorry that studying biology is not compulsory for all students." Summarizes Mendelovich."
     Mandelovich is the MP and I hope we don't start arguing about who the particular groups are

     Insipid? in a dream at night The anti-science wins and you call this discussion bland.

     withering,
     Thanks for the answers, I'll read what you recommended and I'm glad to hear that research recognizes many changes at the same time, especially since our whole world is actually one big asynchronous system, so to assume that only one change takes place at a given time is wrong.

     I want to correct a slight impression. I humorously referred to ynet Haaretz as a scientific website and that is why I asked my questions, it is clear that Scientific Yediot does not represent contemporary research.

     I agree with you xianghua deliberately chose examples that immediately create connotations of planning by a planner but don't be in doubt, the principle of all or nothing comes up not only here but also in other discussions that were with him.

186. Eric,
     I really don't understand anything about paleontology, but as far as I know we have fossils of every human species known to us, so their existence is not speculation. Put it this way - if Homo bilis is the first human species to make stone tools, then we have not only found these stone tools, but also fossils of Homo bilis. That is, we would know that Homo Bilis existed even in a situation where we would not find the stone tools he produced. This is a completely different situation from the one presented by the intelligent design approach, which claims that the complexity of the animal world indicates a designer about whom we know nothing (and for whose existence we have no scientific proof).
     It is possible to deal with the question of whether something was planned, of course. But in order to be able to deal with this question we must know in advance the entity or living creature to which we can attribute planning. The intelligent planning approach really does not meet this condition because from a scientific point of view we do not know the entity to which we attribute planning.

     xianghua,
     Regarding the screw, Buddha gave you an excellent answer. I will add and say that I do not find any principled obstacle for a screw not to be created naturally (of course, the accumulation of certain conditions is necessary for this to happen, just as the creation of life required the accumulation of certain conditions - this does not mean that a hand disappeared directing their accumulation).

     "But to remind you that we were talking about a watch that does reproduce. That is, is a clock multiplying evidence of design. Or alternatively is a genome evidence of design. I gave as an example a genome that was designed." Sorry, I can't discuss a breeding watch, because I don't know a breeding watch. If a multiplying clock could exist, it wouldn't be a clock! I'm not bringing evidence from speculation, and it's appropriate that you don't either. This is the essence of rational discussion.

     I skip a bit.

     "That is, for you, given that tomorrow scientists will discover a flying saucer (or as a rebuttal to Kamila's claim - a type of spaceship that has never been seen, not even in fiction) do you think they will claim that that spaceship did not have a planner, or at most that it does not require planning?"
     If tomorrow a spaceship is discovered that is unlike anything we call a spaceship, then it won't be a spaceship! I really don't understand this speculation. If some completely unrecognizable object arrives at the Earth, even the chemical compounds that make it up are not known to us as compounds that can be artificially synthesized, then no - it will not be possible to say that the object requires planning. This thought will likely cross scientists' minds and they will even talk about it, but it will not be scientifically or logically committed.

     I have no authority to examine your claims on the issue of inextricable complexity, and to be honest, they are not very interesting to me either. Personally, I smell a bad smell of bullshit from them. What interests me is how on earth you can claim that the intelligent design approach is scientifically equivalent to evolution, and for that the philosophical basis of the approach, which stands, as far as I can see, on chicken's knees, must be examined. In the meantime, you haven't really managed to change my mind, not to mention that you've done the opposite.

     Shmulik,
     This whole preoccupation with the question of "religion and science" is already so irrelevant, so many words have already been poured out on it that it seems to me simply anarchist to claim that the intelligent design approach is the religious's form of resistance to evolution. Almost all the intelligent religious people I know do not need this approach - the theological engagement on the subject of religion and science was so extensive that every person of faith can find the concept that suits him on the subject. Leibovitz did indeed give the best "settlement" (or as I call it - "hocus pocus"), but to accept his concept you have to accept his philosophical concept as a whole. This is a problem because his thinking is not accepted by the majority of the religious community (although today the picture is slowly changing). However, there are countless other concepts that reconcile religion and science, and each religious person can choose for himself the one he wants (I recommend Prof. Rosenberg's "Torah and Science", which presents the various concepts in a very systematic way). All in all, the whole preoccupation with this topic is already quite bland and boring, at least in my opinion. The religious who nevertheless choose to express support for intelligent design or creation do so based on their will, and there is no religious/theological necessity for them to do so.

187. R.H
     You wrote "Yes. Not necessarily, meaning that we cannot logically conclude from the fact that the system consists of hundreds of components and their sub-components that it was indeed designed. As such, this question is scientifically indifferent."

     My question is: according to your words, from a scientific point of view, it is not possible to deal with the question of whether something was planned or not, but it is possible to bring examples of scientific identification of simple tools in ancient times with the culture that created them. I mean, yes, there is a determination whether they were designed for a certain purpose or not..?

188. What's amazing is that xianghua is unable to access Wikipedia to find out basic information. Kenneth Miller not only contradicted intelligent design, he also disagreed with the idea behind intelligent design. Kenneth Miller is a Christian-Catholic. So what? The young man will be honored and read a little about him:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller
     Miller, who is Roman Catholic, is particularly known for his opposition to creationism, including the intelligent design (ID) movement. He has written two books on the subject: Finding Darwin's God, which argues that a belief in evolution is compatible with a belief in God

     And again, it should be emphasized, in the YouTube clip that Camila included, the thing that Miller agrees with, is the claim that evolution is gradual and not with a principle that created it.

     Here is our Isaiah Leibovitch, one of the giants that have risen up for us:
     http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/ישעיהו_ליבוביץ#.D7.93.D7.AA_.D7.95.D7.9E.D7.93.D7.A2

     And so he said specifically about evolution:
     http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/יחס_היהדות_לתורת_האבולוציה#.D7.99.D7.A9.D7.A2.D7.99.D7.94.D7.95_.D7.9C.D7.99.D7.91.D7.95.D7.91.D7.99.D7.A5

     Leibovitz treated the history of the development of species on Earth, as revealed by the science of paleontology in the fossil record, as a scientific fact, and in his words "I don't think, I know there was evolution. As I know - do not believe - that the continent of Australia exists, even though I have never seen it"[10]. In his role as the editor of the Hebrew Encyclopedia, he wrote the entry "Darwinism"[11], and about the theory of evolution of his time in the entry "Development"[12], and also wrote a preface to the Hebrew edition of Charles Darwin's book "The Origin of Species"

     So it is not surprising that there are those who believe in God and at the same time accept science in general and evolution in particular

189. xianghua,

     FYI, a screw definitely consists of several parts.

     The function of the screw is to connect several parts together in such a way that they can be separated if necessary.

     It must include a screw, body and head. Each logical part of the screw has a different function and if you remove one of them it will not be functional (at least not as a screw).

     Regarding the screw, this is clear.

     Regarding the body, it is responsible for withstanding the load applied to one of the two parts and keeping them close together. If the bolt body is too weak compared to the loads it is supposed to withstand it will break.

     The head allows the screw to be turned by applying a very specific force, usually using some kind of lever such as a wrench or a screwdriver. The idea is to create a mechanism that, if the tool is used intelligently, it will be possible to open and close the screw easily, but there is no chance of this happening by accident due to the forces acting on the screw during its use (as opposed to during assembly or disassembly).

     The fact that the various logical parts of the screw can appear in one physical part does not increase or decrease the complexity of the screw. It is possible to create much more complex systems than a screw made of one part (for example a silicon component).

     Those who advocate the theory of evolution understand that nothing we know, not even a flying saucer, requires planning because planning does not exist. If a person created a watch and if the person was created without planning, the watch is also the product of an unplanned process. The process started with the creation of a single cell that developed during evolution into the man who created the clock.

     Is an ant nest something that requires planning?

190. R. H.,

     "In the beginning you claimed that a complex is what has a planner," - true.

     "And then you got my definition according to which a complex is a system that contains a certain number of different components that manage such and such functional relationships between them." - I don't remember. After all, even a screw is not made up of sub-parts and it certainly meets my definition of a complex thing, since it cannot be created by a natural process.

     "I don't think so - I don't think there's any point in "cutting the scale" because it's simply impossible, you can't compare the degree of complexity of two systems that are completely different in nature (remind you: a clock doesn't reproduce)." - but to remind you that we talked about A watch that breeds. That is, is a clock multiplying evidence of design. Or alternatively is a genome evidence of design. I gave as an example a designed genome.

     " Therefore, in my eyes, the appropriate test to test the question of whether there is a planner or not, is the test of purposefulness, that is, whether it is possible to point to some purpose of the animal world. My answer was no, because in order to know the purpose you must know the planner - "- Again, we met a planner who plans genomes for his own pleasure. For example, I have not personally met the one who made my watch, but I know that watches are not the product of a natural process and hence my watch was designed. It does not depend at all on my acquaintance with the person who designs watches.

     "According to what I understood from your words, you accept, in principle, the theory of evolution." - Absolutely not.

     "I thought that as a supporter of the intelligent design approach you accept the claim that the entire animal world developed in a gradual natural process," - intelligent design does not support gradualism. Although there is a minority of scientists who support theistic evolution. But most of its scientists do not support this. Mainly because of the concept of inextricable complexity described here.

     ” So that's it, no. A flying saucer also does not indicate planning if you do not know entities that could have created it." - that is, for you, given that tomorrow scientists will discover a flying saucer (or as a rebuttal to Kamila's claim - a type of spaceship that has never been seen, not even in fiction) do you think they will claim Because that spacecraft did not have a planner, or at most that does not require planning? .

     withering,

     "What all of these have in common is the early knowledge we already have that the only objects of this kind are the product of the design and production of man (an intelligent being). A flying saucer, by definition, is identified with objects of the latter type, the fact that they are described (exclusively) in human science fiction literature." - that is, assuming you have never encountered science fiction literature, then you will claim that a flying saucer is not evidence of planning.

     "As in the same simulation that shows how a watch is created in an evolutionary process without planning." - The video you gave does not demonstrate this at all. The pendulum itself requires at least 2-3 components to begin with. So how can this be called small steps? Are these the videos on which the belief in evolution is based?

     "And to distort the words of Ken Miller, one of the greatest opponents of the creationists," - Miller as far as I know is a devout Christian. Christians as far as I know believe in the biblical story of creation and hence they are creationists. Does that mean Miller is actually a creationist who opposes creationists?

191. By the way, Shmulik,
     In my opinion, you are wrong in identifying the real reason for the demagogy in the troll's words about a flying saucer and I agree with R.H. on this matter because it is exactly the same demagoguery that the troll used regarding objects such as a car or a robot and of course also the original retarded argument with the watch. What all of these have in common is the early knowledge that we already have that the only objects of this type are the result of the design and production of man (an intelligent being). A flying saucer, by definition, is identified with objects of the latter type, the fact that they are described (exclusively) in human science fiction literature. The fallacy is the projection of certain information on one subject to an open question that is generally not analogous to another subject, and this is even before we refer to the facts that exist in the context of natural objects (organisms and their parts) such as reproduction, the inheritance of random mutations, the process of natural selection following competition for limited resources, etc. The interesting thing is that even when it is shown that if we make a more correct analogy that includes such processes and show that even objects that we know that man invented may develop evolutionarily under defined conditions, still the creationists continue to use the same examples, demagogic as I remember, that the claim of the necessity for the existence of an intelligent designer/creator was refuted, as in the same simulation which shows how a watch is created in an evolutionary process without planning.
     Well, but what can you expect from a troll who has no shame in lying with a determined forehead and distorting the words of Ken Miller, one of the greatest opponents of the creationists, and presenting him as if he were even an enthusiastic supporter of them, and this by bringing a quote in which Ken Miller, being a decent person, explains what the argument is The creationist before him shows why this argument is completely wrong. In my opinion, this is despicable behavior and deserves all condemnation, and as long as such a person does not apologize and make it clear that he understood what the wrong thing he did and undertakes not to repeat it, I don't see the point of arguing with him (not that before that there was so much point, I admit)

192. Shmulik,
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-study-in-the-holyland-240912/comment-page-26/#comment-376521

     Of course there can be many changes at the same time. both at the level of mutation and at the level of selection. If you read a little about the history of science, for example in genetics, you will see that the first discoveries were about very simple traits and for the most part they were one-dimensional, meaning a well-differentiated effect on one trait. This is the normal state of scientific development, especially when trying to understand complicated complex systems (without going into precise definitions of the concepts). The discussion of multidimensional systems is usually a little more difficult for people outside the field, and often requires a much broader knowledge of the interrelationships of the system's components and how they interact in cases of changes, as well as mathematical knowledge at a slightly higher level when dealing with the models of these systems. It is no wonder that you will hardly find such in popular science news, and with all due respect to the newspapers you mentioned, none of them is a scientific newspaper, not even the Science (which I greatly appreciate), but this is a topic that has been dealt with for many decades.

     It is understood that theoretically (and perhaps also practically, I can't think of a good known example at the moment) it is quite possible that some changes at the same time in both genetics and the environment, which in sum will eliminate (or strengthen) the effect of a certain mutation. In the end, selection works on the whole, because usually the whole set of traits determines how successful the individual will be in producing fertile offspring.

193. Uncle,
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-study-in-the-holyland-240912/comment-page-26/#comment-376480

     I think you are completely missing the mindset of scientists (at least all the ones I know). There is no stage where we are interested in bringing the god of gaps into the game, not even in places that a certain scientist investigates directly. This is in the most basic way contrary to our curiosity, it is as if we said: "Well, in this matter we are no longer curious and are not really interested in knowing or understanding what happened, how it happened and why. Note that your analogy is incorrect, the child playing with the Lego blocks asks where they came from and his rabbi gives some finger-sucking explanation that cannot be called knowledge and he presents it as if it were the absolute truth that should not be challenged, thereby blocking the child from wondering about other explanations and of course which prevents him from learning about such explanations and checking whether they sound more reasonable to him. There is no way that a scientist of his good and free will will agree to murder curiosity and replace it with this filler material which is all one big ugliness for us precisely because this filler material establishes and establishes ignorance and does not add knowledge, not even a little bit, and it doesn't matter what part of reality this filler material contains.

     I understand that it is difficult for religious people to understand this and it is difficult to accept this because for them (as for you?) the concept of God has a far-reaching meaning in terms of understanding things in the world. I and others believe that this "understanding" is an illusion as long as it has not been tested and tested and I do not know of any reliable way to test things except through the scientific method. This does not mean that any untested belief in the scientific method is necessarily wrong, it just means that it cannot be called knowledge.

194. Shmulik
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-study-in-the-holyland-240912/comment-page-26/#comment-376453

     Note that in your section 2 the conclusion does not follow from section 1 and the beginning of 2. I am quite sure that there exist, even theoretically, systems or objects that cannot be formed through an evolutionary process, but the mere fact of such existence does not necessarily mean that evolution is not the correct explanation. I will give a simple example, let's say that the first cell was created by the Spaghetti Monster (everyone already knows that the God of Judaism/Christianity/Islam is utter nonsense, so I will refer to something a little more grounded) and let's say that we were also able to prove, but really, and not through the troll's vanities and lies, that the first cell cannot be formed by an evolutionary process, obviously this in itself is no reason to think that the continuation of the process did not occur through evolution, especially when there are so many scientific facts that support this explanation.

     As for your question, it's an excellent question, not every step has to be helpful. There is a known mechanism called genetic drift and it is easy to show through computer simulation that this mechanism results in changes in the frequency of alleles in the population (which is what defines the occurrence of evolution) even if the changes do not improve the fitness of the organisms. It is true that the more difficult the competition and the stronger the forces of selection in a certain trait, something that will result, for example, in a stabilizing selection (which gives a great advantage to the existing situation, or in an equivalent way to a serious disadvantage in any other close situation, a situation that can be represented as getting stuck at a local peak in the fitness landscape) then most of the changes will be in the direction of Giving an advantage (so the process will appear as if it is goal oriented or planned even though it is not). And you are right, under conditions where there is a relaxation of selection (for example if the competition for resources is small) we will certainly expect to see genetic drift that includes many changes that are not particularly beneficial and can even be harmful under slightly different conditions. Read more about genetic drift and ask later if you don't understand something.

195. xianghua,
     "Actually, right now you have changed the criteria for determining a planned thing. Now you are actually claiming that as long as there is a natural process that creates genomes, then it is not necessary that genomes require planning. But this is exactly the problem - in all the 600 or so comments here, no one has been able to demonstrate that genomes can evolve in a gradual natural process. And hence a clock is considered a shotton or a protein.”
     It is not clear to me how I changed the criterion - I argued that if you claim that the complexity of the animal world indicates an intelligent planner, then you must also define what complexity is. At first you claimed that a complex is what has a planner, and then you accepted my definition according to which a complex is a system that contains a certain number of different components that manage such and such functional relationships between them. I argued that if you want to claim that the complexity indicates a planner you must "cut the scale" meaning - to claim that a certain amount of components (in my opinion it is advisable to refer here to the number of types of relationships that are formed between the components) requires planning. You agreed to that too, but you couldn't put your finger on the point where you cut the scale and then you went back to the clock pattern again. I don't think so - I don't think there's any point in "cutting the scale" because it's simply impossible, you can't compare the degree of complexity of two systems that are completely different in nature (remind you: a clock doesn't multiply). Therefore, in my eyes, the appropriate test for examining the question of whether there is a planner or not, is the test of purposefulness, that is, whether it is possible to point to some purpose of the animal world. My answer was no, because to know the purpose you must know the planner - there is no purpose without a planner just as there is no planner without a purpose. Since science is blind to both purposefulness and planning of one kind or another, then it cannot be claimed that the complexity of the animal world indicates an intelligent planner.

     According to what I understood from your words, you accept, in principle, the theory of evolution. That's why I really can't understand your words: "In all the 600 or so comments here, no one has been able to demonstrate that genomes can develop through a gradual natural process." I don't understand - if you accept evolution, how do you dispute the ability of genomes to develop in a gradual natural process, if you accept evolution? I thought that as a supporter of the intelligent design approach, you accept the claim that the entire animal world developed in a gradual natural process, but you claim that the degree of "complexity" indicates an intelligent being that planned this natural process. I'm wrong?

     "I actually think so. Let's assume that there is a certain scale from 0 to 100 for determining something planned. Where 100 is something that is sure to have been planned. After all, at some point there is a line between something planned and not planned." Beyond the fact that you are clearly changing your mind (because you claimed that you don't know if it is possible to quantify the complexity), then that is it, no. A flying saucer doesn't indicate planning either if you don't know the entities that could have created it. Another example of an alien: if an alien arrives on Earth in a thousand years, many years before humans destroyed it, and finds all the remains of human culture here (huge buildings, bridges and other monumental architectural works, alongside impressive technological creations starting with the book and ending with the iPhone) he He will not be able to claim that these indicate that there were humans here, unless he knows similar works from his planet of origin. That is, if he knows that intelligent beings created by themselves, and without anything to do with humans, works similar to those he found on Earth, then he can claim that there is a certain probability that intelligent beings designed the remains of human culture that he encountered. You, on the other hand, don't even have this argument: when you compare humans who designed genomes on their own with natural genomes, you forget that humans designed the genomes based on the model known to them from nature.
     So yes, even 100 on your scale does not indicate planning. Why will she testify? What is the difference between 1 and 100? Why is the statistical probability of a random formation of 1 possible, and 100 not possible? Therefore, even a flying saucer, from the alien's point of view, could have been created in a completely natural process.

196. buddha,
     This is the least important point in what I wrote, and here I fell into xianghua's trap regarding the clip from YouTube. All Miller agrees with (again, from the clip) is that evolution must work gradually and nothing more.

     I would love to receive an answer regarding my average question.

197. Shmulik,

     I certainly agree with Ken Miller about evolution. Evolution is a fact. I simply think that it is easier to deal with the issue of creationism (and religion) by a direct approach of brain research.

     is, for example, Sam Harris, who asks why atheists bother arguing with religious people about evolution when they can be directly beaten by what science has to say about free will, for example.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svDg2vwx2J0

     Instead of discussing what a complex thing is, let's discuss the question of what planning is. Very quickly we will discover that there is no such thing as "planning" there is a flow from situation to situation and there is a concept called "creativity". It is also an elegant way to show that "intelligent design" is actually creation.

198. buddha,
     If I understand you correctly, you disagree with Kenneth Miller's words (which is perfectly fine, there are no gurus on our side). Do you know if there is a scientific consensus on the subject?

     To all those involved in evolution,
     I have another question: in every article I read on this website or in the scientific magazines Ynet, Haaretz, etc., there is always a reduction in reference to genetic changes and the discussion deals with one change in the genome. Life is much more complex and the changes that can occur in the genome are definitely not limited to one, but can be many changes at the same time. If I'm wrong, it's time to correct me, but if I'm not wrong, then a situation can certainly arise in which the total changes that took place in the genome will be positive or neutral, but as is the way of an average, some of the changes will be negative, but after a few generations, some of the negative changes can be reversed For the positive, because reality has changed (now there is less oxygen, it is suddenly hotter, the pressure has increased, the amount of cosmic radiation has decreased, etc.)

     What is actually happening in the scientific world? Is there a reference to the point I raised?

     Uncle,
     The existence or non-existence of a super architect, who created the universe, created the laws of physics and since then does not intervene is not a claim that can be refuted and is therefore not interesting. We are used to messing with God, planning on because of religion, but your statement is completely equivalent to the statement that we were created at this exact second with all our memories or that we live in the matrix (by the way, in a few decades or maybe less, computers will be powerful enough to produce a matrix that will wait for reality with vigorous precision)

     Friends,
     Here is another demagogy from the creator of xianghua
     He asked: "So even a flying saucer is not a guarantee for planning?"

     All he was told was that there may be complex systems that were not put together by a planner, and in response he answered an answer belonging to the domain of all or nothing.

199. Camila, thanks for the detailed answer
     But different from the approach of the God of Gaps, which leads
     For ignorance, I claim that there is no existence of an external entity
     should cloud the continuation of technological developments
     and the progress of science, but only to answer the beginning
     Life,.
     Why is this likened to a child who receives parts of
     Lego as a gift and assembles different buildings with them as a child
     on his mind, so it shouldn't bother him from where
     The cornerstones have arrived as long as his creativity
     manifested in the assembly of various buildings
     In the same way, science studies nature
     And there is a lot to explore, without bothering himself
     Where did the foundation stones come from, he has to work with
     the existing raw material and get the most out of it
     within the framework of the tools at his disposal.

200. Shmulik,

     I compete for the prize.

     First a note. The question "Why, every step in building any system, must be explained as efficient?" Well, in my opinion not every step must be explained as effective. A large proportion of the mutations that survive survive by chance. For example, in the Lenski experiment, it is known that at some early stage some mutation happened that clearly did not happen in the other test tubes. This mutation survived. The mutation became significantly effective only with the addition of one or more mutations in a later generation. An interesting question arises here as to how this mutation became common in the population. I offer a statistical explanation that says that if the mutation happened at an early stage of the division of the bacteria in the specific generation, it was simply replicated very quickly to all the bacteria in the test tube so that when a sample was taken from this test tube, it contained a large number of bacteria that received the mutation.

     Regarding the definition of complexity, complexity must be a relative definition.
     It depends on the observer, and other parameters.
     In the context of discussing an evolutionary process, a measure must be established. The most logical measure of complexity is "a level of complexity that could not have been created purely by chance at a given time". It is clear, for example, that the transition from a monkey (or a monkey-like ancestor) to a human cannot occur within 10 years, but we assume that it can occur in 10 million years. This brings us back to the statistical question, and as Camila already answered me, she does not know a statistical scientific model that analyzed the amount of genetic changes taking into account the length of time of a generation and gives a result one way or another, i.e. could a human have evolved from a monkey in 10 million years considering the amount of genetic changes known in monkeys, The size of the population and the genetic difference between monkey and man.

     Note that in the Lansky experiment, for example, they were able to "recreate" the evolution of the bacteria in a test tube where the ability to digest citrate developed. That is, if today we take germs from a sample of this test tube starting with the generation of the first relevant mutation and continue to multiply them, we will at some point again get bacteria that knew how to digest citrate, but it will probably take much longer for bacteria from the last test tube as well as for bacteria from an earlier generation than the test tube in which it happened.

     Now of course xianghua will argue that the whole change (creating the ability to digest citrate) is a simple change and not complex.
     I argue that it depends on how many generations are involved.

201. My challenge still stands: a reward for whoever finds the definition of complex. Scala is not a definition.
     Kamila, Nissim, Ethnologika and those who know, I have a question.
     The inextricable complexity claim actually consists of two claims, the burden of proof of which is of course on the claimant, and then, another inexplicable jump. Under the assumption that there is no multiverse, then
     1. Evolution is unable to produce certain systems because they are too complex (without going into the definition of the word complex)
     2. Such systems exist and therefore evolution is disproved
     3. Unexplained jump: There is a designer behind evolution.
     I want to dwell on every point number 1.
     Why, every step in building any system, must be explained as efficient? Is it not possible for a certain organism to be in an area where there is no evolutionary pressure (there is enough food, light, oxygen, etc.) and the mutations that do occur (as a result of radiation, heat, pressure, etc.) will not necessarily be effective or maybe even a little harmful?

     Sorry if the question makes experts grind their teeth

202. xianghua,

     I have a simple solution for you.

     You claim that: "a complex object requires planning"

     Instead of defining what complexity is, try to define what "planning" is

     "Planning" does not exist in reality as most people perceive it intuitively. In fact, planning is the product of a state machine. The human brain, like everything else in the animal kingdom, is a state machine. A river bed is also a product of nature's state machine.

203. Eric, I never claimed that Miller agrees with the claim that there is an indecomposable system. On the contrary - he claims that such a system has not yet been found, as stated in the entire article. The quote I gave is from Miller's introduction to his article. There it is evident that he agrees with the whole concept in the general idea. These things are said explicitly from Miller's own mouth at the 0.50 minute mark in the video to which Camila linked.

     ” You ask questions as if I were a biology student who had to defend his seminar. The gist of Ken Miller's words is clear: the bat is a freak for its components" - he can claim this until tomorrow. I refuted his claim as stated. In fact, I even had the chance to correspond with him on the subject.

     R. H.,

     In fact, you have just changed the criteria for determining a planned thing. Now you are actually claiming that as long as there is a natural process that creates genomes, then it is not necessary that genomes require planning. But this is exactly the problem - in all the 600 or so comments here, no one has been able to demonstrate that genomes can evolve in a gradual natural process. And hence a watch as a shotton or protein.

     And I ask you again to define the term "complexity". I think you already admitted that you don't know if it is possible to quantify the matter of complexity. "- I actually think so. Let's assume that there is a certain scale from 0 to 100 for determining something planned. Where 100 is something that is sure to have been planned. After all, at some point there is a line between something planned and not planned.

     "Yes. Not necessarily, meaning that we cannot logically conclude from the fact that the system consists of hundreds of components and their sub-components that it was indeed designed. "- Does that mean even a flying saucer is not a guarantee for planning?

204. (I apologize in advance for the length)

     And here is the forecast:
     xianghua will not define complexity. At most he will direct us somewhere but will not commit to any definition.
     xianghua will not admit that the argument: "because it makes sense" is ridiculous, childish and simply wrong, as I demonstrated.
     xianghua will not admit that God (the planner) is not a scientific theory that does not provide predictions and does not allow for refutation
     xianghua won't admit that there isn't even a percent chance that the Bible is several thousand years old (as I recall, he claimed that there is about a 30% chance that the Bible is several thousand years old)

     On the topic of Irreducible Complexity, don't get confused friends: even if Irreducible Complexity as an idea, defeats evolution, still the duty of proving that such a biological system exists, is completely on the shoulders of the creationists and they have never done it. On the contrary, and you are welcome to refer to:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Response_of_the_scientific_community
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Irreducible_complexity_in_the_Dover_trial

     Specifically, in the same trial held for the intelligent design, in which the federal court threw the Discovery Institute out of all the steps, here is what Beha said (the same Beha received in his head from Professor Kraus):
     of: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#Page_73_of_139

     We initially note that irreducible complexity as defined by Professor Behe ​​in his book Darwin's Black Box and subsequently modified in his 2001 article entitled "Reply to My Critics," appears as follows:
     By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. . . Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on. P-647 at 39; P-718 at 694.
     Professor Behe ​​admitted in "Reply to My Critics" that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address "the task facing natural selection." (P-718 at 695). Professor Behe ​​specifically explained that “[t]he current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an already functioning system,” but “[t]he difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre- existing systems; it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place.” Id. In that article, Professor Behe ​​wrote that he hoped to "repair this defect in future work;"

     however, he has failed to do so even four years after elucidating his defect. id.; 22:61-65 (Behe).
     In addition to Professor Behe's admitted failure to properly address the very phenomenon that irreducible complexity purports to place at issue, natural selection, Drs. Miller and Padian testified that Professor Behe's concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe ​​is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor "missing a part is by definition nonfunctional," what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe ​​excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system. (19:88-95 (Behe)).
     As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by "irreducible complexity" renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution. (3:40 (Miller)). In fact, the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural subject system had a different, selectable function before experiencing the change or addition that resulted in the subject system with its present function (16:146-48 (Padian)). For instance, Dr. Padian identified the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones from what had been jawbones as an example of this process. (17:6-17 (Padian)). By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe ​​attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument. Notably, the NAS has rejected Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity by using the following cogent reasoning:
     [S]tructures and processes that are claimed to be 'irreducibly' complex typically are not on closer inspection. For example, it is incorrect to assume that a complex structure or biochemical process can function only if all its components are present and functioning as we see them today. Complex biochemical systems can be built up from simpler systems through natural selection. Thus, the 'history' of a protein can be traced through simpler organisms. . . The evolution of complex molecular systems can occur in several ways. Natural selection can bring together parts of a system for one function at one time and then, at a later time, recombine those parts with other systems of components to produce a system that has a different function. Genes can be duplicated, altered, and then amplified through natural selection. The complex biochemical cascade resulting in blood clotting has been explained in this fashion. P-192 at 22.means. Exaptation means that some precursor of the

     That is, he himself admitted that his theory was flawed.

     I join others in their complaints about xianghua's recent quote mining on Kenneth Miller. What is funny is that he is willing to accept as true one sentence that Kenneth said (that every step in evolution must be justified) but disregards the rest of his arguments. impressive.

     In a completely puzzling way, Xianghua stuck to the arguments of the creator of the Discovery Institute, which were disproved long ago, and suddenly, at the moment of truth, in a situation where he would have to choose a life-saving drug, he admitted that he would choose the drug that the scientific establishment (not necessarily doctors) would recommend to him and not the drug that the Discovery Institute would recommend to him .

     R. H. Rafaim,
     Do I get anything for helping break the record?

205. xianghua,
     I disagree with the very comparison: genomes exist in nature naturally, and when scientists synthesize or engineer them, they do so based on a model that exists in nature. On the other hand, clocks do not exist naturally in nature - humans created them. And in general: man-made genomes are planned creations - agree. How does this indicate genomes that exist in nature without anything to do with humans? You can't say that because there are man-made genomes that are engineered creations, all genomes in nature are engineered creations, there is a logical fallacy here (I think, not sure, that this logical fallacy is Illicit Minor).

     And I ask you again to define the term "complexity". I think you already admitted that you don't know if it is possible to quantify the matter of complexity. If so, I think the discussion can be closed - what cannot be quantified does not exist as a scientific concept.
     Now I saw your previous message: "Your question is the critical question for this matter and my answer depends on your answer to the question. Let's say that tomorrow you find an elaborate object consisting of hundreds of sub-parts (let's say some kind of elaborate engine or spaceship with a technology unknown to us). You don't know who made it and for what. That is, according to the criterion you suggested, we must conclude that it was not necessarily planned. Do I understand right?”
     Yes. Not necessarily, meaning that we cannot logically conclude from the fact that the system consists of hundreds of components and their sub-components that it was indeed designed. As such, this question is scientifically indifferent. You are of course entitled to believe that it was planned, especially if you believe in the existence of one god or another, but this is not a scientific fact, and as I said in one of the previous comments: the scientist's binoculars are blind to this question.
     All the best and a happy holiday.

206. xianghua
     As I wrote, to write: "And here are the words of Ken Miller, one of the most senior evolutionists in the world today-" and then bring his presentation to the claim of 'unbreakable complexity' in English or the clip as if he agrees that 'unbreakable complexity' exists in this living world demagogy..
     And regarding the content of his words: he specifically says that the Shotton is a 'freak' for its components, this is the gist of his words, and as I wrote, it is not related to your analogy about 'wheels, axles and fuel..'
     And regarding the rest: you ask questions as if I were a biology student who had to defend his seminar. The gist of Ken Miller's words is clear: the bat is a freak for its components.

207. R.H., I don't understand the point of your words. You said you know a clock was designed because you can meet people who made clocks. On the same weight I claimed that I could meet you with scientists who created genomes. That is, the creation of the genome had a purpose. And hence genomes are also planned creations. Which section do you disagree with?

     Eric, Miller presented Bihi's concept and his words understand that he agrees with them on a principled level. He says this explicitly, black on YouTube in the video to which Camila linked (again - minute 0.50).

     "Ken Miller who shows why the shoton is not a complexity that is not a discharge and that *the parts of the system* also have functionality separately:" - First, he didn't even show that. What Miller presented is that at the base of another system (hereinafter - ttss) there are about ten homologues to the base of the shoton. Homologous are parts that are similar but *not identical*. In other words, Miller did not show even this minimum. Moreover, even a transition between homologous proteins may be impossible. The reason for this is that homology in biology generally speaks of a difference of 30-40% of the protein sequence. So even homologous proteins may differ from each other by dozens to hundreds of Kb. and hence there is no gradual transition between them.

     As mentioned, even if Miller had shown such a thing, the whole claim is unfounded for the main reason I mentioned.

208. xianghua
     Camila is right. To quote Ken Miller:
     "And here are the words of Ken Miller, one of the most senior evolutionists in the world today-"
     And then to bring his presentation in total to the claim of 'inextricable complexity' in English as if it is related at all, is demagoguery and above all annoying..
     And what you wrote later about 'wheels, axles and fuel' is also not related. Because as Camilla wrote to you:
     "...Ken Miller who shows why the shoton is not a complexity that is not a disassembly and that *the parts of the system* also have functionality separately:" He explicitly says that the different parts have separate functionality.

209. xianghua,
     I didn't see your question.
     If you don't seek to base the design claim on some purposeful basis, then I really don't understand your argument. How can a planner plan something without any purpose? If he has no purpose whatsoever then he is not a rational or thinking being. And if he is not like that, then there is actually no debate between you and Dawkins and the other opponents of intelligent design, because you actually recognize evolution as a natural process arising from itself.
     Without the purposefulness, the whole intelligent planning approach falls apart much faster. You can say that you do not understand the purpose of the planner because "neither my thoughts are your thoughts nor your ways are my ways", but you cannot say that there is a planner, and that you arrive logically at the knowledge of his existence without identifying one purposefulness or another (in my view, you cannot recognize the purposefulness This is why you also cannot conclude from the "complexity" of the animal world that there is a planning existence, etc.).

     And I did not understand what the connection is between the matter of planning the genomes by man and the present issue. Designing genomes in genetic engineering is done by using a model that originates from the animal world, and in relation to the complexity of the animal world, man does not innovate almost anything.
     Now I understand even less than I did before.

210. Ghosts, do you also include this comment in the "record of responses to one article":

     https://www.hayadan.org.il/thanks-for-the-fish-0607126/comment-page-3/#comment-353436

     After which we all hoped that she would finally stop taking care of me and others?

     What happened, the old obsession raised its head once again?

211. Kamila, as usual, 90% of your message is dedicated to the claimant and not to the claim, and your claim is also unfounded. Look at the video you linked yourself to (minute 0.50) and you will see that Miller himself openly admits that he accepts the concept arising from the idea of ​​inextricable complexity. Later in the video, he tries to prove that there really is no such system in nature, by demonstrating homologous components between two different systems. But Miller, in my opinion, is grossly mistaken. Both a car and an airplane have many common components: wheels, paint, fuel, and more. But there are no small steps leading from a car to an airplane, and hence systems with homologous parts cannot evolve from one another. Feel free to refute this claim. And I will feel free to refute your rebuttal.

     RH, refer to my question above and you will see that the planning claim cannot be based on purposefulness. According to this criterion, since we know humans who create genomes, then the genomes in the living world were designed.

212. Friends, there is a lot of talk here about subject and object and complexity and components...
     After all I think the question is whether our psycho(/soul/thought/awareness) is eternal or finite..?
     If you prove that the psycho is eternal, then all the nonsense of complexity and science will get rid of itself, because you don't need a living mind to be a "soul" and hence we should look for the power that controls eternal life..
     And if you prove that the psycho is material, then all this nonsense of religion and the next world will get rid of itself, because you have to think alone, because we have limited time to think, so it's better to think...

     So you are currently debating whether there is a God or there is no God, but the real question is, is our consciousness eternal..
     And this is exactly what bothers Xingua, he believes with all his heart that he will live forever as Xingua, he does not consider the possibility that Xingua will simply disappear and disintegrate into all kinds of particles that will be scattered in the world, he does not even think that he will be reborn without connection to that Xingua (meaning he will never return or be linked to his consciousness the basic one - Xingua), he believes with all his heart that he, personally, Xingua, will have the privilege after his death (or several incarnations after that), until 120 (or more if God wills it), to see his loved ones and his friends and his parents..
     Therefore, my dear friends, you argue about upper and lower consciousness in vain while the war is on human consciousness itself...
     If you all agree and say together "God is King God is King (in the past) God will reign forever and ever"
     And then shout "There is no next world but this world!" Even then Xingua will appear with his madness...
     Try and see...
     I recommend that wherever you go, walk with God, say that you believe in complete faith, but you believe that there is no world to come...
     Try it, you'll see that I'm not wrong, the believers believe (argue) in the next world... not in God.

213. R. H. Refai.m with your permission
     I understood that the complexity that xianghua was talking about, alludes to the seeming purposefulness that is apparently observed in nature..
     And Shmulik talked about the subjectivity of complexity, I assumed that this subjectivity refers to this allusion. But maybe I got confused..

     R.H.
     Your explanation is Nahir, thank you..

214. Rafi,
     I tend to avoid using the term "subjectivity" when talking about purposefulness. Not that it's not true, but most people don't perceive purposefulness in this way. There is a natural agreement among the vast majority of people regarding the purpose of the clock - to tell the time. Of course, there is no stopping you from deciding that in your eyes the purpose of the clock is different and not the telling of the time, but the natural, or rather the prevailing, convention among humans is the telling of the time. You can, in a certain sense, compare this to money - even though money is nothing but paper, the vast majority will look at this paper as valuable knowing its purpose, which is the commercial purpose. Yuval Noah Harari, in "A Brief History of Mankind" (which I must mention that I did not read the whole thing but only caught a few glimpses of it, so perhaps I am not presenting his argument in its entirety) calls this situation "between subjectivity", that is, it is an object that has a purpose , which is of course subjective, but this purpose is shared by all or most people.
     In the same way, it can be said that the concept of purposiveness, when it is spoken of in the human context and not in one or another metaphysical context, is intersubjective (it may very well be that this intersubjectivity is what caused Aristotle to define the purposive cause as a cause subject to investigation).
     I think that when you look at the concept of purposefulness from this aspect, there is another argument against intelligent design: purpose tends to be a human concept created by all humans and used by them. If so - how can it be claimed that the animal world has any purpose?

215. Rafi,
     I don't know who talked about it here, I probably didn't notice. But, what do you mean by "the subjectivity of the perception of purposefulness in the eyes of the beholder"? In addition, is a wind of such strength that it scatters the garbage in all directions - a "natural" action (as you say)? If so, is "Eric" - one or the other, just for example - who piles garbage in the ditch, next to the road, also considered by you to be performing an action that is "natural"? Thanks.

     Hingo
     Your abilities to make miracles and make them do pirouettes in the air is phenomenal
     .
     It's not that I agree with you, and it's also clear that you're not working for anyone here, but... your achievements... in a little while, thanks to you and in a selfish way, you will pass, and the Israelites together will pass the record of Israel Shapira for comments in one article.

216. R.H

     The subjectivity of the perception of purposefulness in the eyes of the observer has already been discussed here. An animal has internal organs that are supposedly 'used' for certain purposes. A pump that draws blood or an eye that sees. Although the purposefulness is in the eye of the beholder - who is used to people assembling and designing different objects in order to get a functional product.
     In one of his reactions, xianghua withdrew from the clock, and moved to an 'elaborate object consisting of hundreds of sub-parts'.. such an object can be perceived as 'human' due to the fact that intuitively in xianghua's mind no solution came up to make all the parts that make up the object grouped together for him since he does not know A process that collects parts and groups them together, as for example in his next response, "David, have you seen a spirit that piles up a pile of garbage? And assuming it is, could the manure itself develop through a natural process?" He didn't see the possibility of a pile of rubbish piled up naturally. And similarly: it may be that in the case of the aforementioned 'sophisticated object' he simply prefers to go with the likely possibility that there is some sort of planner behind the object since he does not know processes that combine different objects together in the way he intended. And he assumes that it was artificially compiled by deliberate intent in favor of a certain purpose. Again, although he can't tell himself which one. But as it has already been said before me: the concept of purposefulness is subjective, and the natural world is the example of this.

217. Uncle

     You wrote: "Why do you insist (not) accept the theory of an intelligent planner? These are the problems such a theory can pose to science, after all, it is only about the initial PUSH (abgionesis??)"

     Intelligent design is not a theory because no testable alternative has really been proposed. The whole argument rests entirely on the wrong "logical conclusion": 1. We know that there are complex things that were designed by an intelligent designer/creator. 2. There are complex things in nature. 3. Charges 1 and 2 it follows that every complex thing was created by an intelligent designer/creator.
     This is a logically wrong argument because claim 3 does not at all derive from and is not even supported by the previous claims. By the way, if the "conclusion" that should have been accepted by the creationists is that everything complex was designed and created by man, because all the examples they give in the context of argument number 1 were all, without exception, created/designed by humans, except that if they They would formulate the arguments in an exclusive way in one clause, then they would come to an incredibly stupid conclusion that all complex things were designed/created by humans (including the universe and of course also God). By the way of number two, note that in the first and second claims the word complex can be converted to the word simple and both would be correct of course, then according to the same logic creationists will conclude (again wrongly of course) that even the simplest things (even in nature) must necessarily have an intelligent designer/creator .
     Intelligent planning is not a theory also because all the creationists I have known to date claim that their planner is omnipotent and omniscient (befitting someone who could create the universe). The problem is that once you have assumed such a creator, God in his unwashed name, then you have no way to test anything (a necessary condition for a theory), any answer can be relevant, because it is God and he is omnipotent, your only way to decide on a certain matter is only a religious interpretation (exactly why There are so many different religions), neither experimental nor logical. I will give you a simple example in the context of evolution. Is it possible that Almighty God created the universe without determining how things would develop (not because he couldn't know, he just didn't feel like knowing, he is allowed, he is God) and from there things unfolded exactly as science describes, including the cosmological description of the big bang and including The biological description of evolution? If you believe in God Almighty then you must take into account that this possibility also exists and is just as good as any other explanation. Do you understand the concept of God of Gaps? That's exactly the point, every time you don't know something (for example how life began) you can say: "God gave the first push". But note that you actually did not advance our understanding of the matter, not when it happened, not how it happened, nor why it happened. The answer: "God did it" is equivalent to saying: "We have no idea how it happened". I prefer to say the second sentence because it merely represents a temporary state of ignorance and the past shows that as time passes and we investigate more within the framework of science we know more and understand more about the reality around us. If we had adopted the first sentence (God did it) we would have been stuck in continuous and degenerate ignorance and in order to solve all kinds of real problems that needed an answer we would have had to invent all kinds of our own interpretations, we would call them laws for example, as well as use science and its products (such as medicine and technology) to survive. I know many people who get along just fine without religious belief, I don't know anyone (not even Amish) who get along without science-based technology.
     Now you understand why what you wrote next is really not good: "It can be assumed that evolution got the initial PU|SH in a genius way, so we don't need to break our heads and come up with theories about how it all started, but to continue from a certain point"?
     If we do, we will never get to the real answer. Maybe it was God who did hocus pocus and maybe it was in another completely natural way, meanwhile all the evidence indicates that things happened in a completely natural process, even if we don't know its full details yet.

     By the way, at least I and other scientists I know do not rule out the theoretical possibility that there is a God, just as we do not rule out the theoretical possibility that we live in the Matrix and at this very moment someone activated the software and you read these lines and think that you have a memory and a body and that you live in a real world and in fact you Just software that ran somewhere. So maybe this is the real reality, but we have no access to it (you are welcome to propose an experiment that can tell us whether it is one way or another). As mentioned, I prefer to wait and see what a scientific investigation based on observations and experiments will give us and I see no reason to rush and bury ourselves in an "explanation" that not only does not explain anything about the question in question but also raises a lot of new questions and problems that do not currently exist (Who is that God? When is he Created? Who created him? What exactly did he create and how? Why did he create so much evil in the world? Why can't we communicate with him? Why do all the signs point to a being like him not being required? And on and on and on)

218. Rafi,
     I don't understand what you mean. Why can such and such sub-functions testify to an external consciousness? How can anything at all testify to an external consciousness? This was the gist of my words: analysis and research of functional components in the system, no matter how in-depth, cannot testify to a designer of the system who has a purpose, because research (and of course also referring to scientific research) is blind to any kind of purposefulness. This is the great innovation of modern science - removing Aristotle's purposeful cause from science and focusing on the study of the material cause (and perhaps also the operative one).
     I understand your claim that biology has an apparent purposefulness - adaptation of a certain animal to the conditions of its upbringing, which developed in an evolutionary process, etc., etc.... I agree.

219. Eric,
     You can send me your details here or send them to Abby Blizovsky, the editor of the site, who can pass them on to me.

220. A garbage heap is not randomly generated. A garbage bag requires planning. And hence a pile of garbage is a complex thing.

     R. H.,

     I asked you a question critical to this matter and my answer depends on your answer to the question. Let's say that tomorrow you find an elaborate object consisting of hundreds of sub-parts (let's say some kind of elaborate engine or spaceship with a technology unknown to us). You don't know who made it and for what. That is, according to the criterion you suggested, we must conclude that it was not necessarily planned. I understand right?

     "Well, I succeeded where everyone else failed? How do I know not? "- somewhat paradoxical sentence :)

221. xianghua

     You are talking about the same Ken Miller who shows why the schooner is not a complexity that is not a discharge and that the parts of the system also have functionality individually:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4

     And this is the source from which the quote you quoted was taken:
     http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

     Do you really trust that science readers are so ignorant or stupid that they can't find the source of your quotes and see that Ken Miller is not at all claiming what you attribute to him but the exact opposite, and that he brings those things up just to show what the false creationist position is When in a later paragraph he begins to show why this creationist view is completely wrong?
     Do you want to go back on this scoundrel you did or do you still stand by it even though the reality clearly shows that you just lied?

     I expect an apology from you to all the readers here for the vile and despicable act you did (which is not the first by the way) and a commitment from you that such immoral behavior will not repeat itself. There is a limit to the insolence that can be tolerated, even from their creation.

222. R.H
     It is possible that the alien will discover that the clock's mechanism includes components with internal functionality, so that even if the main functionality is not clear to him, there are sub-functions that indicate an external consciousness, and there is no mechanism to explain this without deliberate intent. What is not the case with animals is that there is no primary purpose at all, and you linked to the subject of teleology in modern biology. And because of the nature of life, the supposed 'purposefulness' of various internal structures is also an apparent purposefulness - this is the whole theory of evolution

223. xianghua,
     A watch is always used for the same purpose, no matter how complex it is - to tell the time. Your million respondents are a very bad example because they are all human, and almost all humans on earth know that the purpose of a clock is to tell the time.
     If an intelligent alien who has never had any contact with human culture comes to Earth, and is presented with a clock - he will not necessarily claim that the clock is planned, because he will not necessarily know that the clock has a purpose. You will be able to explain to him by tomorrow morning how "complex" the clock is (and now I noticed that you also defined "complexity" as a feature that characterizes a system that has multiple components), how many components it has and how each one affects one another - and he still won't necessarily be convinced that the clock has a planner , because he will not know that the clock has a purpose. On the other hand, if you tell him that the purpose of the clock is to tell the time, then he will understand that the clock was created by intelligent beings who needed an instrument that tells the time, and therefore designed the clock.

     It seems to me that this is where we come to the point - do you believe that the animal world or the phenomenon of life as we know it from the science of biology, has any purpose? How can you even know that?

     In order to know that something has a purpose, you must be outside the thing, not inside it. We, who are part of the phenomenon of life, will never be able to know if the phenomenon of life has a purpose, and it is very possible that, according to the words of Buddha, this purpose does not exist at all. Since all we can do is investigate the mechanisms of the animal world and of evolutionary development, just as you explain to that alien over and over again how the clock is built and how "complex" it is, we can never talk about any purpose of the phenomenon of life.
     I will try to refine it a bit - to know what the purpose is and if it changes, you need to know the person who created the phenomenon. Our alien can know the purpose of the clock because he knows the creators of the clock - us. Since he is blessed, "he does not have the image of the body and is not a body, nor will the achievers of the body attain him" knowing the purpose is prevented from us, since from the scientific point of view we cannot say anything about him, and he is not seen through the scientist's binoculars. Since we know nothing about that creator, or planner, we cannot say anything about a purpose, and since we cannot say anything about a purpose, we are not allowed to say that logically the biological complexity indicates a planner. Think this is a tautology? That's exactly what you do. One can of course argue that that planner does not exist (since we have no proof and evidence of his existence) and therefore, simply - there is no purpose.

     Well, I succeeded where everyone else failed? How do I know not? P:

224. xianghua,
     Regarding the multiverse, I accept the fact that this theory or this idea does not violate any law of nature known to us and the above has been studied.
     I am ready to examine any idea only that will stand the possibility of refutation, give a prediction, etc.
     Do you admit that if the multiverse exists, the end of the problem of probability (the one that does not bother evolution experts, but does bother you)?

     Regarding the democracy you are trying to introduce into science, then again, this is a childish claim. A million people can testify, under oath, that diseases are caused by sins (in my opinion, there is no problem finding a billion people in the world who will testify to this, and this was indeed the case some 150 years ago or so), this does not make it true. A billion people can conclude that relativity is ridiculous and Newton's theory is correct, it doesn't matter. It is reality, and not logic, that dictates what the correct theory is. Reality is such that even if you stop believing in it, it still exists and a logical conclusion is worth nothing, if reality tells us something opposite. It just means that the basic assumptions need to be changed

225. Eric,
     Yes exactly this is an example of a garbage pile created in a manner
     random,
     Xinihua
     I did not understand the importance of the naturalness factor
     If in Eric's example the garbage is randomly generated

226. "David, have you seen a ghost that piles up a pile of garbage? And assuming it is, could the manure itself develop through a natural process?"
     This could be a ditch on the side of the road that creates a pile of bottles, papers and dirt..

227. xianghua,

     A note regarding the question of whether a watch requires planning.

     According to the theory of evolution, man was created without planning. Since the clock was created by a person, its basis is the product of a process that started with a lack of planning. At a certain point, what the nations call "planning" "enters" the process. In fact, all planning is an illusion of the mind. The brain is a sophisticated state machine and some of its products we call "objects created by design".

     Soon, we will have computers that can design watches on their own.

     Another question,

     An atom is a complex thing. Does it require planning? What about the universe? Does it also require planning? If the universe requires planning, it is possible that whoever planned it also planned the process of evolution, as part of the universe.

228. Shmulik, if you accept the multiverse theory then you accept every possible probability. I understand right?

     David, have you seen a spirit that piles up a pile of garbage? And assuming yes, could the manure itself have developed through a natural process?

     R.H., it's really nice that we're delving into the philosophy of science.

     "We know that a clock is planned because we know what the purpose of the clock is: to tell the time." - already a problem. Let's say tomorrow you find an elaborate object made up of hundreds of sub-parts. You don't know who made it and for what. So according to the above criterion that object does not require planning.

     "What does the logical conclusion say?" - The logical conclusion tells us what an object is that requires planning. And the inference works for sure in complex objects. You are invited to conduct an experiment in a street poll. Show a million respondents a picture of a clock and ask them if planning requires planning. We know in advance that all the million respondents will give a uniform answer. That is, the inference is flawless.

     "Where do you cut the scale?" - Although there are certain objects (a snowflake for example) I assume that there will be those who will claim that it is required for planning (and there will be those who will not be sure), but regarding a watch I have no doubt that the answer will be unequivocal for all those asked - Planning is required. Can it be quantified? Do not know.

229. withering
     Is there a way to contact you?

230. Shmulik,
     Everything you say is true, except that in my opinion, xianghua's claim does not even pass the test of simple logic.
     A tautological definition of "complex is what a planner has" does not pass the test of logic, so I want to really understand from him what logical conclusion he is talking about.

231. R. H.,
     Here is what xianghua wrote: "It is true that one can actually say that a complex thing is actually a planned thing. And how do we know it was designed? Exactly for the same reason that we know that a clock was designed. That is, the inference is logical and based on our knowledge of the natural world"

     But that's a very poor argument. Logic is not evidence but a frameword through which we examine claims. He uses the word logic in fact as an extrapolation, as an extrapolation from the graph based on what our eyes see. This argument might have been good, perhaps until Newton's day, but since then, we have discovered a thing or two that bury this argument.

     Newton's laws of mechanics are the essence of logic. What could be more logical than Galileo Galilei's law of adding velocities? If you drive a car at a speed of 100 km/h and throw a stone, in the direction of travel, at a speed of 100 km/h, it is clear that the speed of the stone is 200 km/h, because it makes sense. Makes sense, but not true and we needed Einstein to explain to us why. Indeed, if we use Newtonian logic to build a GPS system, we will find ourselves on Mars when we sought to reach Rosh Pina. For GPS we need general and special relativity

     There is nothing "logical" in quantum mechanics, if the logic is the logic of xianghua and the last article of Dr. Gali Vintschein demonstrates this in a wonderful way: https://www.hayadan.org.il/quantun-philospy-part-b-07121/

     Quantum mechanics is what happens when reality gives a thumbs up to Newton and everyday logic and therefore, xianghua's argument is so amateurish and childish.

232. oops…
     This link: http://ocw.openu.ac.il/opus/bin/en.jsp?enZone=Editor103785&enDispWho=Editor%5El240221

233. xianghua,
     You are not answering my question at all.
     You wrote: "How do we know it was designed? Exactly for the same reason that we know that a clock was designed. That is, the inference is logical and based on our knowledge of the natural world." Where exactly is the logical deduction here? We know that a clock is designed because we know what the purpose of the clock is: to tell the time. We cannot know that there is a purposeful reason one way or another for the existence of the animal world, so this analogy is meaningless.

     Again, I would appreciate it if you could explain to me what the logical conclusion actually is. I don't know it from my day-to-day life and I don't think I use it. What does the logical conclusion say? Where do you cut the scale?

     And regarding the garbage pile, the other way around: you could say that a garbage pile is complex and indicates a planner, if necessarily for every garbage pile there was an administrative authority that plans the garbage pile, which takes the place of the intelligent planner in relation to evolution, in your opinion. In practice, there is no necessity for the existence of such an authority, and people can create such a pile of garbage even if none of them exchange a word with the other (one person will throw his bag into a dark side alley, followed by another person who will say "Well, what does it matter..." and also throw his bag, and so on. That's how we sink into the stench).

     And if we have already entered into matters of purposive reasons and teleology (not to be confused with tautology), here is a link from the Open University website that deals, among other things, with the question of the place of teleology in modern biology: http://www.google.co.il/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CHEQFjAI&url=http://ocw.openu.ac.il/opus/bin/en.jsp?enZone=Editor103785&enDispWho=Editor%5El240221&ei=RQHGUJzSKvTB0gXgx4C4Cg&usg=AFQjCNHo88y1ZoBAVLLVqSkcamXMwRFCSQ&sig2=HBNpWMz7dRskHdid2F4VoA

234. Xinihua
     Why can't a garbage heap be randomly generated?
     A strong smear that piles up leftover garbage?
     I have seen such cases where a wind blows cardboard over someone
     A branch and a bag, this is also a definition of garbage

235. I was right and my challenge still stands: a prize for whoever can find the definition of xianghua for the word compound
     No reference to the multiverse issue, despite the article I presented here. My post is long because I copied a lot of material, but at the end there is a reference by Professor Kraus to a young KDA as a YouTube clip, the sound quality is not great, but it is worth watching.

     Regarding Shapiro, he adds:
     Shapiro said life could have arisen in a completely different way from the spontaneous assembly of a long molecule holding genetic information. It could have started as a self-sustaining reaction involving simpler molecules that grew more complex, replicated, and eventually led to the creation of genetic material like RNA or DNA.

     of:
     http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2008/10/nyu-chemist-robert-shapiro-decries-rna-first-possibility/

     Regarding the words of Kent Miller, who is a staunch opponent of creationism and intelligent programming, here it is:
     Answering the Argument

     The assertion that cellular machines are irreducibly complex, and therefore provide proof of design, has not gone unnoticed by the scientific community. A number of detailed rebuttals have appeared in the literature, and many have pointed out the poor reasoning of recasting the classic argument from design in the modern language of biochemistry (Coyne 1996; Miller 1996; Depew 1998; Thornhill and Ussery 2000). I have suggested elsewhere that the scientific literature contains counter-examples to any assertion that evolution cannot explain biochemical complexity (Miller 1999, 147), and other workers have addressed the issue of how evolutionary mechanisms allow biological systems to increase in information content (Schneider 2000 ; Adami, Ofria, and Collier 2000).

     The most powerful rebuttals to the flagellum story, however, have not come from direct attempts to answer the critics of evolution. Rather, they have emerged from the steady progress of scientific work on the genes and proteins associated with the flagellum and other cellular structures. Such studies have now established that the entire premise by which this molecular machine has been advanced as an argument against evolution is wrong - the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. As we will see, the flagellum - the supreme example of the power of this new "science of design" - has failed its most basic scientific test. Remember the claim that "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional?" As the evidence has shown, nature is filled with examples of "precursors" to the flagellum that are indeed "missing a part," and yet are fully functional. Functional enough, in some cases, to pose a serious threat to human life.

     You can read the rest here:
     http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

     And here's a bit about the man:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller

     And another sweet: as I remember, in Xianghua's opinion there is about a 30% (maybe a little less) chance that Kdhua is a young Kdhua, i.e. a few thousand years old. Here are 10 rebuttals from Professor Lawrence Krauss. I liked the ones related to the supernova and the age of the sun.
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scsWCMbAqrU

236. R.H

     It is true that one can actually say that a complex thing is actually a planned thing. And how do we know it was designed? Exactly for the same reason that we know that a clock was designed. That is, the inference is logical and based on our knowledge of the natural world.

     "In addition to that, I would appreciate it if you could explain to me whether you believe there is a qualitative difference between a pile of sand and the animal world. If there is no such difference - what is the level of complexity that the animal world goes through and the pile of sand does not? How can the scale be cut?" - as mentioned, according to a logical conclusion familiar to all of us from everyday life.

     And a garbage pile is actually an excellent example of a random process that creates complexity: each of us stores eclectic garbage in our house and we all throw the garbage bags into the garbage pile, without any need for a planner to create it" - on the contrary - without a person with intention and purpose the garbage pile would not have been created in the first place. That is, a pile of garbage definitely meets the definition of complexity.

     Camila, it can be interesting but it depends on you.

     "I am convinced that there is no scientist who has made such a claim, therefore it is clear to me that I do not disagree with any other scientist." - Black on white. Let's start with the words of the renowned chemist Robert Shapiro. Although I am not sure that he supports evolution. but denies a spontaneous development of the RNA world in the article -

     nyu chemist robert shapiro decries RNA-first possibility

     It started out with the idea that life itself had to begin with such a replicator [of genetic information]," Shapiro said. "The odds against [RNA forming on its own] are astronomical."

     Any abiotically prepared replicator before the beginning of life is a fantasy," Shapiro said

     And here are the words of Ken Miller, one of the most senior evolutionists in the world today-

     The Flagellum Unspun
     The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity"

     In the case of the flagellum, the assertion of irreducible complexity means that a minimum number of protein components, perhaps 30, are required to produce a working biological function. By the logic of irreducible complexity, these individual components should have no function until all 30 are put into place, at which point the function of motility appears. What this means, of course, is that evolution could not have fashioned those components a few at a time, since they do not have functions that could be favored by natural selection.

     I could go on and refer you to the books of Dawkins and others, but the things are clear and abundant. After all, before us, even the great supporters of evolution are not ready to accept any possible plausibility. And hence they are not ready to accept the sudden development of an eye or a shooton or a blood clot. Do you disagree with that so far?

     "I suggest you return to my questions that you have always ignored regarding the minimum required for a biological system to function. The fact that today there is a very complex system that performs a certain function does not mean that it is the necessary and possible minimum for this type of activity. "- Excellent, we are making progress. I know some articles on the subject. One of them states that close to 200 genes are required for a minimal cell. But before that, see Prof. Miller's words above. He is also aware that many proteins are required for minimal whipping. Again, do you agree with him or not?

     "The guy is not "trying to demonstrate the development of a complex system", he shows it in a clear and unambiguous way." - Nonsense. But before I refute this claim and the other claims made in the stones you brought, we will wait for your answer to what was said above.

     "Is there a scenario that cannot be attributed to your "planner" (meaning God)?" - Absolutely. But you are already asking whether intelligent planning has predictions. one after one. First we will exhaust the existing topic.

     "If every scenario can be "explained" by the existence of God then it is not a theory and it is also not an explanation for anything," - very true.

     "Evolution has trouble explaining convergence to similar structures under similar selection pressures? Not only is there no difficulty in explaining, but it is a prediction of the mechanism of evolution. "- a mistake on your hands (learn a little about the synonymy of cytochrome c for example). But as mentioned, I can expand a whole thread on every topic you throw here. Slowly.

     "So it is absolutely possible that a gradual change will occur in both groups, when any change that improves the advantage is expected to be established and move on, until in the progress of the process we receive similar functional structures, such as a bird's wing, a bat's wing, and an insect's wing. Each line started from a completely different structural starting point, but they all arrived For similar structural and functional characteristics." - According to this logic, the entire claim of genetic similarity is thrown into the trash. After all, it can be argued that the genetic similarity between the mouse and man is the result of convergent evolution.

237. And talking about one pile, don't forget.

238. Rafi,
     The juice of the salad spilled on the cardboard.

239. R.H
     What functional relationships are there between the different garbage piles..?

240. xianghua

     Rebuttal? The claim wasn't about salt crystals at all, you still haven't answered the fallacy that exists in your arguments and which I pointed out and illustrated using the example of the salt crystal. What exactly did you disprove if you didn't answer at all why are you using a statistical model that we know is wrong and does not include known physical, chemical and biological processes that have a critical effect on the chances of biological processes occurring? After all, this is my question to you all the time and what about you? Ignored, as usual. Troll, maybe you should really stop grinding water?

     I'm sorry, I can't answer questions that are worded in a way that makes no sense ("after all, they themselves claim that all reasonableness is not taken into account"). I am convinced that there is no scientist who has made such a claim, therefore it is clear to me that I do not disagree with any other scientist.

     I suggest you go back to my questions that you always ignored about the minimum required for a biological system to function. The fact that today there is a very complex system that performs a certain function does not mean that it is the necessary and possible minimum for this type of activity. Your only "proof" relies on those failed arguments that use a completely wrong statistical model, in short you have proven nothing but the irrelevance of your arguments to the subject.

     The guy is not "trying to demonstrate the development of a complex system", he shows it clearly and unambiguously. Only a blind, complete idiot or liar would claim not to see this. Same for the second video, the guy completely disproves the creationist's silly inextricable complexity claim about the shouton, a fact that you (and other creationists) are forced to retract the original claim about the entire shouton and come up with a new, equally silly and unsubstantiated claim that there is a jump of two proteins (which is A. Not true and B. Not at all what the guy intended to illustrate in the video) this is inclusiveness for its own sake. Is the entire shoton in its entirety a complexity that is not a discharge? Yes or No? Can you give a simple answer to a simple question?
     A refresher on the stupid argument of non-extractable complexity:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=W96AJ0ChboU

     Please see that this is impossible and this time without using the failed arguments you have given so far and that have been explained come back and explain why they are wrong even though you ignore them, see this and you can publish the "proof" in Nature and Science and maybe even win a Nobel Prize.

     Is there a scenario that cannot be attributed to your "planner" (meaning God)? After all, we are talking about an omnipotent entity whose actions and motives we do not know or understand (and yet we attribute all sorts of attributes and limitations to it, very interesting). What are the laws that your planner is subject to? If every scenario can be "explained" by the existence of God, then this is not a theory, nor is it an explanation for anything, because we can say about every scenario: God made it so! And this without yet dealing with the bigger problem that has arisen, which is who created God (finally when you really have an inextricable complexity, suddenly you don't see it)... Oh, actually you make an assumption about him, literally, and say that he doesn't need to be explained, how convenient and how wretched.

     Does evolution struggle to explain convergence to similar structures under similar selection pressures? Not only is there no difficulty in explaining, but it is a prediction of the mechanism of evolution. For a given environment where there are strong selection pressures for example for fast movement in water or aviation then it is expected and requested that there be several pathways that lead to a similar functional solution even if the starting point is different. This is exactly what comes out when you run a simulation of evolution in which the maximum fitness of a phenotype for a given environment (for example a hydrodynamic structure for fast movement in an aquatic medium, or the existence of an aerodynamic surface for flight / gliding) is represented by a peak in a "topographic landscape". In such a case, several different solutions (different routes up the mountain) can be obtained from different starting points, and all this through the mechanism of evolution alone (phenotypic variation, inheritance of traits and natural selection). This is not a claim, it is a scientific fact with instructive examples from nature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_examples_of_convergent_evolution
     And with confirmations from computer models of the expected evolution in the competency landscape. This is simply what happens under the laws of evolution (the mechanism, not the theory) and it is very logical because it is clear that if two organisms with different initial structures are now found in an environment that gives an advantage to a third structure, and there is phenotypic variation so that there are individuals in every population of organisms that happen to have a tendency in the direction that gives an advantage (for example a more cylindrical and smooth body) then it is certainly possible that in both groups a gradual change will occur when any change that improves the advantage is expected to be established and move on, until we get in the progress of the process similar functional structures, such as a bird's wing, a bat's wing and an insect's wing, each line started from a starting point Completely different structurally but they all reached similar structural and functional characteristics. Where did you get the crap you wrote? Again you copied from the "Chief Scientist" - Doss?

     Please enlighten our eyes and quantify the complexity of a snowflake, a cloud (both cirrus and cumulonimbus), a clock (both artificial and biological) and a rabbit (it is you who makes a complexity relativity claim here and no one else, we say that complex things are also created naturally, To show that the complexity is fundamentally different you have to show it).

     You wrote: "Even a pile of sand is a thing composed of many sub-components. However, it is not complex because it can develop through a natural process."

     Ah, now I understand your definition of complexity. Complex = cannot develop in a natural process. If something can develop through a natural process then it is necessarily not complex, right?

241. xianghua,
     I don't understand: if everything that is not required of a planner is by definition a non-complex thing, then what determines complexity?
     If you agree with my claim that between "complexity" according to your method, and "simplicity", there is no qualitative difference but a quantitative difference, then what degree of complexity does a planner require?
     And again I ask: how do you define complexity?
     Earlier you claimed that - "a pile of sand is something that consists of many sub-components. However, it is not complex because it can develop through a natural process." That is, "complex", is what cannot develop in a natural process.
     Now you claimed that - "everything that is not required for a planner is by definition a non-complex thing." That is, "complex" is what is required of a planner.
     Hence, a complex thing is what developed in an unnatural process - by a planner.
     I still haven't understood what "complex" is. Your argument is tautological - it is true by definition, therefore it also makes no sense.
     If so, I would appreciate it if you could explain to me what in the living world necessarily developed unnaturally, and what "unnaturally" means, since science does not recognize what is not natural.

     In addition to that, I would appreciate it if you could explain to me whether you believe there is a qualitative difference between a pile of sand and the animal world. If there is no such difference - what is the level of complexity that the animal world goes through and the pile of sand does not? How can the scale be cut?

     And a garbage pile is actually an excellent example of a random process that creates complexity: each of us stores eclectic garbage in our house and we all throw the garbage bags into the garbage pile, without any need for a planner to create it.

242. RH, and what about a pile of garbage?

     I did not understand what criteria you mean. Everything that is not required for a planner is by definition a non-complex thing. This includes a pile of sand or a clod of mud.

243. withering,
     Did you notice what xianghua did in his question "Do you disagree with the evolutionary scientists?" After all, they themselves claim..."?
     He actually asked you if you would admit that you stopped beating your husband. This is the level of debate.

     xianghua,
     1. Your man, Bah, said that all (not most, not some, but all) biologists say that things appear to be planned, to which Kraus replied that complexity is in the eyes of the beholder and the claim that "because things seem complex, it points to a planner who puts them together", is ridiculous and gave two Examples of this: the snowflake has a complex and cyclical structure and the carbon molecule which is actually a geodesic dome. The clock model has already been refuted a long time ago and the argument is Paley's clock.

     2. Regarding the studies, again, your man tried to introduce the subject into the education system (through the Discovery Institute) and Kraus replied that first, the science and the dirty work should be done. He added that in the last 20 years and not in the last 150 years as you wrote, only 88 articles were written that mention intelligent design while 85 are not related to intelligent design in your sense or critical of it and the last three were not published in research-related journals and at the same time (20 years recent), 150 thousand articles have been written about evolution. As I recall, the clip is from 2005, so maybe 3 more articles in the field of intelligent planning have been written since then. I mention this in case you think you found fault with what Krauss said.

     3. You wrote: "Regarding the multi-bears. How can a theory without evidence be called science?" Let's start with the fact that you do this all the time when you call God and intelligent design science, and here God and intelligent design do not predict anything and of course, they cannot be disproved, and secondly, just a few hours ago I presented a scientific article that deals with the subject.
     And here are more articles describing why the subject is science or very close to being science:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/life-in-the-multiverse-2304108/
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/parallel-universes-130812/
     I understand the concern about the multiverse because even though the probabilities you present don't really bother scientists, it is important to you and the multiverse, crushes the probability argument completely.

     4. Synthetic genome. If it was assembled by humans, call it "assembled" (because it was assembled). same root. What is difficult to understand here?
     What is difficult to understand is your definition of the term "complex", a term that only you actually use and brandish as a derogatory term for evolution.

     Your next step will be one of three: dodge and answer it with a question, say you already defined and you don't want to repeat yourself or ignore completely. it does not really matter

     5. 150 years of articles, of which 0 proved evolution, but fortunately 68 national academies think otherwise and also, someone from your very side, claims that evolution can be seen
     in the lab. Here is a debate between Christopher Hitchens and John Lennox who is a mathematician - theologian from Oxford and here is what the theologian thinks about evolution:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1p1mDPQw1Yk#t=5287s

244. xianghua,
     In fact, if we summarize your argument, evolutionary scientists start from some kind of foundation stone, but the same one
     A foundation stone is itself complex, like a grain of sand, but once you have the foundation stone then there is no problem to create
     What is complexity? , only they ignore that foundation stone that is composed and not created by itself.

     Question, if the theory of the intelligent planner is correct, do you think he still works in the background, to maintain the essential constants for our existence?

     A question for evolutionary scientists: Shmulik and Kamila
     Why do you insist on accepting an intelligent designer theory? These are problems such a theory can pose to science,
     After all, this is only about the initial PUSH (abgioneza??)
     It can be assumed that evolution got the initial PU|SH in a genius way so we don't need to break
     the head and come up with theories about how it all started, but to continue from a certain point
     I hope I'm on the right track, because I've definitely accumulated most of the knowledge about evolution here on the site and on GOOGLE 🙂

245. xianghua,
     A pile of sand is not "complex" (meaning complexity according to your method), because all its components are the same components, and hence the functional relationships between them are nothing but the same relationship...
     I didn't understand - "complex" is something that cannot develop naturally? And what meets the criteria of "can develop naturally"? What qualitative difference is there here?
     In short, I didn't get to the bottom of your mind.

246. xianghua
     You repeat the words like 'refuted' 'refuted' 'refuted' 'refutable' (?) too much

247. Some simple answers to a complex topic

     Buddha, I don't understand why you are so impressed by Penny's experiment. And she wouldn't suggest you get excited about Dawkins' claim about that experiment. Dawkins also claims that the best proof of evolution is the existence of a phylogenetic tree. A claim that has been refuted a number of times in recent years (2009, 2012).

     Regarding the lizards, as far as I know the researchers themselves have not yet found the genetic change that occurred. So I can't take it seriously. One possibility is the activation of a pseudogene. A second possibility is the expansion of the intestinal walls. Either way it is a small genetic change. And there is no chance that even the great evolutionists will claim that this is a major genetic change. Another question is how the aforementioned mutations were fixed in such a short time.

     withering,

     I already refuted your claim about salt crystals. I see no point in grinding water again. Nevertheless, I will ask again in the hope of an answer - do you disagree with the evolutionary scientists? After all, they themselves claim that all reasonableness is not taken into account. Why do you disagree with them?

     "There you erred in several ways while ignoring as usual the knowledge we have that is relevant to the subject such as the inheritance of positive traits and their accumulation" - the error is not mine. Positive features will only be possible after you have a functioning system. But as mentioned, a functioning system in most cases requires hundreds of dna bases and only when the rest are present can we dream of natural selection. I suggest you look again at the discussion that developed between me and ethology.

     "By the way, see this nice demonstration of how a watch can be created in a simple evolutionary process without any planning during development or setting a goal in advance" - you are already in the right direction regarding my claim. In the video, the guy tries to demonstrate the development of a complex system. And if I show you that it is impossible in nature, will you admit that evolution is not possible? The second video is based on a model by Dr. Nick Matzka, and it is also wrong in my opinion. It starts with a membrane + protein passage that goes through it. This is a jump of at least 2 proteins at once. Is this the gradual evolution talking about?

     "In that it gives an explanation as to why there is a partnership and similarity between all organisms at the genetic, biochemical, anatomical level" - the designer's theory also explains this excellently. Evolution, on the other hand, has difficulty explaining similar structures that evolved at the same time. Once convergent evolution enters the picture, it is an unscientific claim that cannot be refuted today.

     Shmulik, whoever compares the complexity of a snowflake or a cloud to the complexity of a clock or a rabbit, think again.

     "And the claim that "because things look complex, it points to a planner who puts them together", is ridiculous"-

     Replace this sentence with the sentence: "The claim that because a watch looks complex it requires planning is ridiculous." Then you will understand what a really debunked claim.

     Regarding the studies that support intelligent planning. There are quite a few of them and I have already presented some of them here (remember that quite a few years have passed since the mini-conflict). Evolution obviously has more studies. 150 years of research do not walk. But how many of them prove the feasibility of evolution? I think zero.

     Regarding the multi-bars. How can a theory without evidence be called science?

     "When you know something was put together by humans, call it put together. - A synthetic genome was assembled by scientist Craig Venter. So for you, genomes are a complex thing?

     R. H.,

     A pile of sand is also a thing composed of many sub-components. However, it is not complex because it can develop in a natural process. Dawkins expands on this quite a bit in his books. I do not disagree with him in this section and actually agree with him on his definition of a complex thing.

248. xianghua,
     I would like to understand once and for all: do you have an objective definition of complexity? That is, do you have some kind of definition that says that something is complex given conditions A, B, C, etc.?
     Otherwise I really don't understand what your case is and what is the point of all these countless data and studies...

     As far as I understand - in the scientific prism the term "complexity" has no meaning. In the scientific prism, there is a set of components that maintain such and such functional relationships between them. In some cases the number of components is greater and therefore the relations are supposedly more "complex", and in later cases the number of components is smaller, and the relations are "simpler". Hence it is only a quantitative scale and not a qualitative difference and hence there is no point in one or another tautology, which is not logically required and therefore we do not need it.

     What is your definition of complexity?

249. withering,
     How lucky that this music video does not have terrible evangelical music, which the people of the Discovery Institute like to put in their music videos.

     I admit, 90% of the clip passes over me but, amazing.

250. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w&list=PLF626DD5B2C1F0A87&index=2

251. buddha,
     To date, no one has presented a serious statistical calculation regarding the transition between bacteria and fish or even much less dramatic transitions. The reason for this is simple, the statistical model that underlies the phenomenon is very complicated and therefore difficult to quantify. We do know that a simplistic statistical model such as the one that creationists try to hang on to is irrelevant and completely wrong in this context.
     By the way, see this nice demonstration of how a watch can be created through a simple evolutionary process without any planning during development or setting a goal in advance:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

     The power of the theory of evolution does not derive from the presentation of statistical calculations that are unattainable as of this moment, but from the fact that it gives an explanation of why there is a partnership and similarity between all organisms at the genetic, biochemical, anatomical, physiological, etc. level, as well as why there are forms that look exactly like intermediate stages between life forms Ancient and late life forms are expected to be seen. In terms of rates of evolution in a number of private cases (some of which you mentioned yourself) it seems that the observed rate is much faster than the minimum required so that the claims about improbability are probably mainly due to incorrect assumptions of the statistical model. In the case of the creationists, I and many others point to the many failings that mainly include a blanket disregard of existing information.

252. For those who follow, this is the mini debate between Kroes and Baha: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtP020hXiAU
     xianghua,
     Boy Oh Boy. What Bahaha said in the interview is that all biologists support the fact that there is an Appearance of Design (found at 1:25) into the clip and as a response Kraus said that complexity is in the eyes of the beholder and the claim that "because things look complex, it points to a designer who puts them together", is ridiculous, Natan Two examples of this: the snowflake, which has a complex and cyclical structure, and the carbon molecule, which is actually a geodesic dome (so that in nature there are naturally formed structures even though they have parallels that we designed). Also, Kraus reviewed a study conducted by a colleague of his who examined 20 million articles in the scientific literature (not the pseudoscientific literature of the Encyclopaedia of Mathematics) in which only 88 talked about intelligent design when 77 of them were in engineering journals where you would hope to find intelligent design and of the 11 that remained, 8 were critical of the intelligent design and the remaining three were not in research monthlies. For comparison, there were 150 thousand studies on evolution.

     Kraus brought this analysis as a response to the heretical attempt of the Christians there at the "Discovery" institute to introduce God directly into the schools and added that if they want this to be done, they should first conduct the research, publish articles that support intelligent design and convince fellow researchers that a paradigm shift should be made and only after that, That the above will enter the schools. This of course did not happen. Even Behe ​​did not try to argue that intelligent planning should be taught in schools, but gave a weak response that it should be taught to children how scientific theories are created, and to this, of course, Krauss agreed and even said that Newton's theory can be used for that, since it has a little more problems than evolution.

     Kraus humiliated Beh and the planning and said, rightly, that he and the Discovery Institute are not doing the science and the dirty work but are trying to convince legislators to teach nonsense in schools and in fact are not trying to attack only evolution but science itself, because science itself is agnostic in its relationship to God and that is, of course, a disgrace the Christians there at the "Discovery" institute. Baha did not respond to this.
     As mentioned, Kraus humiliated him.

     Complexity is a word that doesn't really mean anything interesting. When you know something was put together by humans, call it put together. When you don't know it, the word complex means nothing and biologists don't really use it (just like Krauss said, complex is a subjective thing) because there's no stopping nature from doing it. How much can you ignore Paley's watch?

     To all friends and xianghua's heart protector, speaking of enough time for nature, here is an article dealing with the multiverse, which as far as I understand was submitted to Peer Review.
     http://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.1995v3.pdf

     Father, I suggest that you let the experts on the site try to explain to laymen (me) exactly what we are reading here, but as far as I understand, the article did not rule out the idea, but quite the opposite.
     exciting.

253. xianghua

     I was really wondering how long it would take you to start blaming others for what you did and continue to do all the time.
     I'm still waiting (well, not really) for you to present a revised calculation that takes into account all the known physical, chemical and biological processes that affect the idiotic and completely wrong probabilistic model you insist on using while serially ignoring criticism of it. If you continue to ignore it, then according to this model even a grain of table salt cannot crystallize, and there the scope of possibilities is much, much, much larger

     You have already answered several times in the past regarding incorrect improbability arguments as you raise again, and in particular regarding sequence spaces and biological utility (where you erred in several ways while ignoring as usual the knowledge we have that is relevant to the subject such as the inheritance of positive traits and their accumulation). By the way, I will leave it as a great challenge for you to find the contradiction that exists between your response in which you mentioned Dan Tofik and the response in which you wave around astronomical sequence spaces in a way that is not relevant to assessing the plausibility of evolutionary processes. The challenge is of course not great at all for those who are able to think a little rationally, but since I know yours it is very difficult... When you find the contradiction, please let me know which of the two contradictory claims you give up.

254. the last camila,

     Reporter:

     "Do you think this is a serious claim? Do you believe that the kind of probability calculations that creationists tend to present are serious in light of the fact that they simply completely ignore existing and very relevant information about the occurrence of biological processes? Please show me where you saw a claim that you think is the most serious.”

     I meant that the claim about the statistical improbability is the most serious. I don't know if she is serious about herself. I just think the rest of the claims made against evolution in this thread are not serious.

     In a previous debate I had here I brought up the Penny experiment (David Penny 1982) and xianghua's responses did seem evasive and not serious to me since I had the statistical tools to check and understand exactly what it was about. I'm not a mathematician but on the other hand I'm not a perfect layman either. Since in the past I had the opportunity to develop some computer software in the field of molecular biology, I can say with great confidence that I understand the meaning of Penny's experiment. I completely understand why Dawkins claims that this is in his opinion the best proof of evolution.

     Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about the claims of the probability required in the transition between a monkey (or a monkey-like ancestor) and a human or between a bacterium and a fish, etc. I just don't have the necessary tools. I guess scientists at hundreds of recognized universities have looked into the subject and I definitely intend to learn more about it and have already started looking for material. I would appreciate it if you could send relevant links.

     xianghua, I wanted to ask you if, as you say, the number of combinations in a single gene is indeed huge and if the chance of a "beneficial" combination is very low, how do you explain, for example, the genetic change in the lizards on the island of San Michele?
     Do the lizards on the island of San Michele have one or more genes that are clearly changed compared to the lizards on the island of Pod Copista?

     And please, don't tell me that the gene already existed in the previous gene database because even if it did exist, there is a certain control sequence in another gene that has changed, etc.

255. funny as always

     "We don't know of any principled reason why a system like glycolysis, or even the much more complex systems we know, wouldn't evolve gradually." - Half known. Glycolysis requires several enzymes. This fact in itself is enough to disprove the claim of "functional small steps". And what is valid for a single enzyme as mentioned above, is valid squarely for multi-enzyme systems.

     A science that is unable to show how a simple system gradually becomes a complex system is not science but science fiction.

256. xianghua

     I'm not at all surprised that you had an extensive correspondence with one of the researchers from Tofik's lab and you still managed to completely miss the importance of the findings of the research being carried out in that lab and how they confirm the theory of evolution.

     Clarification for readers who may be impressed by hand waving as arguments that include systems that present what is sometimes called "irreducible complexity", we are not aware of any principled reason why a system like glycolysis, or even much more complex systems that we know, would not evolve gradually.
     Since glycolysis appears in all living cells, it is likely to be one of the earliest processes that developed in living beings, and it is also likely to assume that a similar process existed in the same ancestor that all life shares. The fact that this process differs slightly between different organisms, both in terms of the structure of the enzymes (and the genes that code for them) and in terms of the efficiency of the various stages of the process, implies that there are definitely many more versions for obtaining a similar process in which an energy gain can be obtained from breaking down high-energy carbohydrates. The ignorance of that basic, and probably much simpler, process that existed in that ancestor, cannot be used as an assertion of the impossibility or incorrectness of that process just as it is wrong to do so in any other scientific field. Science establishes the picture of reality based on what is known and not based on what is unknown. Religion, on the other hand, bases the reality picture of captivity on a combination of ignorance (blind faith) on the one hand and "knowledge" that has already been found to be wrong (like the 6000 year old world).

257. Camila, in light of your repeated disregard, here is a small challenge: an average gene is encoded by approximately 1000 nucleotides (let's say for an RNA polymerase protein or a DNA helicase http://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/Q9ULG1 ). The sequence space for 1000 nucleotides is 1000^4. How many do you think are useful in some biological context? Like the number of atoms in the universe? Like the number of grains of sand in the universe times the number of atoms in the universe? This is still nothing from the possible space and hence there was no time for evolution to scan even a trillion of the possibilities even in 4.5 billion years of mutations across all the stars of the universe. And now say that those proteins evolved from other, simpler proteins. And this claim is also unfounded, since in such an astronomical space of combinations, the chance to move from one functional sequence to another (hereafter called the scaffolding theory) borders on absolute absurdity, like the whole theory of evolution. And the trash to the basket and eliminate.

258. buddha,

     You wrote: "The most serious claim you have raised so far (so far) in the debates was the statistical improbability of the creation of man from bacteria in an evolutionary process."

     Do you think this is a serious claim? Do you believe that the kind of probability calculations that creationists tend to present are serious in light of the fact that they simply completely ignore existing and very relevant information about the occurrence of biological processes? Please show me where you saw a claim that you think is the most serious.

259. Shmulik, are you sure you watched the confrontation between them? Because I thought it was funny. Especially in the passage where Kraus claims that complexity is a subjective thing. Is the claim that a watch is a complex thing a subjective claim? Blessed are the ears that heard this.

     Kamila, you will be surprised to hear that I had an extensive correspondence with one of the researchers from Tofik's laboratory. What is done in principle is to take an enzyme with a weakened catalytic activity plus a central one and increase its efficiency. When the reaction was also present in the source. And does that explain to you that a system like glycolysis can evolve gradually?

260. I didn't understand what you mean, scaffolding.
     In any case, evolution does not build anything from scratch in each generation, it is only in the propaganda of the creationists. After all, your friends have 18 children each, they can see that even though the children are different from each other, they more or less retain similar external features that they received from their parents.

261. Thanks to the exchange:

     https://www.hayadan.org.il/moonlighting-271201/

     And in general it is recommended for everyone to follow the researches in the laboratory of Prof. Dan Toufik which beautifully illustrate evolution.

262. xianghua,
     I don't remember how many times I asked you for the definition and all you managed to get out was "horribly small chance".
     I will go check his definition if and only if you say here that you absolutely accept his definition, otherwise, it is irrelevant, since you built your non-scientific "theory" on the basis of your definition of complex.

     Your definition of God was also impressive and extremely scientific

     I'm not kidding about their argument. The argument was about intelligent planning and Kraus humiliated him there on the air, as expected.

263. Shmulik, I suggest looking for Dawkins' definition of a complex thing. When you find it you will be in for a surprise.

     Regarding Prof. Bihi's confrontation with Kraus. I hope you're joking because you're bringing up a biochemist versus a physicist debate in a biology debate.

     Father, if after 500 responses, none of the supporters of evolution here (including biologists) have been able to prove the scaffolding theory, that is telling a sermon.

264. The low improbability is true about evolution as the Discovery Institute understands it, and not about evolution as it is in reality, which combines randomness with the preservation of the existing. I know you won't understand this, but I'm answering this so that there are no innocent people who will think that this is God forbid.

265. Award to whoever understood the Xianghua definition and what it is composed of. "In the past, the chance was small to the point of horror", indeed a supremely accurate definition

     A prize will also be given to whoever manages to find Xianghua's refutations of statistical improbability.

     People like him are the reason why evolution should be taught in the Holy Land and perhaps also logic: what is an assumption, what is an assertion, what is a proof, what is a scientific theory, what is considered a prediction, what is considered a refutation, when does research change a paradigm, what is peer review and more.

     By the way, here is Lawrence Krauss defeating Michael Behe ​​in a mini argument they had
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYte-8wPQnQ

     Recently, there was an interesting debate titled Does Science Refute God?
     Lawrence Krauss and Michael Shermer (on the side of science) argued with D'Souza and a physics professor (on the side of religion). Viewers were asked to vote before and after whether they agreed with the claim. At the end of the debate, science won.
     Here is the argument.
     http://fora.tv/2012/12/05/Debate_Does_Science_Refute_God

     It's a shame, by the way, that such debates are not held in Israel

266. I'm sorry Buddha and Uri, but I refuted in this thread all your claims about statistical improbability and scientific consensus. Buddha, there is no mathematical calculation showing that the evolution of a complex system is statistically possible. If anything, all the studies on the subject actually deny this (for example the study I presented from the experiment of Ax in 2004 and others). Nor did I see any real reference to the theory of scaffolding which tries to solve the statistical problem by dividing it into small steps, when said they do not exist. Uri, this is my definition of a complex system and I also prove it, so it is not a tautology.

267. Xianghua,

     Say are you kidding? You claimed that a complex system cannot be created by a natural process, then when asked to come up with a definition for a complex system, you wrote that it is a system that cannot be created by a natural process. You should find another definition that does not assume what you want to prove. In other words, you can't assume that a complex system is by definition not created by a natural process and then claim that the BH was not created by a natural process because it is a complex system.

     "If a robot reproduces is not evidence of a planner then nothing is evidence of a planner." – Again, you have to prove that a reproducing robot is evidence of a designer, and can't just assume it.

     "Even if the planner himself appeared in front of your eyes, you could claim that this is a neuropsychoelectrochemical hallucination." - How will I know that her name appeared in front of my eyes really there, and if he is there, then how will I know that he is the planner?

     Does it happen to you that figures appear before your eyes?

268. xianghua,

     First, after finding out who xianghua is I would love to know why you chose that nickname.
     Is it because "My resolve cannot be swayed"? You certainly do honor to your motto.

     The "strong lungs" are also a cute Freudian mistake. In fact I personally believe that most of what Freud said was nonsense apart from the amazing discovery of a "Freudian mistake". You seem to have been debating the evolution forums for at least a few years now. I wonder if behind the nickname xianghua is a single person or a group of people.

     Now about the breeding robot. Indeed we are dealing with reproductive biological robots. Man is a reproductive robot and even the germ is a reproductive robot.

     Evolution does not claim that a reproducing robot can form by itself without a planner. She also does not claim that he needs a planner. She's just not into it. Evolution claims that if a type A robot reproduces, which tends to reproduce in a process that includes "mistakes" that cause some of the new robots to differ from the previous generation, a type B robot will be created after a while.

     We see this in the laboratory. In the Lenski experiment, breeding dogs, foxes, lizards, etc.

     The most serious claim you made as a witness in the hearings was the statistical improbability of the creation of man from bacteria in an evolutionary process. So even though you accept the fact that the biological robots change during replication, you claim that there is a difference between small and large changes. This is exactly where science (or rather the scientific establishment) comes into play. You don't understand or don't want to understand the difference between scientific consensus (evolution) and the opinions of individual people (even if they have a Ph.D.).

     Contrary to the creationists' claims, the scientific establishment has nothing against the idea of ​​intelligent design. On the contrary. As in the case of the big bang (universe with a beginning) science will be happy to adopt any idea that can be confirmed by many experiments and that will better explain the world. Scientists at hundreds of universities around the world performed statistical calculations that supported evolution. If it were not so, it would not have become a scientific consensus. Any scientist would be happy to disprove evolution and receive a Nobel Prize.

269. Uri, I have detailed the strong lungs well in this thread. If a proliferating rovat is not evidence of a planner, then nothing is evidence of a planner. Even if the planner himself appeared in front of your eyes, you can claim that it is a neuropsychoelectrochemical hallucination.

     "I don't see how such a position can be justified by a person who is not an expert." - First, why do you think I'm not an expert? Second, I presented arguments from recognized experts in the field. Regarding a complex system, any physical system that cannot evolve through a natural process fits the definition well.

270. xianghua,

     "As soon as he makes a strong claim without solid evidence" - we can continue like this endlessly. Who will determine whether there is strong evidence or not? You don't accept what science has to say about the evolution of animals on Earth, and you don't even take a position of skepticism, you simply state unequivocally that evolution is impossible. I don't see how such a position can be justified by a person who is not an expert.

     "I don't think human language meets my definition of a complex system. Can you prove that a complex system with dependencies between its parts can develop from proliferating material?" - And how will I do it without a definition of what a complex system is? Human language also has dependencies between its parts.

271. I do not agree with my father that it should be taught from first grade. It takes mental maturity to understand complex ideas, whether it's works of literature or science. Therefore, there is a time for everything and the captains of the education system know how to build study programs if their hands are not tied. I believe that there is a place to teach all the basics of science starting from the upper grades in elementary school, especially evolution.
     Regarding the article that reports on the Taub Center's research - this is a much more worrying topic, beside which all our talk about evolution is dwarfed.

272. You don't need any mental maturity to know the scientific truth, you have to learn it in the first lesson in nature in the first grade

273. Shlomik, in the article you referred us to, I will quote:
     "Rabbi David Stav, rabbi of the Shoham settlement and chairman of the Tzahar rabbinic organization, gave a lecture to religious students yesterday (Tuesday) on the relationship between the theory of evolution and the theory of Judaism. "There are two approaches in national religious education to the contradictions between the world of faith and science," he explained in a conversation with Maariv.

     "One eliminates the inexact sciences. The central approach, led by Rabbi Kook, holds that in essence there can be no contradiction between science, which deals with the external parts, and faith in the internal, moral parts. The question of how man was created is not a historical or biological question. The statement that the creation of man is accidental is an estimate, not a science. Our problem with evolution is rooted in our ability to approach man with moral requirements and not see him as a perfected animal."

     Rabbi Stav adds that "we are not afraid of science and the theory of evolution, it is a matter of age, since it requires mental maturity".
     ——————————————————————————————
     In the bottom line, Rabbi Stav claims that Judaism is not afraid of the theory of evolution, because it only requires it
     mental maturity,
     So I don't understand what all the fuss is about and why people oppose evolution studies in school?
     Maybe a mental maturity party, that's why I think feminists have more mental maturity for evolution studies

274. shlomix,
     shocking. It totally ties in with this article: https://www.hayadan.org.il/israel-to-become-third-world-281112/

     You made xianghua's day

275. Friends,
     xianghua's answers are getting ridiculous by the minute.
     To claim that science and those 68 national academies and a huge number of professional academic associations work without evidence for the existence of natural creation (evolution, as you remember, is a fact) and at the same time to avoid any answer, is simply ridiculous.
     For those who missed it, here is a brief summary:

     I asked again and again if he thought that the Bible is about 6000 years old and Ori put it a little differently. Here is Uri's question followed by xianghua's answer:
     ” Do you think it is likely that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? Is it likely that it is several thousand years old?" - to both my answer is "yes". Remember that even a 30% chance is reasonable.

     Pay attention to the following madness:
     For him, it is reasonable to assume (with a probability of 30%) that Kdhua is several thousand years old. This is not now a discussion about natural selection, where it can also be argued that there are certain holes in the theory, but already an attack on physics itself, which states beyond any reasonable doubt that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. The above finding is consistent with everything we know about physics and science and to decide, because he feels like it, that there is 30% that the Earth is several thousand years old creates an amusing situation in which he writes this delusional response on the computer, which the science behind the creation of the computer itself, determines without any There is no doubt that the age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. This is hypocrisy of the highest order and he should stop using the computer, toaster and car immediately. The science behind these inventions is wrong.
     By the way, for those who want to read about Gil Kdwaa, please:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

     Remember, it is no longer related to natural selection but related to the deep cognitive dissonance in which the man is. How he wrote in response to Uri's question:
     "You didn't say anything here. Who will decide when science slips into superstition?" - as soon as he asserts a strong claim without solid evidence.
     If that's not proof that the man is superstitious, I don't know what is.

     He was asked by me about the identity of the planner and answered several times, that his planner is God, then he denied that he admitted it, but you should pay attention to what he writes in response to Uri's question.
     Uri asked: "Is an omnipotent and omniscient planner reasonable?"
     His answer: "Definitely"

     The name we chose to give to the concept of omnipotent and omniscient is God.

     He was asked to show some proof of his planner. Here is his answer: "Then I also ask you for proof of the planner for my watch. Otherwise it's not serious to me."
     Is this an answer to something? At most this is proof that he is not a scientist

     From all of this, it appears that he thinks it is probable that the planner is omnipotent, that is, God, but he does not have a shred of evidence for this, but only a childish reaction in contrast and mostly embarrassing. As he said:
     Who will decide when science slips into superstition?" - as soon as he makes a strong claim without solid evidence
     That is, his claim about his planner, according to him, is a superstition

     Regarding the Christianity of the Discovery Institute, there is no doubt about it. Here again is the so-called Wedge Strategy. From the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy#cite_note-forrest_wedge-24

     The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to defeat materialism, naturalism, evolution, and "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”[2] The strategy also aims to affirm God's reality.[3] Its goal is to change American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy#cite_note-forrest_wedge-24

     By the way, it doesn't really matter if the institute supports the Judeo-Christian God and to claim that because some Jews work there, it invalidates its Christianity, it's like claiming that the USA is not a Christian country because there are several million Jews there. ridiculous

276. Evolutionary=evolutionary

277. Father, isn't Michael Beehy a scientist? Richard Sternberg is not a scientist? (Has two PhDs including one in evolutionary biology!) Jonathan Wells is not a scientist? Dalgus X is not a scientist? come on…

     Ori,

     "It is known that there are genomes that no human created and the question arises as to how they were created. "- Right. And you know that the second criterion you proposed does not hold. After all, we have something in common with watches and hotels.

     "You didn't say anything here. Who will decide when science slips into superstition?" - as soon as he asserts a strong claim without solid evidence.

     ” Do you think the chance that the earth is several thousand years old is around 30%? "- I don't know if 30%, but it could certainly be close to that.

     Regarding the abilities of the planner. I can't expand other than the fact that from what our eyes see the capabilities are beyond imagination. When you show me a robot capable of doing this (and a thousand times more), then we can talk:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVw29NrEX3A

     I don't think human language meets my definition of a complex system. Can you prove that a complex system with dependencies between its parts can develop from a procreative material?

278. I jumped here to add in the comments a link to a relevant article that was published on the subject. I am surprised to see that this discussion continues.
     Anyway, here is the article:
     http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/418/723.html

279. xianghua,

     If you had told us at the outset that you thought there was a 30% probability that the world was only thousands of years old, you would have saved us a month of discussion. you are awesome.

     By the way, may I ask what the name xianghua means?

280. xianghua,

     As I have already said, we know that genomes are created by humans, just like clockwork. On the other hand, we do not know of a natural process that gradually creates genomes. You are welcome to refute this claim. Otherwise the analogy will remain intact" - even you don't agree with what you wrote, you don't think that the genomes of living creatures created humans. Here lies the problem. It is known that there are genomes that no human created and the question arises as to how they were created.

     ""Which of us holds a more logical and scientific claim." - And who will decide which is the more logical and scientific claim? The academy has no value in your eyes, so what shall we decide on?" - The academy certainly has value in my eyes, as long as it does not slide into superstitions." - You didn't say anything here. Who will decide when science slips into superstition?

     ” Do you think it is likely that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? Is it likely that it is several thousand years old?" - to both my answer is "yes". Remember that a 30% chance is also reasonable" - do you think the chance that the earth is several thousand years old is around 30%?

     "" Hence you have an idea of ​​the identity of the planner that you consider reasonable, could you present it? What are the reasonable and minimal features (that will not require unnecessary discounts) of the planner? And one more thing, is an omnipotent and omniscient planner reasonable?" - Absolutely. Are supercomputers in the eyes of an ant considered an improbable idea?" - An ant apparently does not think anything. You didn't answer my question. A supercomputer is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. I am asking if you think it is likely that the capabilities of the planner are infinite or do you think they are vast but they also have a limit. I want to remind you that you said that a number of planners are in your opinion unreasonable. You also said that a planner created by a natural process is unlikely. Now you say that an omnipotent and omniscient planner is reasonable. When thank you for talking about God? I'll ask you this this way, is there any designer with an attribute or attributes different from the attributes attributed to God that you think is just as likely as God?

     Let's go back to human languages. Is human language considered a complex system in your eyes (I ask because you did not provide a definition of complexity). Do you accept that it was created in a process that is similar in certain aspects to the process of evolution? That is, a gradual process in which one language splits into two different languages, to the point where the population of speakers of the languages ​​cannot understand each other?

281. to Xingua
     Discovery Institute may include Jews, scientists are not.

282. Ori,

     As I already said, we know that genomes are created by humans, just like clockwork. On the other hand, we do not know of a natural process that gradually creates genomes. You are welcome to refute this claim. Otherwise the analogy will remain intact.

     "Do you know of a complex human engineering system that fits the conditions? "- The very fact that humans have not created such a system shows how complex such a system is.

     "Which of us holds a more logical and scientific claim." - And who will decide which is the more logical and scientific claim? The academy has no value in your eyes, so what shall we decide on?" - The academy certainly has value in my eyes, as long as it does not slide into superstitions.

     ” Do you think it is likely that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? Is it likely that it is several thousand years old?" - to both my answer is "yes". Remember that even a 30% chance is reasonable.

     "I think it will contribute a lot to the discussion because if the age of the earth is very young then evolution would not have had time to happen at all even if it is possible."_ True. But even given a world that is billions of years old, this is zero time. So the discussion will be fruitless anyway.

     ” Hence you have an idea of ​​the identity of the planner that you consider reasonable, could you present it? What are the reasonable and minimal features (that will not require unnecessary discounts) of the planner? And one more thing, is an omnipotent and omniscient planner reasonable?" - Absolutely. Are supercomputers in the eyes of an ant considered an improbable idea?

     "I have already presented one over and over again" - do you mean something along the lines of the clock argument? In any case, what I'm asking you for is evidence for the planner itself," - so I'm also asking you for evidence for the planner for my watch. Otherwise it's not serious to me.

     David, in principle, any refutation of any evolution will be a refutation of the entire theory.

     Camila, the Discovery Institute also contains Jewish scientists. So funny you call them Christians.

283. Uncle,
     Beliefs, whatever they are, are an important source for making assumptions about the world. If there is someone who believes that they can read minds or that crystals have the ability to heal, these are interesting claims, but only if they can be tested scientifically (if nothing can be tested with scientific tools in the first place, then what are we actually talking about? How does anyone know that this really works and not Otherwise or at all?)
     Since we still have so many unknown things that can also be tested by scientific means I am not worried, and regarding superstitions, there will always be those who believe in things that cannot be tested or in things that contradict existing knowledge. I believe that only in science is there the right balance between conservatism and healthy skepticism, so that not all nonsense can enter the textbooks for example, and on the other hand there is also great curiosity and openness to other ideas and better generalizations of the observed reality, and this has been confirmed many times during scientific research.
     In short, there is no problem, the essence of scientific investigation is in the border area between the known and the unknown, therefore there is no problem in dealing with anything that can be investigated using the scientific method. The problem is mainly for things that do not even obey the laws of logic or that by definition are inaccessible to controlled observation or experiment, there is not much to say about these kinds of things, it is even impossible to say that they are wrong.

284. the last camila,
     I agree with you, when mystics try to "hit" scientific claims by force, when they lie knowingly or unknowingly
     In order to "push" their cultural agenda, it is not appropriate at all and they should even be denounced and held accountable for their lies or mistakes, as you and many others are doing.
     The problem as I see it right now is, how will we deal with mystical beliefs of all kinds in the future, when
     Science will scientifically prove them and they will no longer be superstitions, will we adopt more such beliefs and start
     Interrogate them? I will give an example:
     The idea that the six-month-old fetus has consciousness would have provoked derisive reactions ten or twenty years ago. Today this fact is accepted by many and is not so much a superstition, there are even studies that show that classical music has a positive effect on fetuses.

285. R.H.
     In my opinion, discussions on a site like the scientist are of great importance, not only because of the discussion (sometimes a debate) about the specific content, but also, and sometimes this is actually the main thing, about the very right way to assert arguments and criticize other arguments, that is, using arguments that have logical cohesion (at least not failure substantive logical), presenting existing knowledge such as known facts that support or refute certain claims. I see the importance of having commenters here, like you for example, who know how to present such a form of expression so that other readers who are not used to such a way of thinking can be impressed, learn and understand and perhaps apply this understanding in other places as well, why certain arguments are bad (because of logical failures and/or Ignoring known and accepted facts) and how to approach them, including how to ask questions about the world/reality around us that have a reasonable chance of being answered. In this respect, I see the comments here as a kind of practice in presenting the same type of thinking beyond the specific content.
     Did I answer your question?

286. Uncle,
     The problem is when mystics and among them the creationists "scientists" of the Discovery Institute, pretend to talk about science and sometimes even claim that they are actually doing science, all while ignoring basic things such as sound logic for example or facts that are accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists, if not all.
     Sometimes they simply lie about the discoveries of real scientists as if something is derived from them that cannot really be concluded from that research. I emphasize that they are lying because an innocent misunderstanding can exist as long as they did not point out the fallacy and did not explain it in detail, if they still repeat the original claim even after such an explanation without there being a discussion about the explanation itself (after all, I or anyone else may be wrong) then It is knowingly saying something that is not true. As far as I understand, this is what defines a liar.

287. withering,
     Question you have:
     What does it mean to "observe and present critical rational thinking"?

288. the last camila,
     I agree with you, that's why I said to leave the science to the scientists and the mystical to the mystics,
     By the way, what does the name Kamila the last mean and was there also a first Camila?

289. Uncle,
     As Shmulik wrote, science does not rule out the existence of an intelligent creator just as it does not rule out a being like Maxwell's elf or a spaghetti monster or that we even live in the matrix and that your body is lying somewhere chained to a feeding chamber and all your experiences and your memories have actually been implanted and artificially created in your brain at this moment . What all the latter have in common is that they cannot be examined critically, nothing can be learned about them and that they do not meet the basic criteria of a scientific theory. Science does not rule them out, it only offers explanations that do not require the use of concepts that are not useful for our understanding of reality. If there is an explanation that does not require the spaghetti monster, then that is a better explanation. From the moment you choose to fill your lack of knowledge/understanding with non-scientific concepts such as the spaghetti monster, you promise to preserve your ignorance, and this is exactly the great danger that lies in the opponents of science of all kinds, from Amnon Yitzchak to the Discovery Institute "scientists" who are merely religious Christians who invent themselves Each time under a different name after they are blocked and this is to promote one simple agenda and that is to attack everything that threatens their beliefs. By the way, most people, after toying with the idea of ​​a higher power that cannot be examined and does not contribute any information about our reality, realize that at least in scientific matters, such a concept has no contribution, even if its existence is theoretically possible... It is very easy to convince scientists, you have to show A better alternative and the criteria for a better alternative are clear and known. The creature on duty comes and there is a better explanation, when it is pointed out to him that there is a logical fallacy in the proposal he is making, he denies the fallacy (this is in the best case, in the worst case he simply ignores it and in the worst case he rewrites history and simply lies with a determined forehead). The debate here is not intended to convince creationists of this type to abandon their unscientific "theory" and accept the theory that the overwhelming majority of scientists in the world believe is the best explanation we have so far, the goal is, in my opinion, mainly to present answers to some apparent questions and "problems" which raise in context science in general and evolution in particular as well as to practice and present critical rational thinking and exposing logical failures in claims on the one hand and demagogic arguments on the other. If any of the other readers gained something out of it, that's great. Readers will decide who they want to turn to if they want to better understand science in general and evolution in particular.

290. Shmulik,
     If so, then everything is clearer,
     Science should be left to the scientists and the intelligent planner/Creator/God to the worshippers
     Because certainly if there is an interaction between them we cannot prove, at least not with scientific tools,
     action of an intelligent designer or any other super-being in science,
     For the simple reason, that as soon as we uncovered another such hidden slot that previously belonged to the GOD-OF-GAPS as you claim this concept, then this slot is already the property of science, which separates and rules over all these GAPS, striving to completely destroy them.
     The main problem, as I see it in the whole discussion, is actually the fact that we will not be able to prove but we will also not be able to disprove such an interaction, which means that this possibility always exists even with a weak probability, but it does exist.
     Where does that put us? Probably a way of life that each one chose for himself: either in science or in faith
     Therefore, in my opinion, these arguments will lead nowhere.

291. Uncle,
     Surely an intelligent planner can be in the background. The intelligent planner is God and hence the problem: there is no way to refute such a claim.
     Science claims that there is no need for God to explain evolution. Basically, that's the argument.

292. It's very difficult, but I'm trying to get down to business by asking a few questions for the experts:
     xianghua,
     Could you explain the point you raised:
     "Studies show that humans and chimpanzees are separated by something like 60 unique genes. Even if it were a small single gene of 100 bases, the sequence space for it is 100^4. How many do you think encode a functional protein? A billion squared? This is still a zero percent of the total number of sequences and hence there is not enough time for a split in only 6 million years."

     Does denying the claim of an ancient origin for man and ape invalidate all of evolution? Or just a certain part?

     the last camila,

     Does evolution contradict an intelligent designer? Is it possible that it runs in the background and then we will save all this exhausting discussion
     Or is that not the direction at all?

293. xianghua,

     " So what? And if I create a watch that contains organic materials, does it cease to be a watch" - no, that's why I wrote "so let's assume that the car watch is the same as a living creature".

     "And in addition, the composition of the watches is similar to that of a living creature. Replace the word clock with creature, and ask the question "Does a population of creatures, with diversity.... Can it be created by a natural process?" - If you rule out the possibility of a clock reproducing in natural processes, then you rule out the possibility of the development of living beings." - When did I rule out the possibility of a multiplying clock? I pointed out problems with the analogy, and then said that my answer to the corrected question about the new "clock" would be positive.

     ” not accurate. It has never been demonstrated that a genome can develop through gradual natural processes" - true, and this is exactly what David Yom said, and next line you write that the argument has never been disproved. Don't you see the problem here? I said that the analogy is not valid, among other things because while our experience shows that clocks were created by humans, it does not show anything about the genomes of living beings, we simply were not here to see them being created. You reinforce my words with the above quote, and then write to me that the argument has never been refuted.

     ""- Right. You are welcome to take any complex system in human engineering, and try to switch to another system. Do you think this is possible?” - This will not work for you, you cannot suddenly return to the original argument of a complex system in human engineering. I have already said that for the analogy to be valid you need a population of creatures (for example a "clock") that reproduces, fights for limited resources, and has variation that improves the chances of certain individuals to survive and can be inherited. Do you know of a complex human engineering system that fits the conditions? If not then you reinforce my last argument, that this whole argument is pointless because it cannot be tested at all.

     Basically, depending on your definition of a complex human engineering system, do human languages ​​fit the definition? Do you accept that English and German have a common origin from one language, and do you accept that the languages ​​were created in a mostly "natural" process, meaning that humans did not sit down and design a language, and it was not God who created different languages ​​as a punishment for humans, but that it is an inevitable process?

     "Which of us holds a more logical and scientific claim." - And who will decide which is the more logical and scientific claim? The academy has no value in your eyes, so what shall we decide?

     ” For me it could be 4.5 billion years old. But I know of some scientific evidence that contradicts this claim. By the way, if I don't answer it's usually in the case that I've already given answers and they've been ignored" - I ask you to stop saying "For me he could be _____ (God, 4.5 billion years old, etc.), that means nothing to me. Do you think it is likely that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? Is it likely that it is several thousand years old? Or are the claims equally plausible? And what is your evidence for a different age of the earth? I think it will contribute a lot to the discussion because if the age of the earth is very young then evolution at all would not have had time to happen even if it is possible.

     "This is a possibility, although less likely in my opinion" - why is it less likely? Note that you have acknowledged that you do not need to provide information about the planner in order to discuss intelligent planning. But here you say that a certain possibility of the identity of a planner is unlikely. Earlier you also admitted that the number of planners sounds unlikely to you. Hence you have an idea of ​​the identity of the planner that you consider reasonable, could you present it? What are the reasonable and minimal features (that will not require unnecessary discounts) of the planner? And one more thing, is an omnipotent and omniscient planner reasonable? (Let's say in relation to an alien that evolved through natural processes).

     "The claimant did not imagine that there was another explanation (evolution). The same is true today. And it may be that there are additional explanations, or additional mechanisms that drive evolution." - You are welcome to come up with such an explanation. As long as he has no evidence there is no point in taking him seriously" - my point was not to bring up another explanation but to emphasize that there may be other explanations. Therefore your attitude of denying anything that is not intelligent design is wrong, and instead you should provide evidence for the theory of intelligent design. It's impossible in my opinion without you providing evidence to the planner.

     "I have already presented one over and over again" - do you mean something along the lines of the clock argument? In any case, what I am asking of you is a view of the planner himself, because there can be no planning without a planner. Imagine that the supporters of the theory of evolution would claim that some mysterious force drives evolution, some physical force that we have not yet discovered and we have no information about. That's how you sound to me. You talk about intelligent design but refuse to discuss the intelligent designer.

294. xianghua,
     From end to beginning:
     What amuses me the most is your fling about the planner. Is he God or not? Why is it difficult to write explicitly who the planner is and what are his features?

     Several times you wrote yes, and I brought evidence for that and all readers are invited to judge, then you are asked about it again and you wrote "no" and then you are asked again and here is another flick-flack:
     You are asked: "So are you ready to accept that we were created by a planner who himself was created in a natural process?" An alien, shall we?"
     You answered: "This is a possibility, although less likely in my opinion."

     What does "alien" mean? Is it just "us" from another place?
     And if an alien is not a reasonable option, what is left? So what do you think is the most likely option? Well, say it and the truth will set you free.

     Additionally,
     You haven't presented a single piece of proof, and even if you go on and write that you did, it doesn't mean that you did. The intelligent design (God) is not a scientific theory and as I have already written, a claim is not a proof it is just a claim while you think a claim is a proof.

     You wrote that "it has never been demonstrated that a genome can develop in gradual natural processes" and ethnology showed you that it did

     The refutations you presented are exactly "Paley's Clock" and therefore, still, 68 national academies and countless other scientists around the world, whose number exceeds by many orders of magnitude the opponents, call for teaching evolution in schools. Precisely for this reason, even you will not prefer a drug from the Discovery Institute to that of the scientific establishment.

     The question of what makes more sense is not a proof but, at most, an attempt to embarrass a layman. The logic in this context is actually an intuition and it is not valid for the required level of knowledge. Up to a certain level of knowledge, Newton's theory is very logical and very intuitive, but from a certain level of knowledge, it collapses and the "most illogical" and least intuitive theory imaginable, known as quantum mechanics, turns out to be much more correct.

295. xianghua,

     Assuming I accept the explanation you gave why humans and chimpanzees do not have a common ancestor (too much genetic difference) are you willing to agree that the example you have given many times (a replicating clock) is not valid in this case?
     After all, the chimpanzee is undoubtedly a biological robot that reproduces in a process that we know has errors, etc.

296. Although the discussion lasted as long as the exile, I have already had longer discussions. Anyway, I'm sorry if I bore anyone.

     Hello Uri, you said:

     "Here are the problems with the analogy between a living being and a clock that multiplies and reproduces:
     A. Living things are mostly composed of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon and hydrogen. For watches and cars and other vehicles" - so what? And if I create a watch that contains organic materials, does it cease to be a watch?

     ” and in addition the composition of the watches is similar to that of a living creature. Replace the word clock with creature, and ask the question "Does a population of creatures, with diversity.... Can it be created by a natural process?" - If you rule out the possibility of a clock multiplying by natural processes, then you rule out the possibility of the development of living beings.

     "And no, this is not true of genomes. Every clock that we know (I'm talking about wall and hand clocks, etc.) was without exception created by humans. We know this through observation and experience. The same is not true of genomes. "- Not accurate. It has never been demonstrated that a genome can evolve by gradual natural processes.

     "The argument was refuted by Yom in the 18th century, even before Darwin proposed the mechanism of natural selection. You keep using the wrong argument in the 21st century. "- not only has the argument never been disproved, but the new studies strengthen it even more.

     "I have already presented the next point, probably unsuccessfully, because I did not receive a response. Evolution means that living things change and become other things. She does not say that any creature can turn into any other creature. "- Right. You are welcome to take any complex system in human engineering, and try to switch to another system. Do you think this is possible?

     "In other words, my answer to your question is yes, the "clock" was created through a natural process. Your answer is no. Beauty. What now?" - Which of us holds a more logical and scientific claim?

     ""David, do a small but important exercise and go through the responses thoroughly and check how many times direct questions and flaws in the presented arguments were ignored, and which of the respondents tends to do this." - Really who?" - Shmulik asked you a number of direct questions throughout this thread and you didn't bother to answer" - do you mean the age of the world question? For me it could be 4.5 billion years old. But I know of some scientific evidence that contradicts this claim. By the way, if I don't answer it is usually in the case that I have already given answers and they have been ignored.

     ” So are you ready to accept that we were created by a planner who himself was created by a natural process? An alien, let's say?" - this is a possibility, although less likely in my opinion.

     ” The claimant did not imagine that there was another explanation (evolution). The same is true today. And it may be that there are additional explanations, or additional mechanisms that drive evolution." - You are welcome to come up with such an explanation. As long as he has no evidence there is no point in taking him seriously.

     "Therefore what you need to bring is positive proof of the intelligent design. "- I have already introduced one over and over again.

     buddha,

     You asked a good question and I will try to answer it in detail. The reason why I don't think there was a common ancestor between man and chimpanzee is based on a number of studies and technical conclusions. Studies show that humans and chimpanzees are separated by something like 60 unique genes. Even if it were a small single gene of 100 bases, the sequence space for it is 100^4. How many do you think encode a functional protein? A billion squared? This is still zero percent of the total number of sequences and hence there is not enough time for a split in only 6 million years.

     A second fact emerges from another study, which found about 100 ervs of the pterv1 type found in gorillas and chimpanzees but not even a single one in humans! This fact in itself is strong evidence of a lack of common descent. To this must be added the fact that during the splitting time about 30 million nucleotides should change in 6 million years. And of course the fact that we don't know yet whether a process of speciation is technically possible between the two. Weighing all of these gives us very strong evidence of a lack of common ancestry. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

297. buddha,
     It's not just what he wrote, he wrote in the interpretation "God, if you will", I brought the appearance of the place for this and I don't understand why it should be interpreted. In any case, in my point 2 I will refer to this in detail.

     Friends,
     Two comments about the things xianghua wrote

     1. He wrote: "In this field, it (intelligent planning) also has the power of clear prediction - we will find systems that are unable to develop in a gradual process. A prediction that is verified time and time again"
     Beyond the fact that this is not true, as I recall, 68 national academies and countless other scientific associations that encompass hundreds of thousands of scientists and more (for example: the American Association for the Advancement of Science which testified against the Discovery Institute in the trial) say that this is exactly the case, but even if we assume, for the purpose of the discussion, that True, and even if we assume that there is proof that there are systems that natural selection under no circumstances can produce, that's all it is: a refutation of natural selection (not of evolution). The word prophecy is not entirely appropriate here. She is wrong. Prediction is about things we speculate will happen but have not yet seen them happen whereas here, xianghua's claim has proof.

     Also, notice what xianghua tried to do: he tried to call this thing of his a theory, whose prediction is that something cannot happen but this, cannot be called a theory. A scientific theory must provide predictions for things that will happen while rejecting things that will not happen, that is, including its own refutation ability (here, of course, it fails). I can produce endless theories that will predict things that will not happen but that will not make them scientific.
     By the way, one should always be careful of trying to claim that something is not possible. The Europeans claimed that only white swans existed and it was necessary to discover the continent of Australia to find that white swans also existed. I asked xianghua a long time ago if there is a law (like the law of energy use) that prohibits a single cell from developing into a person, and so what he had to say is that there is one article that puts a statistical barrier to this.
     At this point it should be mentioned that an argument, however beautiful and elegant it may be, is not evidence or proof of the correctness of intelligent design and the argument (even if the theory was scientific), that "natural selection has been refuted and therefore only an intelligent planner remains" is only an argument and cannot be evidence or proof of its correctness his own So even if those 68 national academies were to raise their hands, all the work to prove the existence of the planner is on the shoulders of the supporters of the theory

     2. Even if we interpret xianghua and decide (for some reason) that he did not mean God, there is no doubt that the Discovery Institute, from which xianghua derives most of his arguments and sources, mean the Judeo-Christian God, and he is the planner. This is what the court ruled. The Discovery Institute actually wrote, in a secret document they composed (they also admitted that they composed this document and later tried to deny it or minimize its damage). This incriminating document is called the Wedge Document which explains their Wedge Strategy, and among other things it says the following, from the link from Wikipedia:

     The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to defeat materialism, naturalism, evolution, and "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”[2] The strategy also aims to affirm God's reality.[3] Its goal is to change American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values

     The above is absolutely not surprising. Professor Craig, a theologian-philosopher, whose 3 or 4 publications are found in the link that xianghua published at the time, which contains publications that the institute created, is a Christian who believes in Jesus who was born of the virgin and resurrected. He is an example of people working at the institute.

     And here is the document for your reference:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy#cite_note-forrest_wedge-24

298. To clarify (in xianghua language):

     1. The chimpanzee is a replicating organic robot
     2. It is known that in the process of replication mistakes happen which sometimes result in the creation of organic robots that are not identical to the original robot.
     3. Man is a replicating organic robot that closely resembles a chimpanzee.

     Hence, it is very likely that man was created by the chimpanzee's duplication mistakes.

299. friends,

     First, I see no point in attacking xianghua personally. In my opinion, he never claimed that he believed in God and in both places he does claim, and rightly so, that he wrote "let's assume God" etc.
     Second, xianghua is a virtual character (of course there is a real person behind it). You have no idea who he is. He could be a cute 12-year-old girl with sideburns and an IQ of 180 who decided to have fun on the forum and that's a good thing.
     The answers and questions should be focused on the arguments that arise. For my part, as soon as xianghua wrote that he is secular (or traditional) and does not mean God in Torah, the discussion can be continued and treated as he declared himself. If in reality there is a religious person behind the figure, well, a person in his faith will live.
     The value of the thread (if it has one) is for readers who will come across it in the future and be able to read the reasoning of all sides and maybe learn something from it.

     xianghua,

     Now about the discussion. I will try to take the discussion in a slightly different direction that might bear fruit. There is no point in arguing here about the statistical probability of evolution. Most of the scientific world thinks it's valid and we don't have the tools to test it here.

     We agree that mutations exist in nature (actually they happen all the time).

     You claim that the changes cannot be "big" and some claim that there is no definition of a "big" change, etc.

     Besides that, you brought up Play's watch, etc. as an argument.

     If we try to flow with your direction, the following theory emerges:

     1. An intelligent designer designed and created most known life forms.

     2. A small part of the known life forms (such as the bacteria that digest citrite in the Lenski experiment, all the dogs we know that evolved from the wolf or if you want from the primitive dog, etc.) were created by genetic changes.

     2. New anatomical systems can also be created before our eyes by mutations, as in the example of the Podarcis sicula lizards from the island of Pod Merceru. Maybe you think this is a "small" change

     Do you agree with the above theory?

     If so, many interesting claims arise. For example:

     In many places you wrote that evolution cannot create a large "new" anatomical system. If you compare man to a chimpanzee you will find a 99% match in DNA and anatomical identity between the amount and type of systems. In fact, a human and a chimpanzee are more similar to a layman than any Miniature Pinscher is to a Great Dane. Would you agree that it is very likely that man evolved from the chimpanzee (or from a common ancestor that is very similar to the monkey) while the monkey itself was created by the intelligent designer?

300. xianghua,

     Here are the problems with the analogy between a living being and a clock that reproduces and reproduces:
     A. Living things are mostly composed of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon and hydrogen. For watches and cars and other vehicles. And on this it was said: "You are not only comparing oranges to apples, but between oranges and plastic apples." So let's assume that the car clock is the same as a living thing, which leads us to the next point.
     B. Demagoguery - more than just a watch We have reached a population of watches, which has a difference between different details that can be inherited and affects the survival chances of the watches, and the environment does not have enough resources to finance the entire population of watches and therefore there is a war of survival between them, and in addition the composition of the watches is similar to that of a living creature. Replace the word clock with creature, and ask the question "Does a population of creatures, with diversity.... Can it be formed by a natural process?" And everyone in this thread will answer you yes. But you insist on using the word clock which is a human invention because you are a demagogue, and you are a fool if you think the readers here don't see that.
     third. As Camila said, it is known that watches are created by humans, and no, this is not true for genomes. Every clock that we know (I'm talking about wall and hand clocks, etc.) was without exception created by humans. We know this through observation and experience. The same is not true of genomes. I will demonstrate this with the help of an example that I have already given and which, as usual, you did not refer to. The fact that a person can create a cave does not mean that all caves were created by man and that there are no natural processes that can create them. I will summarize from a quote from Wikipedia regarding the words of David Yom (he is talking about the universe but of course this is also true for living beings):
     "He argues that the design argument is built upon a faulty analogy as, unlike with man-made objects, we have not witnessed the design of a universe, so do not know whether the universe was the result of design"
     The argument was refuted by Yom in the 18th century, even before Darwin proposed the mechanism of natural selection. You keep using the wrong argument in the 21st century. Think carefully about what this means about you.
     d. The question of whether given a car replicates and changes... will it become an airplane. I have already presented the next point, probably unsuccessfully, because I did not receive a response. Evolution means that living things change and become other things. She does not say that any creature can turn into any other creature. For example, if you ask, "Given a species of crustaceans reproduces and reproduces... will it become a species of horses?" The answer (maybe) will be negative. Therefore, the correct wording of your question should be, "Can a car that reproduces and reproduces become something that is not a car?". To that my answer will be positive.
     God. Following on from the previous point, even if a car-to-plane transition is possible, that doesn't mean it has to be probable to happen. If you ask a biologist today what is the probability that a wild boar will turn into *some specific creature* the answer in my opinion will be low. But that would not prevent any species of creatures from evolving from wild pigs, just as the probability of guessing which sequence of numbers will win the lowest lottery does not prevent winning the lottery.
     and. A major flaw in your clock argument is that it is untestable. My answer to the revised argument about a clock-like creature multiplying and replicating is that such a creature could evolve by natural process. That is, my answer to your question is yes, the "clock" was created by a natural process. Your answer is no. Beauty. What now? We return here to demagoguery, because this whole argument is built on a supposedly ridiculous presentation of the theory of evolution and the expectation that the person to whom the argument is addressed will answer in the negative. But once he says yes, then what? Do you know of a population of watches that we can check?

     So much for the watch argument that has received far more attention than it deserves.

     ""David, do a small but important exercise and go through the responses thoroughly and check how many times direct questions and flaws in the presented arguments were ignored, and which of the respondents tends to do this." - Really who?" - Shmulik asked you several questions directly throughout this thread and you didn't bother to answer. I don't know if you are completely unaware of what is going on around you or if you are just a liar or if you underestimate our reading comprehension ability, but anyone who has followed this discussion has seen you repeatedly dodge questions.

     ""By the way, is Shmulik right when he writes that you confirmed in the past that your planner is God?" - No. But I certainly flowed with it for that matter. I do not have any problem." - So are you ready to accept that we were created by a planner who himself was created in a natural process? Alien I suppose? (In case it wasn't clear to you, the sign "?" indicates that the sentence before it represents a question and that the person writing it to conduct a discussion expects you to answer it).

     Regarding your lack of understanding of the difference between disproving theory A and proving theory B. Disproving evolution does not prove intelligent design. Paley's clock argument originally did not refer to evolution at all, but said that since the clock could not have been created by chance, the clock must have had a designer. Whether you accept evolution or not, you have to admit that this argument is wrong because it rules out one theory (chance), and claims a second theory (design) is correct because those are the only two possibilities. The claimant did not imagine that there was another explanation (evolution). The same is true today. And it may be that there are additional explanations, or additional mechanisms that drive evolution. Therefore what you need to bring is positive proof of intelligent design. Some information about the planner would be a good start. Failure to present it would be tantamount to a person who accepts evolution but is unwilling to put forward any mechanism that drives it. He will call it "gradual development" and when asked how it happens he will say that his theory does not deal with the mechanism (sound familiar?).

     Just do me a favor, if you're not going to answer the questions I asked about answering at all.

301. xianghua,
     It's already puzzling. I asked you, you confirmed that it was God, twice. Completely puzzling. Your flick flak does you no respect.

     Despite all that, we will flow with your amazing ability to deny things you wrote and then, if it is not about God, tell a little about the planner? The planner is now no longer God, so who or what designed the planner? Do you think there is a planner and God?

     You wrote: "If a robot reproduces before us, the first rational is that it was created by reason, and did not develop by natural processes. Whoever wants to prove the opposite - the burden of proof is on him." - Absolutely not true. The burden of proof is on you for a claim you make.

     You wrote: "No mechanism has ever been proposed for the development of a complex biological mechanism" - completely untrue and it is called natural selection. Furthermore, the concept of "complex" is a concept that you throw around again and again, even though you have never defined it. The only definition you gave is "terribly small probability". This is not a definition and therefore your sentence falls flat.

     You wrote: "Which claim makes more sense: the claim that a reproductive clock requires planning, or the opposite" - again, what is a reproductive clock but in any case, on a conceptual level until Darwin's day, everyone thought that God was behind everything and since Darwin's day, the vast majority of The scientific establishment thinks there is no need for God. It makes more sense to think that you don't need a planner.

     You wrote: "Intelligent planning, on the other hand, is the only one that offers a mechanism" - intelligent planning is not a scientific theory and is therefore completely irrelevant. Since it is not scientific, it can explain anything.

     Still, with all the successful "predictive" ability of the Discovery Institute, you would prefer a remedy from this federal court that threw the Discovery Institute off the rails.

     to remind:
     Here he admitted that he would have preferred a drug from the scientific establishment rather than from the Discovery Institute:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-study-in-the-holyland-240912/comment-page-9/#comments
     Look for his sentence there: "I guess I would choose option A"

     xianghua, do you believe that God was created about 6000 years ago?

     In conclusion,
     The name of the article is "evolution studies in the Holy Land" and I hope that all Israeli students will study the theory of evolution, as recommended by 68 national academies around the world

302. xianghua and all the rest,

     Aren't you tired yet?

     Come on, close the discussion, Hayat.

303. Buddha, there is a difference between an atom and a clock. What is also known about a natural process in which atoms are formed as far as I know. As for a replica watch - the story is completely different.

     David, in fact it is not about god of the gaps. The evidence is very clear and leans solely in the direction of planning. If we have before us a robot that reproduces, the first rational is that it was created by reason, and did not develop by natural processes. Whoever wants to prove the opposite - the burden of proof is on him.

     "That's why I don't see any connection between the two, you need to contradict your claim by statistical proof to the contrary." - Very true. Unfortunately I haven't seen anyone do this throughout this thread. And again, there is a lot of evidence against the theory of evolution. So far I have presented only two of them.

     "Your arguments are too complex for me to understand," - you don't really need to have extensive knowledge of biology for that. If you followed the discussion try to think about the scaffolding method. Do you think it would be possible to go from a car to an airplane if they were duplicated?

     withering,

     "What creationists do, and you as a whole, is not to present a scientific alternative and focus on that alternative and show how it is better than the theory of evolution, but are mainly, if not only, busy with an obsessive search for apparent flaws, when the only flaw he has found so far is the fact that we cannot present complete information about Anything and everything that developed during evolution." - Neither complete nor partial information, this information does not exist at all. No mechanism has ever been proposed for the development of any complex biological mechanism out of all the tens and hundreds of thousands of mechanisms that exist in nature. If someone had tried to imagine such a development, they would probably have died of starvation a long time ago.

     "The rest of the "flaws" I heard from creationists, including yours, were all wrong without exception, either because of ignoring or distorting known facts or because of logical failures in the arguments." It. By doing so you will surprise me too.

     "Sciences come up with new theories and put their best efforts to present their theory in detail and demonstrate how their theory is better at explaining the multitude of phenomena related to the subject." - I ask again, which claim is more logical: the claim that a clock that multiplies requires planning, or the opposite?

     "There is no scientist who would not be happy to replace the theory of evolution, "- like all the dozens of scientists who were excommunicated due to their belief in intelligent design? I really recommend you watch the movie expelled, and understand how much the evolution scientists really "want" to replace it with another theory.

     "It sounds like you have a theory that you think is better, to date I have only heard from creationists that it exists, but for some reason they are never ready to present it in detail and put it up for criticism," - I repeatedly put it up for criticism in this thread. You are welcome to prove the scaffolding method. Why hasn't anyone done this throughout the 500 or so comments? is it so hard

     "Please do us a favor and present to us what is the alternative theory that you think is better than the theory of evolution, that is - it explains the multitude of phenomena that evolution explains" - as mentioned, evolution explains almost nothing. Intelligent planning, on the other hand, is the only one that offers a possible mechanism for the development of the diversity of flora and fauna, which does not border on statistical absurdity. In this field, it also has a clear predictive power - we will find systems that are unable to develop in a gradual process. A prediction that is verified time and time again. On the other hand, the supporters of evolution are grasping at straws.

     "Also phenomena that evolution is unable to explain, it predicts specific predictions, as emerged from the theory of evolution and verified in paleontology and in the laboratory" - which prediction in evolution has been verified in the laboratory? Give an example that is not tautological and we will see what it is worth.

     "Since this has happened several times, you will surely not have difficulty finding places in the discussions where you have provided a detailed and logical explanation for the reasons I have put forward." - see below...

     ” Did I for example claim that things can be created exclusively either naturally or artificially but not both ways? I don't remember such a claim..." - You just changed your claim because you saw that it doesn't hold water. A moment ago you claimed that we know that people make clocks and hence the analogy is wrong. You showed that people also create genomes. That is, your claim has been refuted.

     "The conclusion you drew does not follow logically from your previous claims. "- So a robot that reproduces does not require planning? Come on. Why do you call it science?

     ” How is the argument flawless if it is required to change it every time to the point of "a replicating organic robot", what was wrong with Paley's clock?" - The truth is that it doesn't matter because both are complex. But I premeditated the blow because I know which way the wind blows. And in our case she might drop an apple.

     – 2″) There is no known natural process that gradually creates car parts and enables the partial assembly of car subsystems. "- very true. That's why I talked about a car that *yes* multiplies and *yes* changes from time to time. Can such a car develop by itself? To the belief of evolution scientists yes and to my understanding no.

     "You didn't talk about a car multiplying at all. "- I talked about a self-reproducing car earlier in a discussion with Ethologica. That's what I mean.

     ” and a car that reproduces we are certainly not familiar with, what is a car that reproduces anyway? Why call it a car?" - If it has four wheels and an engine, why not? In addition, the question here is whether such a car can develop in a natural process according to the theory of evolution. And the answer to that as mentioned is positive.

     "If it's a creature that reproduces, then it's certainly not a car," - since when is the feature of replication related to the essence of the object? A replicating car is not a car?

     Regarding nucleotide synthesis. First, the title of the article you gave gives some results. I googled a bit and found an article dealing with the synthesis of pyrimidines by ribozymes. The Discovery Institute once again did the work for me and reviewed the article in question:

     http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/07/scientists_say_intelligent_des022621.html

     And as can be proven from the review of two chemistry doctors, this is a well-controlled experiment, which has no relation to any natural environment. Which reminds you of the article you already gave at the time regarding rna replication, in which you showed why it could not be the first to replicate. You are also invited to refer to the experiment in which they showed that close to 200 genes are required for a minimal cell. Do you disagree with the research conclusions?

     "From the two facts it is easy to see that there is a repeating cycle of the creation of an entire organism from a single cell (in embryonic development) and the creation of sex cells by the organism. Once this mechanism exists there is no need for a magician or miracles." - Even once a factory to create cars exists there is no need for miracles and wonders. And how was this mechanism created?

     "I would love to get rid of the theory of evolution which only causes me to waste a lot of time on discussions with all kinds of religious people. "- We'll see if you keep your word.

     "By the way, is Shmulik right when he writes that you confirmed in the past that your planner is God?" - No. But I certainly flowed with it for that matter. I do not have any problem.

304. buddha,
     That's not what he said. He said: "God, if you will" and another of his answers:
     I asked: "I didn't understand. Is your planner God or not? "
     He answered: "Let's assume for the sake of simplification that it is"

     That is, he explicitly admitted that he is God and therefore there is no reason to return to the washed-up concept of an "intelligent planner"
     As for whether it's the religious God or a super-planning God who created the laws of physics and hasn't intervened since then, it doesn't matter for the purpose of the next point: any type of God (religious, super architect, whatever), is not a scientific theory.

     You are welcome to extract a confession from him as to which God he means. The Discovery Institute means the Christian one, without a doubt and they don't deny it. I can send you to some debates that the people of the institute held against Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, etc.

305. Shmulik,

     You can jump between the pages by changing the page number in the URL. For example, this is page number 9 in the comments (omitting the URL).

     evolution-study-in-the-holyland-240912/comment-page-9/#comments

     Also, regarding God, he did not explicitly admit that it was God, but only said "God for the purpose of the discussion"

     What is more interesting is which god it is about. If we are talking about any god that is mentioned in one of the existing religions, then it is clear that this is nonsense because it is clear to everyone that everything written in the Holy Scriptures is a complete collection of nonsense written by people and it is easy to prove it. The claim that the existence of God cannot be disproved is true only if it is about some entity that is unknown to man, then there is room for discussion.

306. withering,
     Here is his confirmation that it is God:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-study-in-the-holyland-240912/comment-page-15/#comments
     Look for his sentence there: "God if you will"

     And in another place:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-study-in-the-holyland-240912/comment-page-9/#comments
     Look for his sentence there: "Let's assume for the sake of simplification that it is." (What a simplification, how is an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient being a simplification?)

     Here he admitted that he would have preferred a drug from the scientific establishment rather than from the Discovery Institute:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-study-in-the-holyland-240912/comment-page-9/#comments
     Look for his sentence there: "I guess I would choose option A"
     That is, he is forced to live in cognitive dissonance

     Father, a simple suggestion:
     It is very difficult in a long thread to search and browse previous comments. I suggest that maybe you number the comment pages so that, except for going back and forth, it will be possible to jump directly to a certain page.

307. xianghua

     - "The supporters of evolution (scientists and non-scientists alike) accept without a choice that the theory of evolution, that is - that organisms on earth have a common origin, is the best explanation we have at this moment," - of course they will accept, after all, they are supporters of evolution. And those who do not support evolution (connoisseurs and non-scientists alike) do not accept it.

     The acceptance of the theory of evolution occurs after one is impressed by its details, its logical arguments, the facts on the basis of which it was put forward and additional and other facts that confirm it. The acceptance of evolution as the best explanation is a consequence of this impression. What creationists do, and you as a whole, is not to present a scientific alternative and focus on that alternative and show how it is better than the theory of evolution, but are mainly, if not only, engaged in an obsessive search for apparent flaws, when the only flaw he has found so far is the fact that we cannot present complete information about all One thing and another that developed during evolution. The rest of the "flaws" I've heard from creationists, including yours, have all been wrong without exception, either because of ignoring or distorting known facts or because of logical failures in the arguments. Science works in the following way: scientists come up with new theories and invest their best efforts to present their theory in detail and demonstrate how their theory is better at explaining the multitude of phenomena related to the subject. Do you have any idea why creationists, including you, do not act this way (and this despite repeated questions being asked about the nature of your "theory"?

     - "All the scientists I've talked to so far on the subject are ready to throw away the theory of evolution if an alternative is proposed that meets scientific criteria and is a better explanation." -a) You probably need to travel more around the world
     b) Such an alternative has already been proposed

     a) I have no idea how many scientific conferences dealing with evolution you have been to and how many scientists in the field you have spoken to, I also have no idea how many laboratories dealing with questions closely related to evolution you have conducted research in, I have no idea how many courses on evolution and related topics you have attended or given, I have no idea How many scientific articles (those published in scientific periodicals and not in the Discovery Institute or something like that) have you studied on the subject of evolution. I was, I participated, I studied and taught, I carried out research, I read hundreds of articles and I talked with colleagues and scientists from fields that are not my specialization. I cautiously say that I have "traveled the world" a little more than you, especially in the context of evolution, but most likely also in the context of science in general. There is no scientist who would not be happy to replace the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics with a theory that will give more complete and elegant explanations and predictions, provided that they do it better than the existing theory.

     b) It sounds like you have a theory that you think is better, to date I have only heard from creationists that it exists, but for some reason they are never ready to present it in detail and put it up for criticism, they always retreat to the obsessive search for "flaws" in the existing theories that the overwhelming majority of scientists accept A choice because they are simply the best explanation that exists as of this moment. Please do us a favor and present to us what alternative theory you think is good from the theory of evolution, i.e. - explains the multitude of phenomena that evolution explains as well as phenomena that evolution is unable to explain, predicts specific predictions, as emerged from the theory of evolution and verified in paleontology and in the laboratory, as well as predicts additional predictions that do not emerge from the theory of evolution And they are unique to your theory. Do you remember that the flying pig that everything is done in his word is not a scientific theory? I hope you don't mean it and have something less boring to say about it.

     - "David, do a small but important exercise and go through the responses thoroughly and check how many times direct questions and flaws in the presented arguments were ignored, and which of the responders tends to do this." - Really who?

     Anyone willing to pick up the gauntlet and check it out and bring statistics with a placeholder?

     - "How many times has the very fundamental difference between a car (or any similar object) and an organism been explained to you?" - and how many times have you been told back that you are wrong?

     Can you point to such a place where you presented me with such an explanation? (I hope it is clear to you that writing: "You are wrong" is not really an explanation), maybe you really gave such an explanation in the past? I would love to see him. The dynamic that I remember repeating several times is that you bring up the comparison between a man-made object (car, robot, etc.) and an organism, I explain why the comparison is invalid and list reasons for it, and then you ignore or change your original argument (a car becomes a replicating robot that becomes An organic robot reproduces. I repeat all of them and detail several times why the comparison is wrong). Since this has happened several times, you will surely have no difficulty finding places in the discussions where you have provided a detailed and logical explanation for the reasons that I have put forward.

     – 1″) A car is an object that we know because it was designed by humans. The analogy between a car and an organism is invalid if only because of this knowledge." - We also know that genomes were designed by humans (Craig Venter). This fact is enough to disprove your claim.

     How does the fact you mentioned disprove my claim? Did I for example claim that things can be created exclusively either naturally or artificially but not both ways? I don't remember such a claim...
     All I was saying is that in your analogy you fail a logical fallacy in that you draw a false conclusion from a set of claims. Your argument is something along the lines of: a) A car is a complex thing. b) All cars were designed by humans (who are intelligent beings). c) An organism is a complex thing => an organism was designed by an intelligent creature (I made a small discount for you at the moment with the identity of the creator). The conclusion you have drawn does not follow logically from its antecedent claims. At most it can be said that in principle an organism can be created by humans or God (but this only indicates the possibility and not the necessity).

     - "The main argument of the creationists (the Paley clock argument) that because of pointing out this fallacy, the creationists began to try to invent other objects such as a replicating organic robot... This has already been explained to you in the past, why do you continue to make this comparison?" - Nachuli Shamchuli. The argument is flawless and you are trying to avoid it.

     There you go again, how is the argument flawless if it contains a fundamental logical fallacy? How is the argument flawless if it is required to change it every time to the point of "replicating organic robot", what was wrong with Paley's watch? Do you deny that evolution was here? And yes, it is inclusive, because at every stage in the evolution of this argument you try to mask the root of the problem, first by talking about a robot and not a watch or a car, then by talking about a replicating robot and finally about a replicating organic robot. Why is the word robot needed? Why not say a replicating organic being? The only reason is precisely the knowledge that exists about robots, which are all the result of structural planning by humans (by *humans*, not God) and from there to the failed logical argument that if this is the case, organisms are also required to have intelligent planning. If we omit the word robot in your question, we get a somewhat silly version: Do you believe that a replicating organic creature can be created by a natural process without a planner? The answer is yes, of course. In an evolutionary process (given that life already exists, evolution does not deal with the question of the origin of life). And to return to your question:

     – 2″) There is no known natural process that gradually creates car parts and enables the partial assembly of car subsystems. "- very true. That's why I talked about a car that *yes* multiplies and *yes* changes from time to time. Can such a car develop by itself? To the belief of evolution scientists yes and to my understanding no.

     No, you're a liar. in your original response (https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-study-in-the-holyland-240912/comment-page-21/#comment-370892)
     You didn't talk about a breeding car at all. You wrote: "Think of it as a car that develops by itself within a few months in a process that requires hundreds and thousands of special components. In such a situation, you must ask how those mechanisms developed. You certainly won't claim that the car developed in a natural process."
     I've included that I've included, and here you've done it again...
     And as for the argument itself, again the same analogy is invalid since we don't know any car that wasn't designed by humans, and we certainly don't know a car that reproduces, what is a car that reproduces anyway? Why call it a car? Do you know a car that reproduces independently? If it's a creature that reproduces then it's certainly not a car, why do you insist on calling it a car when the only reason for this insistence is demagoguery? But even in this I went towards you and explained under what conditions I would consider (and probably also accept if they fully existed) the possibility that indeed the same reproductive object that undergoes changes developed in an evolutionary process, I had no other choice because there is no better explanation (I pointed out that the evidence in that case was strongly similar to the evidence that exists on Earth in relation to organisms). You may have said one thing right - that you don't understand it.

     - "In reality there are natural processes that create amino acids and nucleic acids," - not accurate. First, you are mixing abiogenesis and evolution (speaking of mantras and logical fallacies). Second, scientists today have difficulty finding processes that create the four types of nucleotides. That is, from the very beginning they are on a dead-end road. And to this zero start must be added another 100 or so hopeless biochemical events on the way to a living cell.

     Not accurate? Who produces them in billions in nature every day? God? Apropos of lack of reading comprehension, I did not mix anything up, I did not refer in that sentence to abiogenesis but to the fact that we know about natural processes in which basic components in an organism are created, this is a simple fact, I did not refer at all to the beginning of life. It is amusing that creationists attribute to me (incorrectly of course) one of the common fallacies of creationists (confusion between evolution and abiogenesis). Maybe I'm really wrong, crooks are usually intelligent and as the discussions with you get longer it seems that you not only repeat and fail in logical fallacies, show ignorance of the facts and take things out of context, but also show difficulties in reading comprehension of a fairly simple text.
     By the way, are you sure you are up to date on abiotic creation of nucleotides? You should check yourself:
     Recently, a novel potential abiotic synthesis of pyrimidine
     nucleotides have been demonstrated (Powner et al., 2009).
     But we're not talking about abiogenesis, have you forgotten? Or are you confused again? What is important at the moment how many imaginary difficulties exist in the formation of the first cell? At most we can say that he doesn't have a theory that can give a satisfactory explanation yet, but in light of all the facts that keep accumulating, we also have no reason to think that some supernatural miracle happened here. So you creationists will continue to point out what we still don't know and shout that it destroys everything and we scientists will continue to look for the best explanations that fit the known facts and we will not rush to run and hide behind the apron of the god of gaps.

     -"If anything, the correct analogy should have been a planet where we find cars that breed and give birth to other cars, a planet where we see that it is possible to witness the natural processes in which car parts are formed, such as screws, handles, pieces of upholstery, etc., a planet where we find the operating instructions to assemble the cars and you can see how in a natural process and within the framework of the laws of physics and chemistry, materials arrange themselves according to the instructions to create those parts" - that is, in front of you is a highly sophisticated reproductive car found on a distant planet. In such a case do you think the most likely possibility for this car to appear would be that it evolved by itself? Beauty. And where did those mechanisms that create this car come from? According to this logic, the car manufacturing plant developed by itself. It is a fact that we see that the cars there develop by themselves until they are completed.

     Your reading comprehension is really very bad. Under the conditions I detailed and only if they fully exist in a similar/parallel way to what we see here regarding orgasms, that is, "cars" in the plural, that reproduce with each other in a natural process (cars? that reproduce in a natural process? There is no such thing except in your demagogic argument, let's call the child by his name - an unknown creature that reproduces naturally), so yes, the most likely possibility to explain the existence of unknown creatures that reproduce naturally and give birth to offspring that are similar but differ slightly in their characteristics when there are processes that are similar to what we see in organisms on Earth, would be development in an evolutionary process . If you insist on a single object for which all the conditions I detailed are not met, then it is clear that it is certainly possible for me to come to the conclusion that it is an object that an intelligent creature designed, depending on what exactly I find there. Unlike you, I first have to study the evidence and only then decide what the best explanation is. The fact that you have already decided in advance does not oblige me to behave that way as well. That would be silly of me and also unscientific.

     -" We'll get there soon, if only you'll be decent and answer the question I originally asked you without getting clever and without bringing up invalid arguments that you've already been answered several times in the past. Are the two facts I mentioned acceptable to you?" I already said yes. And now we will see you keep your words.

     Liar, in your previous comment you confirmed only fact A but not B.
     From the two facts it is easy to see that there is a repeating cycle of the creation of an entire organism from a single cell (in embryonic development) and the creation of sex cells by the organism. Once this mechanism exists there is no need for a magician or miracles and wonders. Now there can be any number of possibilities for starting this chain, the simplest possibility is to assume that each organism is a descendant of the same type of organism and so on ad infinitum. This is the option that makes the least assumptions about the world. The other possibility is that all organisms have a common origin and that they are all ultimately descendants of some first organism that contains all those cool mechanisms that enable existence and reproduction, I still have no idea how they developed but it's abiogenesis and not evolution, remember? Don't get me confused again, and all we have to say about that stage is that we don't know the full story yet, but in the meantime all the evidence points to a natural direction rather than another, it still doesn't prove anything of course, but that doesn't mean that we have to abandon this possibility only Because of some people who don't like this option. Now, if I had a way of thinking similar to yours, I would conclude that these are the only two possibilities that exist (infinite cycles that do not require a beginning and evolutionary development from a primordial cell) and since the first does not seem logical to me, then evolution must be true. As mentioned, the way of thinking is not like this and I am aware of the possibility that there may be several other scientific theories that can describe and explain the phenomena we see around us, therefore, after choosing the most successful among the existing theories, I can continue to work under the reasonable assumption that this theory is also the correct one, when in the background I am aware of the possibility that maybe tomorrow someone will come and propose a better theory (explains more phenomena with fewer assumptions, provides better predictions, etc.). For example, I am waiting to receive from you in an orderly and detailed manner the theory you mentioned in your response, and who knows, if indeed it turns out to be a scientific theory that meets the criteria of a better theory, I would love to get rid of the theory of evolution, which only causes me to waste a lot of time on discussions with all kinds of religious people.

     By the way, is Shmulik right when he writes that you previously confirmed that your planner is God?

308. Uncle,
     Please ask what is not clear to you and I will be happy to try to explain better. Since the questions have a tendency to be entertaining at the beginning, because each question raises several more questions, I suggest that you ask one or two questions as a start and proceed from there.
     For a layman, this is not a decree from the sky, there are enough websites that give a good introduction to the subject, even if many times they omit a load of details and/or mathematical developments that are important for a more in-depth understanding of the subject. The beauty of the theory of evolution is that you can get a good understanding of it even with simple explanations and relatively few examples.

309. xianghua
     "I don't just claim but bring evidence for my claim. On the other hand, I have yet to see an evolutionist who can refute this claim
     - It is difficult to keep track of all the dozens of evidence for and dozens of evidence against,"
     But if I understand correctly, the counter view to creationism is Shmulik's comment: GOD OF GAPS,
     An existential riddle is imposed on such a divine omnipotent being and thus solves a lot of headaches to confront it until science discovers its solution and little by little these GAPS become smaller and smaller until they disappear
     On the other hand, your counter claim is that the probability of creating a living cell is zero to impossible
     That's why I don't see any connection between the two, you need to contradict your claim by statistical proof to the contrary.
     Camila,
     Your arguments are too complex for me to understand, so I would be happy if this whole discussion was also suitable for laymen like me, who have no formal knowledge of evolution.

     Lay people like me

310. xianghua,

     So this can be claimed for everything that exists in nature. For example, an atom does not need planning? Doesn't the universe need planning? So what's the difference?

311. Buddha, as I said earlier, the planner theory can only show why nature requires planning. This. Just as the theory of evolution tries to explain the opposite.

312. buddha,
     All of xianghua's claims were answered, and answered carefully. As far as I can tell, there was not a single claim that went unanswered.

     Now, if you meant me, then I call the planner God, in this context, for two main reasons:
     1. xianghua expressly admitted, after I asked him, that the planner is God. xianghua, unless he now claims otherwise, thinks that the designer is God, that's the religious one (not the deistic concept of an architect who designed the laws of physics and has since sat back and looked at what's going on) so why then don't I call him God?

     2. The concept of intelligent planning was coined by the people of the Discovery Institute, who are conservative Christians who use this concept of God's laundered in order not to run into the wall of separation represented by the American Constitution and especially the First Amendment to the Constitution and try to penetrate the schools. Happily for all of us, the federal court that determined that they meant God, threw them off all the stairs, and it's a good thing. It is hard for me to believe that you will find one of them who thinks that the planner is not God, and it is clear to me that you will not find one of them who thinks that there is an intelligent planner who is not God and God, beside him.

     If you mean that there is some alien, other than God, who designed us, that is perfectly fine but then the question arises as to how that alien was created. Only God is entitled to be exempt from this question, so if we assume that some creature other than God subject to the laws of nature engineered the genetics and created the first cell, then we have not made any progress in understanding the origin of life with this claim, which also has no evidence

     Regarding evolution and xianghua's dismissive and disparaging comment about Camilla's going out habits, here is a debate between Christopher Hitchens and John Lennox who is a mathematician-theologian from Oxford and here is what the theologian thinks about evolution:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1p1mDPQw1Yk#t=5287s

     He states that evolution is an observable fact. He does claim that evolution as a natural process is improbable, and as I have already written it is fine to think so (of course, the escape to the argument that God is behind the process is the God of the Gaps claim) but at least he fully admits that evolution is a fact, unlike Xianghua, who thinks Every argument he writes (even those that are not logical) are evidence and do not require proof.

313. xianghua,

     As part of the discussion, you put forward many arguments explaining why evolution is a mistake, but very few arguments of the theory of intelligent design.

     Unlike other commenters here, I do not think that "intelligent design" is a "washed" word for God.

     I also think that in contrast to evolution, which is a very well-established theory, in the field of abiosis, science today does not have any serious theory, and therefore a theory of intelligent planning of the first cell, some entity that came to earth is a good theory like the RNA world theory or the cluster theory.

     What can you tell us about the theory of intelligent design other than the general idea that can be summed up in one sentence (some entity created life)? What can we surmise about this being? If you have nothing to add then the whole subject of intelligent design is actually not a theory but a collection of objections, perhaps legitimate, to the theory of evolution. So why is it called the theory of intelligent design?

314. Friends,
     It looks like xianghua gave an elaborate answer but of course you can see that he didn't answer anything, but just wrote that he already answered everything. he is not.
     He does not realize that God is not a scientific theory because it is not disprovable and does not offer any prophecies. God according to his method, can do anything.
     He admitted that his planner is God but still writes planner, meaning he is a demagogue.
     I refuted his "glorious theory" and to this he again replied that he had already answered, but he didn't.
     He did not show in any way that there are only two theories that are inversely related, one of which as I remember is not a scientific theory and therefore, at most, in his arguments, if they were true, he only weakens natural selection. He doesn't understand that.

     I assume that everyone who reads this thread sees it straight, but to all the supporters of xianghua (that is, the one who once called himself the rabbi), I pass my questions to you:
     Do you think God is a scientific theory?
     Do you understand that all his arguments, if they were true, are God of the Gaps arguments?
     Your child is terminally ill and you have two options: a drug offered by the scientific establishment and another drug offered by the Discovery Institute. What medicine will you use?
     Do you think God should be included in science classes?

315. Camila, although your message is also intended for David, I couldn't help but point you in the wrong.

     "The supporters of evolution (scientists and non-scientists alike) accept without a choice that the theory of evolution, that is - that organisms on Earth have a common origin, is the best explanation we have at this moment," - of course they will accept, after all, they are supporters of evolution. And those who do not support evolution (connoisseurs and non-scientists alike) do not accept it.

     "All the scientists I've talked to so far on the subject are ready to throw away the theory of evolution if an alternative is offered that meets scientific criteria and is a better explanation."-a) You probably need to travel more around the world
     b) Such an alternative has already been proposed

     "David, do a small but important exercise and go through the responses thoroughly and check how many times direct questions and flaws in the presented arguments were ignored, and which of the responders tends to do this." - Really who?

     "How many times has the very fundamental difference between a car (or any similar object) and an organism been explained to you?" - and how many times have you been told back that you are wrong?

     1″) A car is an object that we know because it was designed by humans. The analogy between a car and an organism is invalid if only because of this knowledge." - We also know that genomes were designed by humans (Craig Venter). This fact is enough to disprove your claim.

     "The main argument of the creationists (the Paley clock argument) that because of pointing out this fallacy, the creationists began to try to invent other objects such as a replicating organic robot... This has already been explained to you before, why do you continue to make this comparison?" - Nachuli Shamchuli. The argument is flawless and you are trying to avoid it.

     2″) There is no known natural process that gradually creates car parts and allows partial assemblies of car subsystems. "- very true. That's why I talked about a car that *yes* multiplies and *yes* changes from time to time. Can such a car develop by itself? To the belief of evolution scientists yes and to my understanding no.

     "In reality there are natural processes that increase amino acids and nucleic acids," - not accurate. First, you are mixing abiogenesis and evolution (speaking of mantras and logical fallacies). Second, scientists today have difficulty finding processes that create the four types of nucleotides. That is, from the very beginning they are on a dead-end road. And to this zero start must be added another 100 or so hopeless biochemical events on the way to a living cell.

     "If anything, the correct analogy should have been a planet where we find cars that multiply and give birth to other cars, a planet where we see that it is possible to witness the natural processes in which car parts are formed, such as screws, handles, pieces of upholstery, etc., a planet where we find the operating instructions for assembling The cars and you can see how in a natural process and within the framework of the laws of physics and chemistry, materials arrange themselves according to the instructions to create those parts" - that is, before you is a highly sophisticated reproducing car found on a distant planet. In such a case do you think the most likely possibility for this car to appear would be that it evolved by itself? Beauty. And where did those mechanisms that create this car come from? According to this logic, the car manufacturing plant developed by itself. It is a fact that we see that the cars there develop by themselves until they are completed.

     "We'll get there soon, if only you'll be decent and answer the question I originally asked you without getting clever and without making invalid arguments that you've already been answered several times in the past. Are the two facts I mentioned acceptable to you?" I already said yes. And now we will see you keep your words.

     Uncle,

     I don't just claim but provide evidence for my claim. On the other hand, I have yet to see an evolutionist who can refute this claim.

316. xianghua,
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-study-in-the-holyland-240912/comment-page-21/#comment-370892

     I asked a simple question, why are you avoiding?
     Do you agree with facts A and B presented here:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-study-in-the-holyland-240912/comment-page-21/#comment-370707

     Well what? Has the organic robot regressed into a car again? How many times has the very fundamental difference between a car (or any similar object) and an organism been explained to you? Here again are some of the differences, if there is still any reader who has not come across one of the repetitions of this explanation:
     1) A car is an object that we know because it was designed by humans. The analogy between a car and an organism is invalid if only because of this knowledge alone. This is one of the original sins of the main argument of the creationists (the Paley clock argument) which because of pointing out this fallacy the creationists began to try to invent other objects such as a replicating organic robot... This has already been explained to you before, why do you continue to bring up this inclusive comparison? Is it because in the absence of good arguments you are forced to try to steal people's minds with failed and false arguments?
     2) There is no known natural process that gradually creates car parts and allows partial assemblies of car subsystems. This is another reason why the analogy of a biological organism to a car is a really bad analogy, precisely because in the absence of such natural mechanisms the spontaneous formation of a car (or the original creationist argument about the chance that a storm passed over a junkyard and randomly built a Boeing airplane) is just another argument based on creation A straw scarecrow is easy to beat, but the reality is not like that, in reality there are natural processes that increase amino acids and nucleic acids, there are natural processes that create fatty envelopes, there are natural processes that significantly increase the probability of events occurring both at the molecular level and at the level of the entire organism. If anything, the correct analogy should have been a planet where we find cars that multiply and give birth to other cars, a planet where we see that we can witness the natural processes in which car parts are formed, such as screws, handles, pieces of upholstery, etc., a planet where we find the operating instructions for assembling the cars And you can see how in a natural process and within the framework of the laws of physics and chemistry materials arrange themselves according to the instructions to create those parts. If we were to find such a planet we would be acting unscientifically if we were to believe that the God of the car was the one who created these cars under the belief that given these facts the best explanation is a completely natural process, similar (and perhaps identical) in its principles to the evolution that took place and is taking place on Earth.
     This issue has also been explained to you in the past, why the comparison of a car to an organism when in the former there is no known natural mechanism that can connect basic building blocks into a complete product, as is known and observed in organisms and especially in the process of embryonic development, is an invalid comparison, and here you are again using the same argument, Again in the typical inclusivity that probably stems from the fact that you simply don't have any successful arguments but only bad and failed arguments of this type.

     It's clear that you don't understand how such mechanisms developed in the first place, we'll get there soon, if you'll just be decent and answer the question I originally asked you without getting clever and without bringing up invalid arguments that you've already been answered several times in the past. Are the two facts I mentioned acceptable to you?

317. Uncle,
     You didn't describe the situation to his liking.
     The supporters of evolution (scientists and non-scientists alike) accept without a choice that the theory of evolution, i.e. - that organisms on earth have a common origin, is the best explanation we have at this moment, when evolution is a process, i.e. - a change in the frequency of alleles from generation to generation (following a combination of variation mainly random genetics and non-random selection), a process whose occurrence is a documented scientific fact from nature, routine work in laboratories and computer simulations, is the underlying mechanism.
     All the scientists I have spoken with so far on the subject are ready to throw away the theory of evolution if an alternative is offered that meets scientific criteria and is a better explanation. Since an alternative explanation that even comes close to the level of the theory of evolution has not been proposed to date (yes, very bad "explanations" have been proposed that usually do not even meet the threshold criterion of a scientific theory).
     The creationists, on the other hand, fail in almost every imaginable logical fallacy, such as the very false dichotomy that there are only two possible explanations: evolution or God (it is interesting to note that God evolved for the creationists and today they use washed-up terms such as intelligent planner, all because they lost at home The sentence in this context is disgraceful). On the basis of this false dichotomy, the creationists do not engage in the development of their "theory" and refuse to reveal identifying details about their same God and the manner of his conduct in relation to the question under discussion, the one for which evolution provides an excellent answer. Instead, creationists attack evolution and science in general while failing on all levels, starting with the factual level when they show complete ignorance of known facts, through misunderstanding, when they make a claim and refer to scientific articles that do not support their claim at all, through a never-ending inclusivity of issuing Things out of context, repetition of arguments in which the fallacy was presented, ignoring repeated requests to refer to key points in their "theory" and the fallacies that arise from their arguments to the point of telling lies.
     David, do a small but important exercise and go through the responses thoroughly and check how many times direct questions and flaws in the presented arguments were ignored, and which of the responders tends to do this.

     There is no comparison between an excellent scientific theory (which does not give absolute information about every pip in its field, just as it exists in every other scientific theory) and the claim that "God did it", which is equivalent to saying "we have no idea about anything" (try it yourself, you'll see Does saying this is how God did it increase your knowledge and understanding of something in this world, does it allow you to predict how things will happen in a controlled experiment, if you think there is such a thing suggest, maybe we will test it in an experiment). Regarding the question of why there are people for whom the theory of evolution does not make sense but something that is much more illogical and contains internal contradictions and does not explain anything does seem convincing to them, for this you should contact psychologists or other people who understand the human "psyche", in any case this is not a question scientifically.

318. xianghua,
     Except you didn't answer, certainly not to the question of whether you believe that God was created about 6000 years ago

     Uncle,
     There is a name for these arguments: God of the Gaps

319. xianghua,
     Hello, I have skimmed this endless dialogue, although it is difficult to find this discussion in depth
     This discussion can go on forever.
     You will claim that there is always a sufficiently complex mechanism that will not be created automatically or gradually and on the contrary
     Supporters of evolution will argue that it was created gradually.
     Is this actually the inflection point or split between the supporters of evolution and the creationists that cannot be reconciled
     And here, in fact, each side determines the position that suits it according to its ideological needs, whether it is their creation or their opinion.

320. withering,

     You said: "Fact A: during embryonic development, a single cell develops into a complete organism in a completely natural gradual process" - very true and I did not claim otherwise (although it should be added that the differentiation process is not yet known in its details, and it is very possible that it will not be possible to explain it in natural processes, but for the purpose I currently accept the matter as a natural explanation). The problem here is not the process itself, but how all those complex mechanisms that create it developed. And there is no answer.

     Think of it as a car that develops itself in a few months in a process that requires hundreds and thousands of special components. In such a situation, you must ask how those mechanisms developed. You will certainly not claim that the car developed in a natural process.

     Shmulik, I'm sorry, but I don't intend to answer questions that have already been answered a number of times.

321. buddha,
     I disagree with your opinion about the matter of meaning - the meaning that humans seek in their existence is not a matter that can be proven logically, certainly not scientifically (just like God... ahem ahem xianghua). A meaning that is an objective matter is certainly amenable to scientific testing, but we are not dealing with such a meaning.

     Regarding the robot - I definitely agree that apparently, it is very ridiculous that a person has consciousness. And yet - the most primary (perhaps the only) data of our being is the psychic experience, that is: thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc. We cannot dispute it and it doesn't matter how many times you say that in total neural currents in our brain - you still won't know what the connection is between these and your psychic experiences. It doesn't matter how many times you say it's an illusion - this experience is stronger and more present than anything else, and for it to be an illusion there needs to be someone ("the brain", if you've read Leibovitz) to whom this illusion will be presented.

     I also agree that there is no clear definition of the essence of philosophy (which is a philosophical question in itself), but you cannot say that it is only an emotion - pure logic is also a kind of branch of philosophy and you cannot say that it is an emotion. That's why I don't think that philosophy can be demarcated, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't engage in philosophy.

322. xianghua

     https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-study-in-the-holyland-240912/comment-page-20/#comment-370254

     Fact A: During embryonic development a single cell develops into a complete organism in a completely natural gradual process (based on the known laws of physics, chemistry and biology). We have no reason to think that during this process there is the intervention of some imaginary magician.

     Fact B: A cell from which an organism develops as indicated above, was created by another organism before it, also in a completely natural process without the intervention of some imaginary magician.

     Do you disagree with these facts? If so, please provide scientific evidence for a different case.

323. R.H.

     "What scientific finding forces us to recognize that there is no meaning to our existence in this world?" - Meaning, just like God, is something that requires proof. If you claim that there is meaning then you must prove it. Just like Russell's teapot.
     Regarding the subjective feeling that we recognize as "meaning", science gives us an excellent explanation of what "feelings" are, how and why they were created as part of the development of the brain in the process of evolution, etc. Note that "meaning" is related to other emotions such as "love" and "desire". In the majority of cases, people will report that meaningful topics are related, for example, to people they "love" (meaning in raising children is the most common example). Even in nature, the phenomenon of a mother sacrificing herself to prevent a madman from harming her cubs evokes a feeling of "significance" in us. Today it is possible to make people feel "desire" by sending an electric current through the brain, etc.

     As for the robot, it is clear that it will have consciousness because we are also robots and we have consciousness. You wrote: "Apparently this is ridiculous - where is consciousness supposed to come from?" - The same also applies to the human being that we both agree developed in an evolutionary process from bacteria:

     1. Agree with me that a bacterium probably does not have consciousness and a person does.
     2. Man evolved from a bacterium.
     2. Apparently this is ridiculous - where is consciousness supposed to come from?

     And now about the philosophy. There is no single clear definition for the concept of philosophy and what it includes. If we are talking about "smart love" then we are once again back in the realm of emotion.

324. buddha,
     I don't think I'm contradicting myself: I recognize that your opinion is completely legitimate within the framework of a philosophical discussion, and at the same time I think that you must agree with the fact that the discussion is a philosophical discussion and that your opinion is one of the opinions in this discussion - even if from your point of view the other opinions in the discussion are not correct.

     Regarding those questions: due to the lack of time at my disposal I cannot present to you my view on all these questions in full. However, I say personally - I don't think there will ever be scientific findings that will solve these problems for us unequivocally, and if a theory comes up that tries to do so, it will no longer be scientific but philosophical. What scientific finding forces us to recognize that our existence in this world has no meaning? Evolution certainly does not do this, although it is convenient to use it as a counterpoint to this view.
     I think that these questions, like any real philosophical question, cannot be examined in terms of close/far from the truth, because philosophy is not a science.

     I don't know what could change my opinion - I guess some psychological motive or another, but not a particular scientific finding.

     Regarding the robot - if it behaves completely like a human being then it is a human being. Since we built him and we programmed or created, however you will, his neural network, then we cannot say that there is anything about his neural network that we do not yet know. And yet, wonder and wonder, we will not be able to know under any circumstances that that robot has no consciousness. Apparently this is ridiculous - where is consciousness supposed to come from? And yet we will never be able to penetrate the sole possession of his consciousness, if it does exist. It turned out that such a robot would clearly see how stable and existing the psychophysical problem is and how complicated and foggy it is.

325. R.H.

     First you are contradicting yourself. You write "I am aware that in a philosophical discussion there is room for opinions different from mine" but you are not ready to accept the claim that the above questions are not philosophical in my opinion. Does not matter.

     What I'm interested in asking you is much simpler. In one of the previous messages you formulated precisely how I see the answers to the four questions. Now you also mentioned that you yourself are not satisfied with the answers. It seems completely legitimate to me and I wanted to ask you what would satisfy you? You have already said that you recognize that evolution, for example, is a fact. You have a close affinity for science. What do you think about the answers offered by science? Do you estimate that there is a high/medium/low chance that they are true? What will make you change your mind? If science creates a robot that is completely identical to a human, will it convince you?

326. buddha,
     I thought you wrote that and anyway: when I wrote the same answers in brackets I was trying to present your position. I do not fully accept your four answers, and they do not satisfy me. However, this is my personal opinion, and I am aware that in a philosophical discussion there is room for opinions different from mine. What is - I think that those who hold these opinions (like you) must admit that when they discuss these questions they are in a philosophical discussion, regardless of the extent of the influence of the philosophical tradition on them - this is what I wrote about in the long message.
     When I talked about blasphemy, I was talking about something else: I was talking about treating science as a religion, which is common among some people (of course, not among you). Regardless of that - I think that these philosophical discussions are simply not over, and even if they are over for you, you must recognize the fact that they are not dead, that is, you will always be in the philosophical discussion, even if you think there is nothing more to renew.

     I don't think the other questions lose their meaning when you have, so to speak, found the answers to the big four. Aren't you interested in knowing what you can know? What are the limits of human reason? Why are the limits?

     Regarding creativity - I was talking about mathematics, and there is no scientific finding that answers the question I posed about it. what is your answer

     The question of proper governance is indeed a question of efficiency. What answer do you have for her?

327. xianghua,

     I repeat again some facts, which for some reason you ignore them:
     Your "logical" chain is fundamentally flawed. Since it is built on section A and your section A is all ridiculous, it is difficult to understand where to start. You did not define what a robot is, you did not explain what a robot with DNA is, you did not define what complex is, despite repeated requests from all of us for such a definition, and no, "horribly low" is not a definition for complexity (it only proves that you are not a scientist) and - and that is the most Well, and you started section A with the word "agreed". Agreed on who? This is the whole point of the long discussion here and you are forcing me to accept your opinion.
     Here, for example, Camilla (as she wrote in another thread, she is a scientist who works with scientists and also addressed your argument there), does not agree with you and she made an assumption for you and accepted that a robot with DNA exists
     I wrote about 68 national academies calling for evolution to be taught in schools, they disagree with you.
     The federal court that threw Discovery off the rails and ruled that they were liars trying to push God into science classes, along with the experts who testified against them, will disagree with you.
     The same court and experts, by the way, that you yourself agreed that if they offered you a life-saving drug compared to a drug from the Disbury Institute, you would choose the court's. So why do you accept these arguments of theirs? They are frauds who are afraid, because of the first amendment to the constitution, to say God but that is what they and you mean. Your intelligent designer and theirs is God.
     Everything is listed by the way, several hundred thousand words, at the beginning of the thread.

     Even if we assume that your section A is logically correct and the argument is excellently constructed, you defined complexity in an inspiring way and explained to us what a robot with DNA is, you still have to prove the argument. Making a claim is not the same as proving it. You have to prove that it is agreed upon by most scientists and science. Just writing "agreed" does not prove the argument but proves that you know how to write the word "agreed" at the beginning of a sentence and that you are a demagogue.
     You will surely want to ask how do I know that most scientists will disagree with you? Because you claim that intelligent design is true, and they, the 68 national academies and countless other professional associations (of biologists, microbiologists, the American National Academy, etc.) call for teaching evolution in schools. Evolution and not intelligent design

     Wow, so many errors already in the first section. Amazing. Beautiful.

     You wrote that - "a theoretical replicable material lives and release it in any environment you want. Will we get a robot\car\toaster\poster after millions of years? According to evolution, absolutely yes. According to the planner's theory, definitely not"
     This is categorically not true. It will be said that there is no such thing as the theory of the intelligent designer. The intelligent planner, as you also admitted, is God and God is not a scientific theory, is not disprovable (you talked about Popper here and gave up on him because you realized that he was complicating you) and does not offer any prophecies, but, according to you, he is omnipotent. I repeat my question again: you have already admitted that the intelligent planner is God. Why do you continue to write planner and intelligent planning? say god You already admitted that.

     Maybe you meant that according to the people of Discovery, evolution cannot lead to the fact that after millions of years we will get a robot but that's exactly what the discussion is about (not exactly about a robot but in general, that's what the discussion is about). Your argument is Paley's clock argument. Read on Wikipedia or anywhere else the refutation of this argument and in any case, I repeat and say again that all the weakness of the mechanisms behind evolution, which is a fact, are only the weakness of these mechanisms, and a call to find more mechanisms. You told here about the claim of Eshel ben Yaakov (who taught me) about mutations, by the way, is this a refined type of Lamarckism? I told here about a claim made by Wolfram (which I have no idea is true) and I am convinced that more mechanisms will be found as science progresses in its research

     The people of the institute will forever act like leeches on the back of evolution and appropriate every knowledge that science has discovered. In the past, previous incarnations of the people of the institute claimed that diseases were created because of people's sins, that AIDS was sent to us from God as a warning to gays (I swear someone sent me, in an email I keep, such a claim) and today they say, "You see God is much more sophisticated than we thought and we understand and accept the The germ and virus theory, but still God is behind it all. Such a lame argument using reverse engineering.

     Somehow you still don't understand that weakening one theory doesn't strengthen anything else. The theory of relativity was not strengthened because Newtonian mechanics failed to explain reality at certain speeds. It became stronger because it provided a better explanation, offered predictions that were repeatedly confirmed and enabled the development of technologies that we use on a daily basis (GPS requires both special and general relativity)

     All the arguments from which you conclude that God exists, that you point in the direction of ethnology, are at most, even if we assume that ethnology is wrong in all its answers (and I have absolutely no impression that this is the case) are God of the Gaps arguments. its sad. Any self-possessed creature will never use them while you use them freehand. Why?

     Dessert:
     Do you believe that God was created about 6000 years ago?

328. R.H.

     You wrote: "...that apparently, in four great philosophical questions, science has given us what appears to be a decisive answer.. Regarding these four questions, it seems that we do not need to debate anymore: science has given us quite clear answers and there is no longer any point in a philosophical discussion regarding them..."

     So decide. If you trust science and get the answers then there is no more point in a philosophical discussion about the matter just like there is no point in a philosophical discussion about whether the earth is round or there are turtles all the way down. If on the other hand you are not sure that the science is right, or alternatively it does not agree with you with some kind of "blasphemy" then say so. Or maybe you are waiting for more conclusive scientific evidence and only then will you be convinced? And what are the above proofs?

     As for the other questions you raised, they lose their meaning as soon as you get the scientific answer to the four big questions.

     Creativity is a brain process in which there is no mystery. In general, it is about raising a large number of options and choosing effectively between them. There is an excellent book on this "Serious Creativity" by Edward Re Bono. I had the opportunity to work in the field quite a bit (inventions and patents).

     When you talk about "proper governance" you bring in the issue of morality again, whereas I look at it as finding the most efficient way to maintain a group of robots without them killing each other or living a certain way. There is no matter of good and bad here and we have already talked about that.

     You can have a philosophical discussion about where the hole in the pretzel goes when you eat the pretzel.

329. buddha,
     Thanks.
     So:
     1. I will try to promote the book on the list, but I can't guarantee anything :).
     2. Here you missed me: First, I argued that you must admit that the very answer you give is philosophical, because it answers philosophical questions. Science, by its very nature, cannot answer a question such as "does free choice exist", but rather give us findings so that we can use them to answer this question. To me, that should be your position. My own position is different: I think that the findings cannot help us find the answers, and personally I think that your answers are also incomplete - in principle, I think that these questions are essentially unsolvable, and I never manage to understand how a certain finding can help us answer them. It doesn't stop me from striving to find answers :).

     3. Regarding science as a religion: First of all, there are people, stupid people, but people, if a disaster like you described happens to them, they will call all the doctors scoundrels and liars, and maybe even all the scientists. There are people who tend to regard science as a substitute for religion (and I have already written about this here once) and this in my view, without rational reasoning, is an improper phenomenon (perhaps because it is a form of blasphemy). This thing is going to hurt them too because they will be disappointed when the bubble bursts and science will not satisfy their religious needs. But regardless of these things, I described a certain process. A process in which the scientific authority becomes such that we cannot challenge it if we have not made such and such academic degrees. If we make science applicable to all areas of our lives, we will find ourselves in a serious problem which I described in detail.

     Other philosophical questions? Good…

     What is the math? Is it a discovery or an invention? (This is not a variation of the question of determinism because it seems to me that you also once recognized the existence of human creativity) That is, does it exist on its own merits?

     What is proper governance? What should a country look like? Is it even appropriate to deal with this question, or will it inevitably lead us to an atheistic worldview?

     I have a few more but it's too late...

     And the biggest question, the one that Kant defined as the essence of philosophy: what can we know? What are the limits of the mind? I think you think this question is actually part of the big four, but to me it is decidedly not.

     Good night.

330. R.H.

     As always, it's fun to read what you write.

     I have 3 things to tell you:

     1. Regarding Jonah Lehrer's book (he is a man and not a woman) I strongly recommend it because in my opinion it is the most important book I have ever read. I am not young anymore and I have read quite a lot of books.

     2. You started well and talked about the 4 big questions. In my opinion, science has indeed provided them with the answers you mentioned. It's a bit hard for me to keep thinking of a solution to a puzzle when I know the answer. If you can keep it up go for it…

     3. The "faith" in science is not similar to religion as I have already mentioned before and I will give you just one simple example. When I vaccinate my children (or myself) I am aware of the fact that I may be making a terrible mistake. I may die from the vaccine. I know statistically it is the right thing to do. Even if the vaccine makes me paralyzed it won't change my opinion about science. If someone does something because the rabbi told him to, he might find the answer in heaven. it's not the same.

     You are of course allowed to continue looking for philosophical problems that are still relevant after the 4 big problems have been solved. It's hard for me to think of one right now. Maybe you would like to share with me?

331. Proof of the theory of evolution - not for you Xingua, because you seal your ears but for the audience that is tired of your religion masquerading as science - adaptation of bacteria to antibiotics.

332. Hi Buddha,
     My health is good (as far as it can be these days) and I hope yours is as well.
     Sorry for the "hey" and the "whoopa". Sometimes I don't control it ;).
     I haven't read Jonah Lehrer's book, but I'm happy to add it to the list of books I need to read and have no idea when I'll actually read them. If I read it anyway, I'll be happy to tell you what I thought.

     I know you won't really be convinced by what I'm about to write here, but you know - it's human nature:
     When you say that philosophy is dead, you are making a clear and solid statement like no other - you are stating that the scientific method is applicable to all areas of human thought and existence. The problem is that this statement is also a philosophical statement: you determine what the limits of science are (it has no limits). The discussion and engagement with the question of the scope of the scientific method is a philosophical discussion, which belongs to the field of philosophy of science. In fact, the fact that you take a position regarding philosophy, you necessarily establish a philosophical position. When you claim that philosophy is dead (and this is a logical argument, that many scientists, who are very little philosophers, are afraid to say it openly) you are saying that the entire philosophical discussion about the scope of the scientific method is irrelevant and you simply dismiss the other opinions in the discussion. You may have a very valid reason for your opinion, but no scientific finding in the world can prevent your opinion from being a philosophical opinion.
     Because when I talk about philosophy, contrary to your opinion, I'm not just talking about the beautiful philosophical tradition that accompanies humanity from the days of the ancient Greeks to our days - I'm talking about the very human thought. You can decide that you are nothing more than a "footnote to Aristotle", or alternatively decide that you stand by yourself and your personal thought is not influenced by the philosophical tradition - in both cases, it will be philosophy. Both options have advantages and disadvantages: if you are too inclined to the philosophical tradition, then your thinking may be bound and you will not be able to develop it and make it independent. On the other hand, when you stand on your own, you lose many of the wise and profound things that were written before you, and that you will probably never reach on your own. AKP - this will be a philosophy.
     I have the feeling that you tend to claim that philosophy is dead because, apparently, in four great philosophical questions, science has given us what appears to be a decisive answer: the question of the meaning of life (there is none), the body-mind problem (an absolute materialist position), the question of free choice/determinism (no choice free, we are programmed to be as we were) and the question of the origin of morality/ethics (morality is an evolutionary development). Regarding these four questions, it seems that we do not need to debate anymore: science has given us quite clear answers and there is no longer any point in a philosophical discussion regarding them ("Knowledge is forced upon its knowers!"). However, the mistake is actually the limitation of philosophy: philosophy cannot be limited and cannot be reduced to a number of questions for which we believe we have answers. Because philosophy is all-encompassing, and it is impossible to avoid philosophical thought about a field of life. Because as I already told you - your perception is also a philosophical perception, even if it makes philosophy completely redundant.

     Even if in another generation, or two generations, science will make such intense progress that it will seem to us that it has answered all human questions, independent philosophical thought will still not stop. Even if the philosophical tradition of Socrates, Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, Nietzsche and the other great philosophers is forgotten, people will continue to think philosophically - they will simply walk a path that they will have to pave on their own, perhaps under the close supervision of the scientific method, but they will keep marching.
     The conclusions you draw regarding the nature of human beings and their place in the world from the scientific method, are completely philosophical (don't be angry, but one named Kohelat has already preceded you... and many more came after him). They are indeed supported by science, but no scientific finding will tell you that you are a programmed robot with no free choice. You are the one who chooses to draw the philosophical conclusion from the scientific findings. why? If you allow me to answer on your behalf, I say that it seems to me that you too, like all humans on earth, are troubled by the same basic philosophical questions: Why do I live here? Is matter all that exists? Why do we think? What can we know? The difference between you and the philosopher is that the philosopher bases his answers on the philosophical tradition, while analyzing and refining it, and you abandon it and choose, quite bravely, to walk your own path - a path that is also philosophical, and from which no man escapes.

     What would happen if we let science answer all these big questions for us? So first of all, as I said, science does not answer the big questions for us. We choose to answer these questions based on the scientific knowledge we have. If we do allow science to answer the great philosophical questions for us, it will be a real disaster: we will enslave ourselves to scientists, who will give us the absolute answers. The tremendous revolution of the Enlightenment movement in the 18th century in which it was freed from the shackles of religion - will go down the drain. Already nowadays, science is taking the form of a religion: we accept the truths of science, and even act many times on a practical level also according to the scientific imperative - we vaccinate our children according to the decree of science, we recycle and try to pollute the environment less according to the decree of science, we try to shed a few kilograms on In order to improve the quality and length of our lives - also in the order of modern medicine, that is, science, and there are countless other examples. I have no criticism for all these examples: I know very well that we must vaccinate our children because if they don't break out terrible epidemics will kill us, and that if we get too fat then we will most likely die quickly, and that if we pollute this sick planet one more drop we will destroy it completely. However, I, like any common man, do not really understand science: although you will not find me disputing the big bang theory I do not, really, know what the mathematical formulas are that underpin it; I won't deny Einstein's theory of relativity but I don't really understand the math behind it; I don't have a shred of understanding about the complex chemical processes that characterize cellular respiration but I can explain it to you in a big way. In other words, everything I can know, insofar as I am not a scientist, is popular science. Never, if I am not a man of science, will I be able to challenge what the men of science have determined, and I will have to accept their words as true, no matter how critical I may be.
     And this is where philosophy comes into the picture: I do not know science professionally, but I know it as popular science - as science for the masses. And what I know, even though it is nothing but popular science, can prevent me from being ignorant when I come to establish my philosophical thoughts. However, when we throw philosophy into the dustbin, we effectively throw away our responsibility; We are returning ourselves to the period before the Age of Enlightenment when it was the religious experts who dictated the truth for us, and we should simply keep quiet and say Amen. I believe with all my heart that there are many scientists, great humanists, who will do everything in their power to prevent such a situation from happening, but to the extent that we define the scientific method as applicable to all areas of life - there is no escaping that this is what will happen. If a person's simple and personal thought is no longer important, because scientists are the ones who defined what the correct philosophical answers are, then we somehow returned to the rule of the church, only this time they call it the scientific establishment. And I didn't say a word about the fact that in order to become a scientist you must study in academic institutions, pay quite a bit of salary, spend many hours in laboratories whose equipment is very expensive - in short, science is often not a business for everyone.
     Only philosophy, in its simplest and purest sense, can preserve human freedom. Only the philosophical thought, by virtue of the fact that it belongs to every person, not to mention that it is not forced on every person, is the one that can give him freedom of thought. She who can let him direct his own path. As I wrote above - a person can choose to shed the philosophical tradition and still be called a philosopher. Can a person not even know who Nietzsche and Kant were and still be a philosopher. Every person can - this is the power of philosophical thought. Philosophical thought is the property of all of us. The choice we have is whether to think it on our own, or let others think it for us.

     I'm not sure I've made my point as clear as I want, but I'll let you read and based on your response I'll try to see how well my message got across.

333. Ethology, since it seems to me like a deaf discourse, I will try to summarize, unless you are ready to finally answer the matter, or alternatively to present a proof of the theory of evolution. The funny thing is that I, as a supporter of intelligent design, would bring more impressive "evidence" for evolution, even though it can also be easily refuted.

     "A much closer analogy to what happened with Lansky is installing wheels from a car that is adapted to work in snow on a car that is not adapted to work in snow, but has a sub-machine gun position on the roof. So a new system was definitely created: a car with a submachine gun on top with wheels that allow it to work better in the snow." - As I demonstrated earlier, you can also hybridize a calculator with a clock to get a calculator clock. However, it is a system that bases itself on existing components. At some point, according to evolution, completely new systems developed for them, with completely new alloys of which there was no trace before. More than that, you have also shown that you are basing yourself on a combination of existing components. When it comes to a genome with a length of 9^10 bases, the chance of this is very slim. And in fact it may require hundreds of millions of years for each such combination. If you want I will also show you how.

     "The childish and naive calculation you just did here clearly demonstrates to me that you know nothing and nothing about mutations, statistical calculations of mutations and how to do those that are relevant to the theory of evolution. Explaining this would be complex. Instead, I will emphasize what an absurd thing you are doing: you *dare* to give this calculation when in front of you was given a clear example of evolution that happened *exactly* with the help of what this calculation claims cannot happen. "- You made a mistake. It is all about duplicating a gene and bringing it next to a control sequence, since we are talking about bacteria and since there is no combination of a number of components, there is no statistical abnormality here.

     ” He achieved a numerically much less impressive result. In this study it was found that about 1 out of 10 to the 11th power of sequences have a specific function (ATP binding). In X's study, the frequency of the sequences with the specific function evaluated (*certain* beta-lactamase enzymatic activity) ranges from 1 out of 10 to the 77th power to 1 out of 10 to the 53rd power. This is a difference of many orders of magnitude (I emphasize: a lot!! !)"- very true. And do you know why? (caution - question fails)

     "It remains only to assume that you did not mention it because its final result is not impressive and even supports the ability of evolutionary mechanisms to create new proteins." - and now for the answer to the question I just asked. The reason this is a frequent sequence is because it is not a functional protein rule. There is no protein in nature that only binds ATP. The appearance of a binding site for ATP in evolution actually has no adaptive-biological value, and hence it could not have been created in an evolutionary process. And it turns out that not only is there no evidence for evolution from this study, but that it actually denies it. It's strange to me that you didn't come up with it yourself.

     "There are much smaller sequences that create link sites for a variety of things." - What things exactly? Almost all the binding/binding/active sites I know require a significant portion of the protein volume. Whether it is a hydrophobic space for the "they" molecule in hemoglobin or a DNA binding site in DNA polymerase or a tRNA binding site in the enzyme aminoacyl transferase rna synthetase or thousands of other proteins. And you can also see it clearly in the protein sequences themselves, which the critical ha's for binding are at a great distance from each other.

     "At best, you showed that two types of activities, antibiotic binding and its neutralization (Ex, who didn't even really deal in the field) and ATP binding (the last study you gave), require dozens of amino acids. From this you generalize to all the thousands of biological activities that are cataloged in the PDB" - a mistake on your part. If you bothered to look at Ax's article you would have seen that he brought additional studies done in the field on (4) other proteins as well.

     "The third problem, which I caught belatedly thanks to the source you gave for your words, is that you refer to the length of the amino acids, but ignore the identity of the amino acids. It may be that the binding site of a certain ligand requires 45 amino acids, but not every position in the sequence must have a specific amino acid. This is also well demonstrated in the study you gave." - and this is also what was examined in the study of Ax. After all, there are about 150^20 possible combinations for a beta lactamase domain. So how did he get to No. 77^10? This is because there are billions of other sequences that result in the same function.

     "The basic premise you gave to your question is not relevant to evolution and I see no reason to bother detailing for you everything that happened in this study. Try to get it. For me, pay to Science, "- from your answer I understand that you also do not have access to the article.

     Regarding the complexity argument. As far as I'm concerned, anything whose chances of being created by a natural process are terrifyingly low, fits the definition nicely. Now I would like to hear what your definition of a complex thing is. I am listening.

     "You need to prove your claim that there are *only* two possibilities to find life, God or evolution. You repeated your irrelevant question again. Since the readers who responded seem to know that your question is irrelevant, I will not bother to address your accusation that I am "again dodging a very simple question". Also, your bot argument is excellently hidden by others. I see no reason to do the same job again. "-again you chose not to answer a simple question. Thank you.

334. Shmulik,

     Glad to hear. Regarding Wolfram's book - the only reason I manage to write here is because the missile attack on the south makes me stay at home instead of going to university. It is unlikely that I will get to this book anytime soon. Maybe in a parallel universe... 😉

     xianghua,

     You just do more of the same…

     Regarding the clear fact that a new system developed in Lenski's bacteria, you said: "Not really. It's like I'll take wheels from car a and install them on car b." What you don't take into account is that in Lenski's experiment there is not just car A and car B, but car A with a certain unique function and car B with another unique function. A much closer analogy to what happened with Lansky is installing wheels from a car that is adapted to work in snow on a car that is not adapted to work in snow, but has a sub-machine gun position on the roof. So a new system was definitely created: a car with a submachine gun on top with wheels that allow it to work better in the snow. Car b corresponds to the gene into which citT was copied, the gene that allows the insertion of citrate. A car is analogous to the citT garden itself. This analogy is also far from perfect, especially because in Lansky's experiment there were completely different mutations as well as ones that have not yet been characterized. I would not have used it, had it not been for the fact that in your attempt to throw sand in the eyes of the readers you would give demagogic examples that show a complete disregard for the details of Lensky's research. You've done it before.

     You also wrote: "Is there an explanation here as to how those cars developed in the first place and gradually. Definately not." You again go beyond what you asked to be shown. I will remind the readers again what the example of the Lansky experiment should have shown. From your words: "Can you demonstrate how it is possible to move from system A to system B, which is completely different from it, in gradual steps?" The Lansky experiment showed this. Enough with your distractions, Bryantchuk.

     Another quibble: "Furthermore, if you want to base yourself on a combination of let's say 3 parts from other systems to get a new system. So in a space of a minimum of 9^10 nucleotides (three times smaller than the human genome), the chance that three genes/parts of genes will join together is one in 3 to the power of a billion approximately. These are the steps on which you build the theory of evolution?” The childish and naive calculation you just did here clearly demonstrates to me that you know nothing and nothing about mutations, statistical calculations of mutations and how to make those that are relevant to the theory of evolution. Explaining this would be complex. Instead, I will emphasize what an absurd thing you are doing: you *dare* to give this calculation when in front of you was given a clear example of evolution that happened *exactly* with the help of what this calculation claims cannot happen. I could just as well give the following calculation to show that walking doesn't work. And yet, move on. http://is.gd/zlulrH

     In your previous message you asked for a request: "If you have access to the original file I would love to hear from you what exactly happened there and how exactly the enzyme got this new feature. Especially in terms of the XA number that should have changed. Not for nothing do I say this. Even creating a new binding site usually requires several tens of HA. So it sounds very unlikely." As a response, I demanded that you show the correctness of your basic premise that "even in the creation of a new binding site, several dozen khas are usually needed". In response you gave me a study which luckily I also got to read, so I didn't waste too much time on you tonight. I skimmed over it to recall the details and... oh, how wrong you are.

     The first problem is that this study is a wonderful testament to your selectivity. The research you gave asked the same research question your loved ex asked, and investigated it using a different experimental method. He achieved a numerically much less impressive result. In this study it was found that about 1 out of 10 to the 11th power of sequences have a specific function (ATP binding). In X's study, the frequency of the sequences with the specific function evaluated (*certain* beta-lactamase enzymatic activity) ranges from 1 out of 10 to the 77th power to 1 out of 10 to the 53rd power. This is a difference of many orders of magnitude (I emphasize: a lot!! !). Worse than that, in the study you just gave, 4 different families of ATP-binding proteins were developed by selection towards this function on different mutants. In other words, by evolution. It remains only to assume that you did not mention it because its final result is not impressive and even supports the ability of evolutionary mechanisms to create new proteins.

     The second problem is that just like Ax's study, this study investigated *certain* enzymatic activity. Therefore, you cannot use it to make the general claim that "even creating a new binding site usually requires a few tens of HA". As a two-second search of the PDB will make clear to anyone who knows how to do such a search, there are much smaller sequences that form binding sites for a variety of things. That's why you were asked to choose a protein sample that is worth at least half of the protein in the PDB, so that you don't make this mistake and you will indeed see that "even in the creation of a new binding site, several tens of HA are usually needed. So it sounds very unlikely." Your response to this demand was stupid as usual: "Bullshit." According to the series of studies presented by Ax and others, a representative sample is enough." At best, you showed that two types of activities, antibiotic binding and its neutralization (ex, who wasn't even really involved in the field) and ATP binding (the last study you gave), require dozens of amino acids. From this you generalize to all the thousands of biological activities that are cataloged in the PDB. An n=2 sample is a representative sample only in the minds of creationists.

     The third problem, which I caught belatedly thanks to the source you gave for your words, is that you refer to the length of the amino acids, but ignore the identity of the amino acids. It may be that the binding site of a certain ligand requires 45 amino acids, but not every position in the sequence must have a specific amino acid. This is also well demonstrated in the research you provided. The researchers tested for one of the families of ATP-binding proteins that they had developed the necessary sequence. A sequence of 45 amino acids was necessary. They *didn't* test if it was necessary for certain amino acids to be in a specific position in that sequence. In fact, the fact that they are talking about a *family* of proteins means that at least some of the positions have flexibility - not the same amino acid should be in them. Therefore, even if your claim is true "even in the creation of a new binding site, several tens of HAs are usually needed", it does not matter for our discussion on the subject of evolution. Some positions can have more than one amino acid, depending on the protein. In other words, apart from the premise you explicitly stated, you have a hidden premise without which your question is once again thrown in the trash as arising from a misunderstanding of protein biochemistry.

     The premise(s) you gave to your question is not relevant to evolution and I see no reason to bother detailing for you everything that happened in this study. Try to get it. As far as I'm concerned, pay for Science, it wouldn't hurt for some creationist money to move into the world of science. When you do this, you will be surprised to find out how few mutations were needed to achieve a new function for this enzyme, giving the impression that you are trying to create that the formation of a new function in proteins is some impossible thing that requires a lot of statistically improbable mutations.

     I challenged you to define complexity objectively and universally. Your current answer is: "Why do you think they invented the scaffolding method? In your opinion, even a jump of 300 and 400 KH at once is reasonable? And maybe even a living cell at once is a reasonable event?" This is no different from what you said in response to this challenge before: "Any jump of around 100 KH at once is very improbable, and hence cannot be built on as a basis for an evolutionary mechanism. Note that the evolutionary side also needs to define what an "unreasonable jump" is. Otherwise, any jump will be accepted by the evolutionary side. Also a random appearance of an entire system at once." Maybe with creationists if irrelevant nonsense is repeated over and over again it becomes relevant. In reality it is not so.

     I will repeat the answer I gave you back then: where did you define the index that you were asked to define? You gave an example of something that you think is very improbable and you claimed that "it is impossible to build on [it] as a basis for an evolutionary mechanism". You have not defined a measure, certainly not a mathematical or objective one and clearly not a universal one for all types of biological objects. You're not even *talking* about *complexity* here. You just threw out a jumble of words that have no relation to what needs to be defined in what constitutes another attempt to spread sand in the eyes of those who are still reading this discussion. I repeat the challenge: "You will have to present a quantitative, mathematical and objective measure (that is, not dependent on my subject or yours) that is relevant to the biological object we are talking about and allows for a comparison of the complexity of the object given to us against other objects of its type as well as other types." As I said then, "guaranteed failure".

     I told you "when you determine that X-system is complex or not complex, you do it based on your gut feeling". About this you said: "Is the creation of a functional protein 300 ha long at once a reasonable event for you? And where is the line between reasonable and reasonable?" What you repeatedly fail to understand is that complexity is *not* related to *how* a protein is made. It is a property of the protein, any protein, in its current state. Its complexity does not change if it was created by God, evolution in nature or a biotechnologist in a laboratory, because complexity is not a function of the process that created the protein, but of its final product. You are asked to present a quantitative, mathematical and objective measure that quantifies complexity. Until then, hold your tongue and don't waste your readers' time reading your irrelevant gibberish.

     About the fact that you gave the mother of excuses to defend X's research, you now said: “I do think the points you raised could be true and I've also thought about them myself. But what to do, we need to do our own research and examine how wrong/right we are. That's why I also added that even if X was wrong on the order of a billion times (!) from the conclusion of his research, we are still left with funny numbers. I said and you probably haven't internalized it yet." My claims and your claims about X's research are categorically different. This was well covered in my previous response. Your attempt to pay lip service will not work. Back up your claims about X's research or not your tongue.

     You need to prove your claim again that there are *only* two possibilities to find life, God or evolution. You repeated your irrelevant question again. Since the readers who responded seem to know that your question is irrelevant, I will not bother to address your accusation that I am "again dodging a very simple question". Also, your bot argument is excellently hidden by others. I see no reason to do the same job again. I'll leave it to them to answer the next ramblings you tell to cover up the errors they exposed. Congratulations to Shmulik and Kamila.

335. A) No, you are wrong. Any phenotype, no matter how complex, can theoretically be created as long as it is based on natural molecular processes" - the mistake is precisely on your side. Take a theoretical replicable material and release it in any environment you want. Will we get a robot\car\toaster\poster after millions of years? According to evolution, absolutely yes. According to the planner's theory, definitely not. And the reason why is not due to the fact that there are no gradual steps leading to such complex systems. Not in neutralistic evolution, not in theistic evolution and not in an atheist's dream.

     "Of course, if there is an adaptive value and if there is a natural mechanism (lacking consciousness, of course) that results in the preference of beneficial combinations, the probability of reaching the top tends to 1 as time passes." So that's it, there is not enough time and the entire age of the universe is not enough.

     "And since we even have the ultimate evidence of the existence of a gradual process for the production of the complexity we see," - which is it?...

     "Because every embryonic development shows exactly this - how something as complex as an eye, or a blood system or a brain or a whole person, is built step by step in a gradual, completely natural process, during which there is no involvement of reason." - Alas for the ears that heard this. The process of cell differentiation (differentiation) occurs only by smart, incredibly coordinated control, every factor may be critical. And where do the hundreds or thousands of genes that support all of the above come from? Certainly not out of thin air and certainly not in a mindless process. Unless you believe in miracles.

     "The only thing religious people like you have to say is that we do not have a full explanation for the formation of the first cell, i.e. the beginning of life, and this is indeed the case, we simply do not know yet how it happened, but this ignorance is exactly that, i.e. ignorance" - you are wrong here twice . The first mistake is that I am not religious. And the second is that scientific research shows exactly the opposite - nearly 200 genes are required to create a minimal cell.

     "Continuing to section A, even something more complex than man can be created (as long as the modest requirements written above are met) in a completely natural process and without any need for an intelligent planner." - Claims separately and reality separately. Prove this claim by demonstrating the development of a complex system from hypothetical replicating material. And when you do, list me too.

336. R.H. What's new? I hope all is well with you.

     I'll ignore the "so far" and "hope" because you know I love you. (Don't take it personally, that's how I'm programmed 🙂

     As I thought, I already recommended you to read a little about brain research. Have you already read Jonah Lehrer's excellent book "How We Decide"? If not, I implore you to read it. He will make you very happy. After you read it let me know if you changed your mind.

     My opinion regarding the philosophy that its time has passed and has passed (which does not detract from its historical importance for those who value history). The place of philosophy next to alchemy. It's just not relevant anymore. There are some other crazy people who think like me. Where the mystery has disappeared there is no longer any need for philosophy. You are of course free to disagree with me and do not enter into an argument.

337. buddha,
     hopa So far.
     To take one of the most complicated philosophical problems there is, perhaps the most complicated (and maybe even the central philosophical problem in our existence), and presented it like this - "Sophisticated biological robots like humans simply have a representation of themselves (the body, etc.) in a model they maintain on the world in order to act in the world "? Not to your level.
     Yes, you can give a materialistic explanation, but at least do it seriously.
     It just shows where giving up the philosophy of Dawkins and Co. can degenerate us.

     (Uri, I'm sorry I didn't respond to your message, I had very little free time in the last month. If you follow the discussion at all, I'll try to get back to you).

338. xianghua,

     A) No, you are wrong. Any phenotype, no matter how complex, can theoretically be created as long as it is based on natural molecular processes and occurs in an appropriate environment. In other words, any peak in the epigenetic landscape is attainable as long as it does not contradict the laws of physics and chemistry even without any adaptive value. Of course, if there is an adaptive value and if there is a natural mechanism (lacking consciousness of course) which results in the preference of beneficial combinations, the probability of reaching the top tends to 1 as time passes. Since these natural mechanisms are known and have already been well studied, both at the level of the molecular mechanisms and at the level of the *process* of evolution (which is a scientific fact) and since we even have the ultimate evidence of the existence of a gradual process for the production of the complexity we see, because every embryonic development shows exactly that - how A complex thing like an eye, or a blood system or brain or a whole person, is built step by step in a gradual, completely natural process, during which there is no involvement of intelligence. The only thing religious people like you have to say is that we do not have a full explanation for the formation of the first cell, i.e. the beginning of life, and this is indeed the case, we simply do not know yet how it happened, but this ignorance is exactly that, i.e. ignorance and certainly does not lead to a conclusion regarding its existence or The involvement of the flying piglet. It is also understood that the question of the beginning of life is not the question that the *theory* of evolution deals with. From everything that is known so far, one thing can be said and that is that we still have no reason in the world to think that the beginning of life did not occur in a way that is not natural (and certainly not intelligent beyond the level of basic laws of physics and chemistry). So the answer to your section A is no. This is where your thought structure has fallen.

     B) Following on from section A, even something more complex than man can be created (as long as the modest requirements written above are met) in a completely natural process and without any need for an intelligent planner. If you define a clear definition of what complexity is for you and more importantly how you quantify it, it will be possible to refer specifically to the probability of a certain level of complexity appearing. Since we know very well that humans are built from a single cell during embryonic development (and later) in a gradual and completely natural process that is all subject to the basic laws of physics and chemistry, we have no need to think that a human being, however complex it may be, needs a planner. At most, as in the previous section, religious people like you can only say that we still do not know how the first cell appeared, that is, how life began (and see the response to this in the first section).

     c) A gross error that proves only one thing and that is that you are not able to think rationally, a necessary condition to make claims that have a chance of being in touch with reality in this world.

     It's not a matter of arguing your points, you're wrong about them in almost every possible way. It is customary to say about such things in science: "It's not even wrong" (a quote from the physicist Pauli).

339. xianghua,

     What is the psychophysical problem?

     How do you define consciousness?

     The mind is a sophisticated state machine. that's it. It is not about faith at all.

     Most people would agree that a bacterium has no consciousness. Everyone will agree that man has consciousness. Regarding different animals, the subject can be discussed, but most people will agree that chimpanzees have consciousness. Advanced biological robots like humans simply have a representation of themselves (the body, etc.) in the model they maintain of the world in order to act in the world.

340. Shmulki, you are welcome to believe that robots can create themselves. I don't, and neither does science.

     Buddha, in my opinion exactly the opposite, as long as the psychophysical problem exists and the scientists are at a loss as to how to solve it.

     Believing that consciousness can emerge in a material object is like believing that a car can emerge consciousness. Blessed is the believer.

341. xianghua,

     Wikipedia: A robot is an automatic machine capable of movement, controlled by a computer controller and capable of performing relatively complex operations.

     According to the current consensus in science, man is a biological robot. All the latest studies in brain research support this and not even a shred of contradictory evidence has been found. Do you agree with that?

342. The nigger turned his skin?

343. xianghua,
     The one who avoids is you and only you, and I already wrote it to you

     You must show that God is a scientific theory. There is not a single creature who himself would say this
     God is not a scientific theory but even if it is, you have to show that there are only 2 competing theories and they are dependent on each other, in an inverse relationship. As an example of another theory that explains evolution (which is not a theory because it is a fact) Wolfram's claim.

     Regarding your ridiculous theory:
     A - Not agreed. You have to prove claim A. Meanwhile you are failing miserably.
     B - Not clear, define complexity. You make a claim, you need to define it well. By the way, wait a few decades (maybe less) and any robot may successfully pass any Turing test you want.
     C- Here, disproved

     Do you think that God was created about 6000 years ago by God?

344. Ethology, I will ignore your usual ramblings and focus mainly.

     "Did Lansky's 1st generation bacteria have such a system? No. So a new system was created here" - not really. It's like I'll take wheels from car a and install them on car b. Is car b now a new system? Is there an explanation here as to how those cars developed in the first place and gradually. Definately not. More than that, if you want to base on a combination of say 3 parts from other systems to get a new system. So in a space of a minimum of 9^10 nucleotides (three times smaller than the human genome), the chance that three genes/parts of genes will join together is one in 3 to the power of a billion approximately. These are the steps on which you build the theory of evolution?

     "Before I answer your question, you must show that the premise that makes you ask it is correct. Immediately give a reliable scientific source that shows that "even in the creation of a new binding site it is usually necessary to have several tens of ha". -Take one from Jack Shostak's creator:

     http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11287961

     In the study, the ATP-binding sequence will appear every few sequences. The minimum length according to the researchers' conclusion is 45 kha.

     "I want an accurate analysis with a large sample size that shows what you just said is true for every *monomer*, unless you want me to throw your argument to hell, the sample size must be equal to at least half of the proteins that are cataloged in the PDB" - bullshit. According to the series of studies presented by Ax and others, a representative sample is enough. And in your case I do suggest you to Google.

     "Defining a measure, certainly not a mathematical or objective one and clearly not a universal one for all types of biological objects. "- maybe it's not clear to you. For *all* the biologists I have seen so far, yes. Why do you think they invented the scaffolding method? In your opinion, even a jump of 300 and 400 KH at once is reasonable? And maybe a living cell at once is a reasonable event?

     "I claim that when you determine that X-system is complex or not complex, you do it based on your gut feeling," - so I ask you here as well. Is creating a functional protein 300 ha long at once a reasonable event for you? And where is the line between reasonable and unreasonable?

     Regarding X's research - this may surprise you, I do think the points you made could be true and I have also thought about them myself. But what to do, we need to do our own research and examine how wrong/right we are. That's why I also added that even if X was wrong on the order of a billion times (!) from the conclusion of his research, we are still left with funny numbers. I said and you probably haven't internalized it yet.

     "In my previous response I challenged you to show that there are *only* two options for explaining the origin of life. You stated that you did so and wrote: "I ask again: Does a higher complexity than that of a replicating clock not require planning?". This does not show that there are only two options for explaining the origin of life. It is not at all relevant to the challenge given to you. It's just another change of subject" - and here you are again avoiding a very simple wish. There is a good reason for this - you probably know the answer. And she doesn't like you.

     ” Questions are not arguments. I'm not playing "20 who knows" with you so that you don't have 20 questions before the moderator reveals the answer to you. Present an orderly argument with a beginning, middle and end, with clear claims that are not ambiguous and a clear conclusion that follows from them. "- here for you again:

     A) It is agreed that a robot containing DNA requires planning due to its complexity
     b) Man is more complex than such a robot
     c) Hence the person requires planning

     Which section do you disagree with?

345. ethnology,
     Obviously we pay attention to every demagogic claim that xianghua makes.
     The man lives on God of the Gaps Arguments, he admits it and doesn't understand that it automatically defeats his arguments.
     He already admitted that God is the intelligent planner and the very work that he used the washed-up phrase intelligent planner, is the mother of demagoguery.

     He doesn't realize that God is not a scientific theory (there is no refutability, no predictions) and therefore can never replace any scientific theory and that's just embarrassing.
     Even so, even if we were to assume that God is a scientific theory, there is no way to show that there are only two theories on the subject. For example, Wolfram claims that he found a rule that is below natural selection and who knows what they will discover in the future. Also, in order for the refutation of one theory to strengthen the other, they have to be in the opposite relationship, one to the other. Obviously that's not the case here. God can exist even if evolution is true and therefore, weakening one theory does not necessarily strengthen God (this is exactly the problem with God, well, one of them).

     And for that matter, Wolfram's book is quite long. You can be counted on to finish it next week 😉

     xianghua,
     Do you think that God was created about 6000 years ago by God?

346. xianghua,

     oh well At least chatter creatively.

     This is what you quoted from my words about the Lansky experiment: "A quick review of the research would make it clear to anyone with an understanding that the ability to consume citrate among E. coli bacteria developed, in part, following the creation of a new control sequence." You quoted Michael Behe ​​saying something, then you said something similar: "The control sequence (promoter) was already present in the bacterium and belongs to two other genes that are active in the presence of oxygen. What happened is a duplication of the gene that allows the entry of citrite into one of those promoters. There is no new control here. And for me it is definitely a kind of destruction or even a genetic mess. Either way, no new system was created here.”

     This was the continuation of my words: "Actually, several different non-vocal "tribes" developed this feature in several different ways. The main mechanism by which this feature developed was the duplication of control sequences to appropriate locations in the genome and additional mutations that caused a stronger expression of the relevant genes." The only difference between what I said and what you said is that I said there was a duplication of the control sequence, while you said there was a duplication of the protein coding region. I just checked in the research. Your description is accurate on this point, mine is wrong (see and learn 2: This is how we admit a mistake).

     You are welcome to dance about this mistake until tomorrow, but of course your claim that "no new system was created here" does not stem from all of this. vice versa. First, this was not the only mutation found in this study and the nature of other mutations that occurred is still unknown and awaits further research. Secondly and more importantly, as I told you before: "Lansky's 40 generation bacteria had a gene called citT which is under the control of a sequence called rnk. Did Lansky's 1st generation bacteria have such a system? No. So a new system was created here." As I suggested to you back then, "From now on, when you say "system" add some description word so that they understand that you mean some meaningless ethereal thing that only you understand, something like "Creationist system" will be fine. Alternatively, give a meaningful definition for "system". A new system was created here. Trying to say otherwise is bullshit. By the way, I am amused by your attempt to describe the mutations that happened in this study as a genetic "mess". It is simply irrelevant. It's just retarded demagoguery. Mutations led to the formation of a new system that did not exist in the population of these bacteria before (mostly by replication, not genetic "destruction" in any way except in your imagination). For me, call these mutations "genetic rape", "genetic murder" or "genetic prostitution". Your shallow semantics is irrelevant to the final conclusion.

     Regarding the tryptophan study, you said: "If you have access to the original file I would love to hear from you what exactly happened there and how exactly the enzyme got this new property. Especially in terms of the XA number that should have changed. Not for nothing do I say this. Even creating a new binding site usually requires several tens of HA. So it sounds very unlikely." Oh, not so easily. Before I answer your question, you must show that the premise that makes you ask it is correct. Immediately give a reliable scientific source that shows that "even in the creation of a new binding site, several tens of HA are usually needed". I want an accurate analysis with a large sample size that shows what you just said is true for every *monomer* (don't know what that is? Google it). Unless you want me to throw your argument to hell, the sample size must be equal to at least half of the proteins cataloged in the PDB (if you don't know what the PDB is, Google it). Without that, there's no reason I'd even attempt to answer your question. Successfully!

     Regarding the requirement that you give a mathematical, objective and universal measure of "complexity" before we judge whether any system is complex, you said: "Any jump of around 100 K at one time is very improbable, and hence cannot be built upon as a basis for an evolutionary mechanism. Note that the evolutionary side also needs to define what an "unreasonable jump" is. Otherwise, any jump will be accepted by the evolutionary side. Also random appearance of an entire system at once. "Where did you define the index you were asked to define? You gave an example of something that you think is very improbable and you claimed that "it is impossible to build on [it] as a basis for an evolutionary mechanism". You have not defined a measure, certainly not a mathematical or objective one and clearly not a universal one for all types of biological objects. You're not even *talking* about *complexity* here. You just threw out a jumble of words that have no relation to what needs to be defined in what constitutes another attempt to spread sand in the eyes of those who are still reading this discussion. I repeat the challenge: "You will have to present a quantitative, mathematical and objective measure (that is, not dependent on my subject or yours) that is relevant to the biological object we are talking about and allows for a comparison of the complexity of the object given to us against other objects of its type as well as other types." As I said then, "guaranteed failure".

     The meaning of this challenge is that in biology complexity is not defined in a universal, objective and mathematical way that is suitable for any biological object and allows comparison between them. It's not what you decided to get out of this challenge. At the height of demagoguery you asked: "That evolution cannot create a complex system because we do not know how to define what a complex system is?" No. I argue that when you determine that System X is complex or not, you are doing so based on your gut feeling, and your gut feeling is not a well-quantified science that can be compared to my gut feeling about complexity. If the new systems created by evolution in the laboratory so far are not complex enough for your stomach but are for mine, it does not interest me and should not interest any person who looks at the issue from a scientific point of view. Introduce an objective metric like the one I mentioned above. Come on, quote William Dembsky from the Discovery Institute talking about specified complexity as a response and you'll make my day... (or night, in this case).

     Regarding my comments about the article you gave from the "scientific" journal, you wrote: "Yes, it's all nonsense. We heard." Oh well. A "matter-of-fact" answer as usual.

     You gave a study by a member of the Discovery Institute named Douglas X "who tested every few sequences a functional enzyme appears". According to you there are very few of them. I pointed out two holes in this study that make its conclusions irrelevant to our case. The first was that "X didn't check at all" every few sequences a functional enzyme appears. He tested every few sequences an enzyme with a specific function appears: a *very specific* beta-lactamase." That is, the claim that stems from his research cannot be as general as yours. Your response to this is: "Right. But even if you multiply that by another billion different functions, you'll get a funny number." The other hole in Ax's research that makes it irrelevant to our case is that he limited his analysis to spatial structures that resemble the source enzyme. About this you said, again, that you "multiply it by a billion different spatial structures. You'll still get a funny number.”

     The two claims behind which you are defending are not claims of the type "Research X did not document claim Y because his research method does not allow him to do so". It's easy to show as I did because it's simple logic and proper fact-checking. For example, if Ax did not at all test *every* function of the sequences he created in the laboratory, but only the existence and level of a certain function, then it is not possible to make a general claim about "every few sequences a functional enzyme appears" from his experiment. You are not making the kind of claim I made. How do you know that the two claims I made are true? Trust both or we will besiege your tongue. Your expected answer to this is implicit in your own words: "It should be added that your claims need to be tested and published in a scientific article". No, there is no such need. If you agree that I correctly described what X did (and you have given every indication that you do), then it is clear that this study of his did not document the claim you made. If you don't agree with the description I gave of Ex's work and think I misrepresented it, you are welcome to criticize how I described it and even quote from his research (I'm poultry litter if you can even understand it).

     Before I answer the rest of your words, I will quote from my previous response: "In my previous response I challenged you to show that there are *only* two options for explaining the origin of life. You stated that you did so and wrote: "I ask again: Does a higher complexity than that of a replicating clock not require planning?". This does not show that there are only two options for explaining the origin of life. It is not at all relevant to the challenge given to you. It's just another topic change. When you see that there are *only* two options for explaining the origin of life, you won't have to answer the question you just asked me at all. You'd just have to drop the theory of evolution and that's it, the God hypothesis won (ha. Good luck with that).”

     Instead of answering it matter-of-factly, you repeated the question you asked earlier in a different wording. Earlier you asked: "Does a higher complexity than that of a replica watch not require planning?". Now you wrote: "It is not clear what the problem is in answering such a simple question. Is a higher complexity than a replica watch evidence of design? I'm just showing you how weak the theory of evolution is, not only scientifically but also logically." You were caught rambling, and your solution is to repeat the same question in a different wording... very matter-of-fact, as usual. It was already explained to you in my previous response that you are not answering the question being asked. Also, it was made clear to you that once you answer the question asked, this question of yours will become redundant. You insist on repeating them like a scratched record and still complain that you don't understand why I didn't answer your question. Anyone else in the audience see this? It's just pathetic. This clearly shows that you are either really dumb, or you are intentionally acting like a troll found in Ynet talkbacks. These possibilities are not mutually exclusive.

     Following on from my previous response, I wrote to you that your question itself is completely flawed: "In fact, you again fail to understand the difference between "can explain" and "is the correct explanation". An intelligent designer can explain how "high complexity" is created, but you have to show that this is the correct explanation, not that it is a *possible* explanation. That is, you have to show that the answer to the question you just asked me is positive. You can't assume that's true.” Your answer to this now is particularly amusing. You simply ask *another* irrelevant question and do not answer the challenge that was placed before you. Questions are not arguments. I'm not playing "20 who knows" with you so that you don't have 20 questions before the moderator reveals the answer to you. Present an orderly argument with a beginning, middle and end, with clear claims that are not ambiguous and a clear conclusion that follows from them. This argument should show that there are *only* two options for explaining the origin of life. Anything else, including additional questions, will be thrown to hell as an evasion attempt.

     This is why creationists are laughed at in the academy: just like you, they make a million factual errors and do not admit them (for example, a study that showed that flagellin needs 300 ha for its activity is presented as a refutation of the theory of evolution, even though it does not deal with the evolution of flagellin at all. Who remembers that was what started my current discussion with xianghua?), posing questions instead of arguments ("...robot containing dna..."), giving cosmetic arguments ("genetic mess"), inventing "scientific" journals to sow sand in the public eye and more…

347. Ethology

     "I specifically wrote to you about the Lenski study: "A quick review of the study would have made it clear to anyone with an understanding that the ability to consume citrate among E. coli bacteria developed, among other things, following the creation of a new control sequence." - Error. In fact, Bihi already did the job for me:

     http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/rose-colored_gl066361.html

     (It turns out that the bacterium is lacking only a protein to transport citrate into the cell in the presence of oxygen; all other enzymes needed to further metabolize citrate are already present.) The gene for the citrate transporter, citT, that works in the absence of oxygen is directly upstream from the genes for two other proteins that have promoters that are active in the presence of oxygen. A duplication of a segment of this region serendipitously placed the citT gene next to one of these promoters, so the citT gene could then be expressed in the presence of oxygen

     The control sequence (promoter) was already present in the bacterium and belongs to two other genes that are active in the presence of oxygen. What happened is a duplication of the gene that allows the entry of citrite into one of those promoters. There is no new control here. And for me it is definitely a kind of destruction or even a genetic mess. Either way, no new system was created here.

     ” In the tryptophan study there is not even a hint of “destruction”. A completely new gene was created *in addition* to a new gene." - If you have access to the original file I would love to hear from you what exactly happened there and how exactly the enzyme got this new property. Especially in terms of the XA number that should have changed. Not for nothing do I say this. Even creating a new binding site usually requires several tens of HA. So it sounds very unlikely.

     "You will start by admitting that evolution can go from system A to system B." - As mentioned, you did not demonstrate this at all.

     After that, try to explain with which measure you determined the degree of complexity (or non-complexity) of the control sequence created in Lenski's research and of the enzyme that synthesizes an amino acid from the tryptophan research. If the measure is subjective, it is not relevant. You will have to present a quantitative, mathematical and objective measure" - very true. Any jump of around 100 ka at once is highly improbable, and hence cannot be built upon as a basis for an evolutionary mechanism. Note that the evolutionary side also needs to define what an "unreasonable jump" is. Otherwise, any jump will be accepted by the evolutionary side. Also random appearance of an entire system at once.

     "You are actually trying to deal with an unsolved problem: defining biological complexity in an objective and universal way. Whoever solves it will make a good name for himself in the world of science." - So what do you want to claim? That evolution cannot create a complex system because we don't know how to define what a complex system is?

     "The differences between a real scientific journal and the crap you call a scientific journal are absolutely clear." - Yes, it's all bullshit. we heard

     "He checked every few sequences an enzyme with a specific function appears: a *very specific* beta-lactamase." - True. But even if you multiply this by a billion different functions you will get a funny number.

     "Secondly, his experiment does not really represent what happens in evolution because he limited himself only to spatial structures that resemble his original enzyme, instead of limiting himself solely to its catalytic activity." Multiply that by a billion different spatial structures. You will still get a funny number. It should be added that your claims need to be checked and published in a scientific article. That is, right now you are doing what you told me that you yourself do not accept. Your personal interpretation against contrary results published in a respected scientific journal.

     "In other words, X did not count the number of *evolutionarily relevant* sequences that are capable of performing the function of the beta-lactamase he worked with."

     "Also, for the record, I'm now asking you directly and expecting a yes or no answer: Did you read Ax's study before you mentioned it?" - I think I only went through the source file once. A few years ago.

     "This does not show that there are only two options to explain the origin of life. It is not at all relevant to the challenge given to you. It's just another change of subject." - It is not clear what the problem is in answering such a simple question. Is a higher complexity than a replica watch evidence of design? I'm just showing you how weak the theory of evolution is, not only scientifically but also logically.

     "An intelligent designer can explain how "high complexity" is created, but you have to show that this is the correct explanation, not that it is a *possible* explanation. That is, you have to show that the answer to the question you just asked me is positive. You can't assume it's true." - Excellent. In front of you is a robot containing DNA that is on a distant planet. Do you think the correct explanation would be that it was created by reason, or by natural processes?

348. xianghua,

     You mean you're here to bring up arguments you've already made before and I threw them to hell, because that's mostly what you're doing in your current message as well. I have to thank you for that. Much easier to quote myself replying to you than to rewrite things.

     Regarding my statement that "[you] were given examples of molecular systems that were created in evolution during experiments", you wrote: "But these are not molecular systems but their destruction. How can you call for the destruction of a work?". You were given two examples, the Lenski study and the tryptophan study. In none of them was the creation caused by "destruction". You are just throwing sand in the eyes of the public, as usual.

     I specifically wrote to you about the Lenski study: "A quick review of the study would have made it clear to anyone with an understanding that the ability to consume citrate among E. coli bacteria developed, in part, following the creation of a new control sequence. In fact, several different "tribes" of e-voices have developed this feature in several different ways. The main mechanism by which this feature developed was the duplication of control sequences to appropriate locations in the genome and additional mutations that caused a stronger expression of the relevant genes. The multitude of ways in which this feature developed in the various E-Coli tribes are summarized in a nice table in the study itself and surprisingly only a few of them involve "genetic destruction", at least in any relevant biological sense." It turns out that the formation of a *new* control sequence is actually the "destruction" of a molecular system. In the tryptophan study there is not even a hint of "destruction". A completely new garden was created *in addition* to a new garden. The destruction exists only in your demagoguery, not in reality. What I wrote to you about the Lenski experiment is valid for your responses to these two studies: "You are facing a clear case of creating a new functional genetic sequence and you are talking about "genetic destruction" as if it will help you."

     You also wrote about this statement that "if there was a new system here, it is still necessary to examine how complex it is". A new control sequence for genes and an enzyme that synthesizes an amino acid is not complex enough for creationists. Oh well. This demonstrates well what I told you last time you gave this excuse: “I want to point out to the audience how this response of yours demonstrates your blatant lack of integrity. For creationists, any feature whose creation has been observed is not "complex" by definition, but we will leave this point for a moment. Let's say these are not complex features for your taste. Pay attention to what you asked me to show you: "Can you demonstrate how it is possible to move from system A to system B which is completely different from it in gradual steps?". That is, you did not originally demand studies that show the formation of a "complex" trait. You added this as a late excuse after you were given an example of what you really asked for.

     Start by admitting that evolution can go from system A to system B. After that, try to explain with which measure you determined the degree of complexity (or non-complexity) of the control sequence created in Lenski's research and of the enzyme that synthesizes an amino acid from the tryptophan research. If the measure is subjective, it is not relevant. You will have to present a quantitative, mathematical and objective measure (that is, not dependent on my subject or yours) that is relevant to the biological object we are talking about and allows for a comparison of the complexity of the object given to us against other objects of its type as well as other types. I'm waiting to hear how you did the calculation. Guaranteed failure. You are actually trying to deal with an unsolved problem: defining biological complexity in an objective and universal way. Whoever solves it will make a good name for himself in the world of science.

     Regarding my comments about the article you gave from the pseudo-scientific journal of the Discovery Institute, you said several things. Of course you ignored the meat of my words, so I'll quote them to remind you: “This journal is for cosmetic purposes, so they look like they're doing science, but it's clearly not a real scientific journal. It is not ranked at all in the Thomson-Reuters scientific journal quality index (Journal Citation Report) and about 10 articles were published in it in all three years of its existence. For comparison, my favorite journal, Nature Structural & Molecular Biology, ranks high in its field in the Journal Citation Report because it is rightfully considered a quality scientific journal with the highest standards that exist. It is published every month and includes dozens of studies and articles in each edition. The differences between a real scientific journal and the crap you call a scientific journal are absolutely clear."

     Instead of answering this, you wrote: "According to this logic, you also rule out the evolutionary articles. After all, those who criticize them support evolution." So pretend that they didn't give you essential differences between a real scientific journal and the scrambled journal you gave and explain to you that this is how the differences between an ideology-driven journal and a scientific journal look like. You were given such differences and on them my opinion was based. Answer what you were told, not partial quotes from my words, and see that this is a scientific journal. When you succeed, I will read the research you provided.

     In response to my demand that you provide another study documenting your nonsense, you provided a study by Douglas X, a biochemist who is a member of the Creationist Discovery Institute, published in the scientific literature. This is how you described him: "Here is one who tested every few sequences a functional enzyme appears and was published in jmb in 2004. But I'm sure you'll rule him out too. I'm guessing right?". I won't rule him out, because he was actually a nice study. I read it over two years ago and skimmed through it now to remember the little details. It was clear to me in advance that he was not helping you.

     Contrary to the nonsense you wrote, Ex did not test "every few sequences a functional enzyme appears". He started with an enzyme with a certain functional activity, one of the beta-lactamase family (the truth is that Ax did not use this enzyme, but its mutant that he prepared in the laboratory. This is relevant because it is one of the things because of which this research cannot be a refutation of the theory of evolution, but it is more complicated to explain why This makes this study irrelevant. I'll skip it here and give the simpler reviews). Ex made more or less random mutations in this enzyme and then examined whether it lost its *original* activity or whether its original activity was strengthened. Ax obviously did not test every possible sequence of this enzyme and I would not ask him to either. Instead, he *estimated* based on testing different mutants of this enzyme what percentage of sequences have that particular function out of a huge amount of possible sequences. This was the elision of the sequence he performed. He limited it by analyzing the structure: he limited himself only to spatial structures that resembled the structure of the enzyme from which he started.

     What he did cannot be used by you as a refutation of the theory of evolution. First, X did not test at all "every few sequences a functional enzyme appears". He tested every few sequences an enzyme with a specific function appears: a *very specific* beta-lactamase. Second, his experiment is not truly representative of what happens in evolution because he limited himself only to spatial structures that resembled his parent enzyme, rather than limiting himself solely to its catalytic activity. In evolution, what changes in the end is the catalytic function, the ability of the enzyme to catalyze a given chemical action. Proteins with completely different spatial structures can perform the same function, but Ax did not include them in his analysis at all. That is, Ax did not count the number of *evolutionarily relevant* sequences that are able to perform the function of the beta-lactamase he worked with. From all this it is clear that his results are not relevant to the theory of evolution and that your use of it is flawed. Not surprisingly, he also does not present anti-evolutionary conclusions in the study itself. This is what his friends at the Discovery Institute did outside of the scientific literature. Such conclusions would most likely be dropped during peer review because they simply do not follow from what he did.

     I warn you in advance: you quoted from the abstract of this study. This suggests to me (again) that you have not read the study itself. If you give me even the slightest sign that you haven't read it, I'm not going to answer your arguments from this study. Also, for the record, I now ask you directly and expect a yes or no answer: did you read Ax's study before you mentioned it?

     In my previous response I challenged you to show that there are *only* two options to explain the origin of life. You stated that you did so and wrote: "I ask again: Does a higher complexity than that of a replicating clock not require planning?". This does not show that there are only two options for explaining the origin of life. It is not at all relevant to the challenge given to you. It's just another topic change. When you see that there are *only* two options for explaining the origin of life, you won't have to answer the question you just asked me at all. You'd just have to drop the theory of evolution and that's it, the God hypothesis won (ha. Good luck with that). In any case, what you said here is also flawed. In fact, you again fail to understand the difference between "can explain" and "is the correct explanation". An intelligent designer can explain how "high complexity" is created, but you have to show that this is the correct explanation, not that it is a *possible* explanation. That is, you have to show that the answer to the question you just asked me is positive. You can't assume it's true.

     Out of all the errors you made regarding what the tryptophan study says, you chose to address only one. I said that "in the abstract [of the tryptophan study] there is no talk at all about the course of the experiment". About this you said that "they actually mentioned that these are two initial functions". Contrary to what I wrote in the previous comment, they actually do talk about what happens in petri dishes (see and learn: this is how we admit by mistake). Contrary to what you are writing now, it is not written in the abstract that these are two initial functions. It says that an example of their model is a gene with two functions that existed before ("One example fitting this model is a preexisting parental gene in Salmonella enterica that has low levels of two distinct activities"). Why did he exist before? Because they created it. This is clear from the study itself, which you did not read, and from which it was quoted to you earlier.

     In the rest of your ramblings, you simply called everything I said evasion and repeated ramblings that were already refuted in my previous comments and in this one as well. You are proud of your ignorance. The main thing is that you have fun.

     May we have Shabbat Shalom in the south.

349. Ethology, I'm still here to refute your claims.

     "The candidate was given examples of molecular systems that were created in evolution during experiments." - But these are not molecular systems but their destruction. How can you call destruction of a work? When the timer of the air conditioner is destroyed, can you call it the creation of a new system? do not make me laugh. And even if there was a new system here, it is still necessary to examine how complex it is. Hachakon in the forehead is also a new creation. But it is not complex at all.

     ” His excuses throughout this discussion just added more ramblings on top of his previous ramblings. The dispute between him and me is about another issue: I'm not ready to respect his bullshit while he's ready to bring up brain crap" - these over and over and repeat them over and over again. I have not yet seen a single substantive answer to medicine from him" - pay attention to your evasions. And then you still claim that I'm the one who dodges? come on.

     "These studies are peer-reviewed by no one who reviews. This journal is for cosmetic purposes, so they look like they are doing science, but it is clearly not a real scientific journal. "- Any peer-reviewed article is considered reliable enough. You avoid it because you are aware of it and therefore try to deny its credibility instead of denying what is said in it. It's funny to me. By the way, according to this logic you also rule out the evolutionary articles. After all, those who criticize them support evolution.

     "Give me a scientific study to document your bullshit. You know, a study published in a scientific journal. "- Please, here is one that tested how many sequences a functional enzyme appears and published in jmb in 2004. But I'm sure you'll rule him out too. I'm guessing right?:

     http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723

     Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10(77) , adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences

     The numbers speak for themselves.

     "Both with you and with your straw scientist, the protein cannot evolve *both* in adaptive evolution *and* in neutralistic evolution. From here it is clear that your answer is once again a cosmetic designed to impress those who do not know scientific language which also fails in that it does not show that you have internalized the criticism of you" - another typical evasion.

     "We are making progress. I understand from this sentence that you are abandoning adaptive evolution as the main mechanism for creating new biological systems. Correct me if I'm wrong." You are wrong. The nonsense you wrote does not stem from what I said. Take reading comprehension classes. "- another evasion. What will?

     .

     "". In practice, you have not shown that these are the only *two* options available. This is an assumption without evidence. Therefore, you have committed another logical fallacy: a false dichotomy. Your logic is just bad. Even if you disprove the theory of evolution, you will have to find evidence for the existence of the intelligent designer. You didn't." - I actually did. I ask again: doesn't a higher complexity than that of a replica watch require planning?

     "There is a very nice explanation for this: the abstract does not talk about the course of the experiment at all," - they actually mentioned that these are two initial functions.

     "In other words, given any study that shows the evolution of a new trait, a creationist will say that the formation of that trait is possible," - clear. After all, it is a fact that it happened. But it is also clear that it is always a very simple feature that does not require a complex system. But we already covered that, didn't we?

     "But properties whose formation has not yet been observed - no. In practice, you were given two good examples of molecular evolution which you tried to sweep under the carpet with weak excuses." - If you call the truth excuses, you are probably the one making excuses.

350. Shmulik,
     I haven't read Wolfram's book, so I don't know how to answer you. I'm sorry you had to wait so long for a response. Study load + sick.

     a point to consider,
     You characterized the discussion between me and xianghua as follows: "The main problem in the discussion between them is to define the size of the probable spatial jump in protein evolution so that a new protein was not created from another protein but underwent its evolution gradually"

     This is not even close to the root of the dispute between me and him. The guy was given examples of molecular systems created by evolution during experiments. The conversation revolved around his fruitless attempt to show that these are not sufficient examples of molecular evolution, by the way of a host of irrelevant distractions. His excuses throughout this debate just added more ramblings on top of his previous ramblings. The dispute between him and I is about another issue: I am not willing to respect his balls-out bullshit while he is willing to bring up these brains over and over again and repeat them over and over again. I have not yet seen a single substantive answer to medicine from him. Whenever he is uncomfortable, he changes the subject.

     xianghua,

     At least update something relevant to this discussion. Instead, you're mostly busy looking "good" with a bunch of cosmetic arguments that don't hold water.

     Regarding my refusal to read the Discovery Institute's study, you wrote: "The aforementioned study has been peer-reviewed. I understand that for you peer-reviewed research is not scientific research." You are so cute when you show ignorance not only of scientific facts, but also of how science works... these studies are peer reviewed by no one who reviews. This journal is for cosmetic purposes, so they look like they are doing science, but it is clearly not a real scientific journal. It is not ranked at all in the Thomson-Reuters scientific journal quality index (Journal Citation Report) and about 10 articles were published in it in all three years of its existence. For comparison, my favorite journal, Nature Structural & Molecular Biology, ranks high in its field in the Journal Citation Report because it is rightfully considered a quality scientific journal with the highest standards that exist. It is published every month and includes dozens of studies and articles in each edition. The differences between a real scientific journal and the crap you call a scientific journal are quite clear. Give a scientific study documenting your bullshit. You know, a study published in a scientific journal.

     Regarding your dichotomy regarding neutralistic evolution/adaptive evolution, you wrote: "I don't know a single evolutionary scientist who would claim that a protein can develop in a neutral or adaptive way when it comes to 400 or 500 ha. It's just too big a jump in sequence space. Therefore you must propose some probabilistic limit. Otherwise we can claim that any probability can come into account. And that's out of the question." I also do not know any evolutionary biologist who would claim that "a protein can develop in a neutral or adaptive way when it is 400 or 500 amino acids". Don't worry, it doesn't help you. I don't know any because what you said lacks any specificity. Scientists like to be very specific when they write down their ideas. For example, they will clarify which case they mean when they say "when it is 400 or 500 amino acids". 400 or 500 amino acids that... what? All this does not prevent you from putting your favorite mistake in the mouth of your scientists. You again present a dichotomy. Both with you and with your straw scientist, the protein cannot evolve *both* in adaptive evolution *and* in neutralistic evolution. From this it is clear that your answer is once again a cosmetic designed to impress those who do not know scientific language which also fails in that it does not show that you have internalized the criticism of you.

     "We are making progress. I understand from this sentence that you are abandoning adaptive evolution as the main mechanism for creating new biological systems. Correct me if I'm wrong." You are wrong. The nonsense you wrote does not stem from what I said. Take reading comprehension classes. This was a beautiful demonstration of creative reading. You read what you want, not what is written.

     "If gradualism is out of the question, we remain with the claim that the organisms were created all at once, that is, by an intelligent planner." I like that you quote the beginning of my words and completely omit the rest of my words where the nonsense you said was refuted and thrown into the trash. I'll do the job you didn't want to do. Here are my words in full: "Where does the intelligent planner come into the picture? He comes into the picture because for you there are only two options: the theory of evolution in its current form or an "intelligent planner" that you call God. In practice, you have not shown that these are the only *two* options available. This is an assumption without evidence. Therefore, you have committed another logical fallacy: a false dichotomy. Your logic is just bad. Even if you disprove the theory of evolution, you will have to find evidence for the existence of the intelligent designer. You didn't. Successfully! A Nobel Prize is waiting for you."

     You said a few things about this argument. First, you said: "You know very well that there are 2 options - at once or gradually". There is no doubt that this is a matter-of-fact answer in which the light of truth shines through every letter in it. You are welcome to show that there are *only* two options and these are the two options you mentioned. Note: There is a trick to this requirement that makes it impossible to do, but creationists can do anything, can't they? 😉 Good luck! A Nobel Prize awaits you. You also wrote that "the whole theory of evolution came to try to solve the probabilistic problem. After all, if all probability comes into account and a protein can be created in one fell swoop, there is no need for evolution anyway." This is of course simply irrelevant. All you can say about intelligent design is that it *could* have created life without going into the "probability problem". It does not show what you are asked to prove: that an intelligent designer *did* create life. You are once again piling up logical fallacies and cosmetic arguments to cover up your own flawed arguments.

     About the tryptophan experiment I said that the new gene that developed in the bacterial population was created from a previous gene that had one function. You tried to claim that the gene from which the experiment started was a gene that had two functions, one weak and one strong. It was also excellent and strong evidence for the theory of evolution, but the researchers did more than that and I'm not going to let you get away with admitting a mistake. In a desperate attempt to show that the nonsense you wrote was accurate you quoted me out of context as if I supported it and even pulled quotes from the abstract of the study itself. Now you are busy piling up more nonsense to cover up your previous mistake. You wrote what I described "not what was listed in the abstract". There is a very nice explanation for this: the abstract does not talk about the course of the experiment at all, but only describes the general model that the researchers developed, the one in their heads, not what happens in the Petri dish. You should have noticed this, but I guess you won't miss a quote mining opportunity when it comes your way. This case demonstrates that you have an inexhaustible reservoir of arrogance that allows you to enter into a discussion about exactly what an article you haven't read says.

     You are again trying to dilute the importance of this study. By saying that "it is a small change in the protein that apparently has a spatial structure similar to the original one". In doing so, you have once again revealed your ignorance of biology. The first mistake I must point out is the mistake that assumes that if small changes have been made to the protein sequence, then the spatial structure will be similar to the original. Erroneous. completely. It's an AB in structural biology, so write down the same fail I gave you in this course before. Tiny changes in the sequence of a protein can lead to small changes in its spatial structure, or massive changes. The magnitude of the change in the spatial structure depends on the location of the change in the sequence and what type of change it is. The second mistake that appears there hides behind the factual error you made in the first mistake. This hidden error is the following common creationist fallacy: for creationists everything we have seen created in the laboratory during evolution is possible and everything else is not possible. In other words, given any study that shows the evolution of a new trait, the creationist will say that the formation of that trait is possible, but traits whose formation has not yet been observed are not. In practice, you were given two good examples of molecular evolution which you tried to sweep under the rug with flimsy excuses.

     "In short, the whole debate now is about neutralist evolution." Definately not. You don't even know what neutral evolution is. You are not even able to read what I write to you about this, as is well demonstrated by the fact that in your message you repeated the same fallacy against which I came out in my previous message. As I wrote above, the dispute between you and me is about another issue: I am not ready to respect your bullshit while you are ready to bring up these brain drains again and again and repeat them again and again. I haven't seen a substantive answer from you yet. Every time you are uncomfortable with what you have been told, you change the subject. You mislead, quote out of context (both me and other sources), say biologically meaningless sentences, attack straw men, ignore what you have been told, often resort to creative reading and answer as you please. I wish that would sum up your exploits during this conversation.

351. right

352. a point to consider,

     There are several differences between reality and hallucination. One of them is predictability.

353. To the Buddha:
     "They didn't find meaning but they found hallucination"
     And for them you found a hallucination and they heard, who defines reality and who defines the hallucination?
     But you may be right from your point of view, I will check all this information more deeply, I have no clue

     To my father
     You are right, it is forbidden to impose any agenda on another public, except in democratic ways as is customary in a democratic country.
     My discussion with Buddha is that there is no absolute truth and everyone lives their own reality

     Shmulik ..

     ??

354. rabbi,
     After what you wrote in another post about African children, didn't you promise to leave the forum?

355. a point to consider,

     I don't think you really understand…

     "I understood you, but all in all I think it's a literal laundry: what do I care if I'm called a man or
     A biological robot if the output is the same for both types of people,"

     Really, what do I care if I was created by God or evolved evolutionarily from bacteria. If you don't mind then please use only correct option. Besides, this understanding changes a person's life in a million ways that this is not the place to expand on them.

     "However, how will this not hidden knowledge change the lives of the believers who found meaning: in philosophy, religion, science or any other field after internalizing the knowledge that they are biological robots"

     They did not find meaning but found hallucination.

     "Should they throw away all their beliefs because science thinks so?"

     They don't need anything. He who has a brain will throw the superstitions in the trash.

356. buddha,
     I understood you, but all in all I think it's a literal laundry: what do I care if I'm called a man or
     A biological robot if the output is the same for both types of people,
     How will this not hidden knowledge change the lives of believers who have found meaning: in philosophy, religion, science or any other field after internalizing the knowledge that they are biological robots, should they throw away all their beliefs because science thinks so?
     Shmulik
     I have many quotes about Einstein if you are so eager then here is one interesting quote:

     ” I see a watch, but I am unable to imagine the watchmaker. Human consciousness is unable to contain the four dimensions, so how can it contain God, for whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are one?"

357. a point to consider,

     "Well, then what does this information add or detract from a person who nevertheless seeks meaning in his life and reaches the imaginary happiness that exists only in his reality and that of people like him, should he subject his life to science and convince him that he is a robot devoid of any meaning and emotions and that all chemical activity in the brain sounds like a sentence Death to human creativity.”

     1. Biological robots are full of emotions. In fact emotions are the main signals that activate them. If you haven't figured it out by now then I don't think you've figured me out.

     2. The aforementioned robots are creative. The fact that a person realizes that he is a biological robot does not make him any less creative. Creativity is a function of programming. For example, I mainly deal with inventions and art.

     3. For those who are really looking for real meaning, the above understanding is super important. The main mistake in the search for meaning is the lack of understanding of what meaning actually is. When one understands what it means the search is over.

     4. There is some justice in your words that the truth sometimes causes the loss of happiness. There are many scientific studies on the subject. On the other hand, the truth also increases happiness. It is a complex issue whose end is not clear.

     5. Regarding the issue of persuasion, we are at war. The waters of "God" fight the waters of "science". The reason for the war is the programming of the parties involved. That's why people wrote so many comments on this post.

358. Avi,
     Artist!
     Let them not trouble us with their faith. to keep her at home.

359. A point to think about - if he keeps the wrong information to himself and does not try to compel others to act on it, and does not change the legislator to separate meat and milk and between men and women, there is no problem. The problem begins when the believer gets confused between laws necessary to maintain public order and the laws required to maintain his control over the rest of the public.

360. A point for thought/Rabbi
     What is not understood?
     He already admitted that it was God. He wrote this explicitly a few posts ago and the fact that he suddenly goes back on it and calls him an intelligent planner shows that there is no one here who comes to argue with a selfish mind. Just as you do not come to be convinced. By the way, I wonder when you will quote Einstein and claim that he was religious.

     The discussion is completely not philosophical but scientific on the one hand and typological on the other. One who explains the process and the other who whines and immediately when things don't work out for him (only in his mind, just like some other people here who don't see things in their mind's eye) he runs to God.

361. buddha,
     So science is right,
     Well, then what does this information add or detract from a person who nevertheless seeks meaning in his life and reaches the imaginary happiness that exists
     Only in his reality and that of people like him, should he subject his life to science and convince him that he is a robot devoid of any meaning and emotions and that all chemical activity in the brain sounds like a death sentence for human creativity.

     Shmulik/Pope
     In my opinion you again missed the essence of the discussion between them, in my opinion he has no problem admitting that the intelligent planner is God
     But in my opinion, the main problem in the discussion between them is to define the size of the reasonable spatial jump in the evolution of proteins so that a new protein is not created from another protein, but undergoes its evolution gradually
     So the whole discussion is ultimately philosophical in the definition of the reasonable jump, because one would define it as gradual
     And the second will define it as improbable but as a new or healthy creation in other words.

     P.S. What about Shogun?

362. A point for thought/Rabbi

     Ethnologika replies to xianghua in the same coin. Sorry, Ethnologica's coin is not fake.
     I try to take the discussion to the level of principle and there xianghua is embarrassing himself.

     He told us that God is the intelligent planner and I ask why then he continues to call God the intelligent planner? Why wash words?

     He told us that God is a scientific theory. I refuted this and he still maintains that it is a scientific theory. It's ridiculous on impossible levels. No one seriously claims that God is a scientific theory since there is no way to disprove God and furthermore, God is not a scientific theory because there is no prediction that God can satisfy. God, by definition, can do whatever he wants.

     He goes on to claim that he has disproved evolution and therefore only the Intelligent Designer theory remains. He still doesn't understand that evolution is a fact. He does not realize that at most he posed challenges to natural selection and yes, disproving natural selection does not strengthen any other theory.

     Beyond the fact that ethnologica provided him with everything he needed, including new genes, and which he continues to deny, he also does not realize that all his arguments are God of the Gaps arguments. He said so himself!

     So in what currency should this man be answered?

363. a point to consider,

     First, it is not me who is right, but science who is right. All the concepts I have described are based on the findings of the latest studies in brain research.

     Second, your questions go beyond the scientific realm. A question like "where is all this leading us" is not scientific.
     The knowledge is not "hidden". I have no idea where you got the concept that this is "hidden" knowledge? It is the most visible knowledge in the world. I do not deal with "acceptance"...

     Third, there is no essential difference between the different people. All people are biological robots regardless of what they think.

364. Buddha
     Ok, let's say you're right, so where does all this lead us?
     And how does this hidden knowledge improve your quality of life and what
     It sets you apart from people
     who don't think like you?
     Shmulik,
     Nothing personal against you, I'd just be happier if you were
     Responds to Sinijua in the same language and denies the spatial jump
     In the evolution of the proteins he talks about or at least something
     in this direction.
     PS: You forgot to mention Shogun

365. A point for thought/Rabbi
     sad. just sad

366. a point to consider,

     Define "people".

     This is where the whole problem begins. I define them as biological robots that are part of nature of course. Since nature has no purpose, people also have no external purpose and therefore can only have internal purposes. These internal goals are merely parts of their calculation system. "Important" refers within the system to the priorities of the computational system and nothing else. It's really not funny.

367. Buddha claimed that:
     "First of all, the term "important" This concept does not really exist. We are all robots looking for different things at different times. Different people "think" they have different preferences at different times. It means that person A thinks that it is now important to search for meaning and Adav B thinks that it is now important to make money."
     Can't get to the bottom of your mind, if the people "think" they have different preferences then it is exactly right
     To define the word: "important", the preferences that people set for certain things determine their importance, therefore the word "important" exists in reality, because there are people and there are different things and there are priorities
     Importance, this whole discussion sounds ridiculous
     Shmulik,
     The discussion between xianghua and anthology is professional and it's like interrupting in the middle of a lesson with unrelated questions

368. Rabbi or point for thought
     Why are you protecting xianghua?
     Why aren't you interested in reading an admission from a God-Fan that God is not a scientific theory, as he claims

     He already admitted that his planner is God, so why does he continue to lie and call him an intelligent planner?
     His arguments, as always, are God of the Gap arguments and such arguments are a disgrace to the intelligentsia.

     He is close to you in your views that yearn for a higher power so you protect him? shame.

     I am very interested to hear whether xianghua has realized the magnitude of his mistake and is not willing to abandon this forum to preachers. To my delight, a few more who really understand evolution are enlisting for this task

369. a point to consider,

     You asked: "Which is better, the search for happiness or the search for meaning in life?"

     Well there are several mistakes in the question. First the concept of "important". This concept does not really exist. We are all robots looking for different things at different times. Different people "think" they have different preferences at different times. This means that person A thinks that it is now important to search for meaning and person B thinks that it is now important to make money.

     Secondly, the concept of "meaning" exists only in our mind and does not exist in my reality, therefore I am not looking for meaning just as I am not trying to escape from the shadow of myself.

370. Wow Shmulik, you are simply a tireless "digger".
     How many times can you dig into xianghua on the question of the age of the world: "Do you believe that God was created about 7000-6000 years ago?" , do you write the messages manually or did you just switch to automation mode vs
     To xianghua, I as a software engineer can recommend some nice tools that will do the job for you, instead of getting tired every time and asking him the same questions he doesn't answer.
     And once again thank you for the honorific title "Rabbi" that you call me, but I spend most of my free time researching the religions and philosophies of peoples who are still far from Rabbi and I still haven't understood the problem of morality that you directed me to Wikipedia
     buddha,
     Question: What is better, the search for happiness or the search for meaning in life?
     A point for thought: happiness cannot be a goal in itself, because happiness is the result of striving towards a goal....

371. Friends, I am duplicating my question on cellular automata

     Ethnology or anyone who knows,
     In the article about Wolfram, it is noted that he claims in his book that he found a computational explanation (that is, one that derives from a computational law) that explains the phenomenon of diversity in nature better than Darwin's principle of natural selection
     http://www.haaretz.co.il/magazine/1.1855208

     Anyone know the subject?
     Is there a more in-depth explanation of what this is about?

372. xianghua,
     We didn't agree to stop saying the term intelligent planner and intelligent planning scientists because if God (as you are Indian) then, without a choice you have to say God's scientists? We talked about it. say god And in this context, there is nothing that cannot be explained with God and that is exactly the problem. and hence
     Do you already admit that God is not a scientific theory?

     Do you realize that God is not a scientific theory because beyond not being able to rule him out, he offers no prediction?

     Don't you realize that your next sentence is embarrassing: "Excellent." We are making progress. I understand from this sentence that you are abandoning adaptive evolution as the main mechanism for creating new biological systems. Correct me if I'm wrong. "? You are wrong and it is only in your mind. It's all at the same time. What's so hard to understand? You are building a straw man and are not willing to move forward. It's wierd.

     Don't you realize that your nonsense sentence: "Simple: if gradation is out of the question, we are left with the claim that the organisms were created all at once, that is, by an intelligent planner." Is this a God of the Gaps claim? Why are you not willing to move forward in the discussion and understand this point

     Don't you realize that weakening one theory does not strengthen another theory, certainly one that is not scientific? The theory of God is not scientific. It cannot be ruled out and it does not offer a single prediction for medicine. Zero predictions. There is no prediction that she will make and evolution will not but exactly the same predictions that evolution will make. God (and you) criticizes us and offers nothing that advances us.

     Do you believe that God was created about 7000-6000 years ago?

373. Buddha.

     "Do you think that "calling people on the intercom and running away" is immoral?"

     It's not like kicking a dog, but it's not really a worthy and heroic act either, is it?

     "The difference between "not satisfied" and "bad" is a huge difference. The first is relative and the second is absolute. If I call you on the intercom and run away, then you're not happy and I'm having fun, but there's nothing "bad" about it.

     You were caught ringing the intercom, but what about the betrayal and theft I described?
     Is it actually a legitimate act as long as the other person doesn't know?

     "Maybe you're bad because you don't understand and approve of children's mischief?"

     Maybe, sure maybe(-:

     "Maybe the pleasure the child derives from the prank is more "important" than being called on the intercom? I do not know. The child will discover that if they catch him, they will make a mess of him. This is the absolute truth, everything else is people's inventions and opinions."

     So as long as he wasn't caught everything is fine? Is this not problematic for you?

374. xianghua,
     We didn't agree to stop saying the term intelligent planner and intelligent planning scientists because if God (as you are Indian) then, without a choice you have to say God's scientists? We talked about it. say god And in this context, there is nothing that cannot be explained with God and that is exactly the problem. and hence
     Do you already admit that God is not a scientific theory?
     Do you realize that God is not a scientific theory because beyond not being able to rule him out, he offers no prediction?
     Do you already understand that weakening one theory does not strengthen another theory?
     Do you believe that God was created about 7000-6000 years ago?

375. maybe yes, maybe no,

     Do you think that "calling people on the intercom and running away" is immoral?

     The difference between "not satisfied" and "bad" is a huge difference. The first is relative and the second is absolute. If I call you on the intercom and run away, then you are not happy and I enjoy it, but there is nothing "bad" about it. Maybe you're bad because you don't understand and approve of children's mischief? Maybe the pleasure the child derives from the prank is "more important" than being called on the intercom? I do not know. The child will discover that if they catch him, they will make a mess of him. This is the absolute truth, everything else is people's inventions and opinions.

376. Ethology,

     "Regarding the research you provided: you are welcome to read the Discovery Institute's "research" for yourself. I have real studies to read." - Funny. The above study has been peer reviewed. I understand that for you peer-reviewed research is not scientific research.

     "Regarding the issue of the apparent need to change the spatial structure of a protein in order for it to perform a new function, you said more nonsense: "Well, that's why I specifically spoke about histone and cytochrome": therefore your argument fails. See the reasoned explanation above that you didn't bother to respond to in a matter-of-fact way at all. "- You are the one who doesn't pay attention to what I say, and even later accuses me of not paying attention. Apparently everything is really relative.

     "Why, then, are you again asking questions that show you still have a dichotomy on the subject? When will you ask questions that show that you have internalized that the two modes, the neutralist and the adaptive, work together in the evolution of genes?" - No. In both cases it is necessary to determine what an unreasonable jump is in order for it to occur in an evolutionary way. For example: I don't know a single evolutionary scientist who would claim that a protein can develop in a neutral or adaptive way when it comes to 400 or 500 ha. It's just too big a jump in sequence space. Therefore you must propose some probabilistic limit. Otherwise we can claim that any probability can come into account. And that's out of the question.

     "You did not quote the continuation of the words: "Evolutionists are not required to assume that *every* step on the way from one protein to another has some adaptive advantage or even some function. It's because of your second hidden assumption," - excellent. We are making progress. I understand from this sentence that you are abandoning adaptive evolution as the main mechanism for creating new biological systems. Correct me if I'm wrong.

     ” Suppose she can't and further suppose that your demand is somehow relevant to the theory of evolution. All you would show under these assumptions is that the theory of evolution is unable to do this. Where does the intelligent planner enter the picture?" - simple: if gradualism is out of the question, we are left with the claim that the organisms were created all at once, that is, by an intelligent planner.

     "He came into the picture because for you there are only two options: the theory of evolution in its current form or an "intelligent planner" that you call God. In practice, you have not shown that these are the only *two* options available. This is an assumption without evidence." - You know very well that there are 2 options - at once or gradually.

     ” Therefore, you have committed another logical fallacy: a false dichotomy. Your logic is just bad. Even if you disprove the theory of evolution, you will have to find evidence for the existence of the intelligent designer. You didn't. "- I actually did. See above. More than that, the whole theory of evolution came to try to solve the probabilistic problem. After all, if all probability comes into account and a protein can be created in one fell swoop, there is no need for evolution anyway.

     "Regarding the tryptophan experiment, you quoted me as saying: "In this paragraph the first stage of the experiment is described, the one that I described in the following words: "In the first stage, they took this gene and through selection on bacteria that carry it they located a mutant gene that not only produces histidine, but also produces tryptophan in the form Very ineffective" - ​​this is not what was written in the abstract. But even if this is true, as mentioned, it is a small change in the protein which apparently has a spatial structure similar to the original one. So again we return to the starting point.

     Basically, the whole debate now is about neutralist evolution. You are welcome to prove your claim. And I, on the other hand, will try to refute it. I don't think that should be a problem.

377. xianghua,

     Saturday is out, huh?

     You wrote: "I still stand behind my words that evolution should indeed ultimately be based on a great leap in the spatial structure"

     This was answered above and I will quote my words again: "For the benefit of the readers, I will summarize your stupid statement regarding the spatial structure of proteins. You originally said that "we will have to change most of the spatial structure to fit the new function". To contradict this, one example is sufficient in which two proteins carry out different reactions, but their spatial structure is largely unchanged. You have been given such an example: the protein ribonuclease A and the protein angiogenin catalyze different chemical reactions, but their spatial structure is very similar. This is the point where, if you were a person of integrity, you would abandon your original claim as false. In response you asked a bunch of irrelevant questions and your attention and the attention of the readers was diverted to this." I will add that now you give a new excuse against the example of angiogenin and ribonuclease A: "In this case not." Beauty. It has a name: special pleading. You gave *zero* evidence for your claim that "we will have to change most of the spatial structure to fit the new function". You throw the counterexample to the side with a poor excuse, in order to preserve your position which is based on zero evidence and is hidden by it. It's "probably because you don't have anything else to sell", as you say.

     From my reasoned explanation of the failure of your test for evolution, from cytochrome C to histone H1, you quoted the concluding words: "Thus your demand that cytochrome C evolve to histone H4 is based on a complete misunderstanding of molecular evolution. Even if it wasn't possible, it doesn't disprove the theory." To that, all you had to say was “Indeed yes. But it's nice that you are discovering the buds of internalization." So you gave a vague answer in the first sentence and unnecessary demagoguery in the second sentence. really? After I threw your rambling argument into the dumps where there are a few more creationist straw men of the theory of evolution is this what you have to say? That I discover "buds of internalization"? Oh no. Answer the question or don't answer at all.

     Regarding the research you provided: you are welcome to read the Discovery Institute's "research" for yourself. I have real studies to read. You are welcome to throw a line about the fact that the studies there are "peer reviewed" (by no one who reviews...) and even call me "closed minded". By the way, you didn't answer me: do you want to debate the correctness of the sentence "maybe the sun won't rise tomorrow"?

     Regarding the issue of the apparent need to change the spatial structure of a protein in order for it to perform a new function, you said more nonsense: "That's why I specifically spoke about histone and cytochrome": therefore your argument fails. See the reasoned explanation above that you didn't bother to respond to in a matter-of-fact way at all. You are welcome not to return to the topic, but I see no reason to stop myself from pointing out your multiple errors.

     Regarding neutralist evolution, you said: “Again, you want to discuss neutralist evolution? Please define what is the maximum jump in the sequence space for such an evolution. Is it up to a neutral accumulation of 100 ha? 50 ha? 300 ha?”. You again completely ignore what was said to you: "You have a dichotomy: either the entire protein sequence was created in the mode of neutralistic evolution or it was all created in the mode of adaptive evolution. Well, creationists have never been good at understanding how evolution works. In practice, the two modes work together in the evolution of new genes." The conclusion from this was clear: "Stop attacking neutralistic evolution and adaptive evolution in the evolution of genes in a dichotomous way. they are not". Why, then, are you again asking questions that show you still have a dichotomy on the subject? When will you ask questions that show you have internalized that both modes, the neutralist and the adaptive, work together in gene evolution?

     Regarding your next quote from my words: "Stop browsing the web. That's your argument. Show that there is no such gradual transition or admit that your argument is a failure." You did not quote the continuation: "Evolutionists are not required to assume that *every* step on the way from one protein to another has some adaptive advantage or even some function. This is because of your second implicit assumption, “that neutralistic evolution does not exist or is unimportant. This assumption is wrong."" Needless to say, your hashing of words does not really show that there is "no functional gradual transition between system a and b". You just gave another "challenge" to the theory of evolution: "Dear evolution," you demand, "make me a plane out of a car." Let's assume she can't and let's also assume (and this is a generous gift, because it's not true) that your demand is somehow relevant to the theory of evolution. All you would show under these assumptions is that the theory of evolution is unable to do this. Where does the intelligent planner come into the picture? He comes into the picture because for you there are only two options: the theory of evolution in its current form or an "intelligent planner" that you call God. In practice, you have not shown that these are the only *two* options available. This is an assumption without evidence. Therefore, you have committed another logical fallacy: a false dichotomy. Your logic is just bad. Even if you disprove the theory of evolution, you will have to find evidence for the existence of the intelligent designer. You didn't. Successfully! A Nobel Prize awaits you.

     Moreover, what you said again makes the same false assumption about the theory of evolution that I attacked in the parts of my speech that you didn't bother to quote. You wrote: "There are no functional gradual steps in turning a car into an airplane, for example, because at some point we will have to add an engine compatible with the airplane, and such an engine requires dozens of components at the same time." Again, you show your tendency to treat neutral evolution and adaptive evolution as two separate things, instead of as two aspects of the same phenomenon: the evolution of genes. If you want to make a scientific theory difficult, be sure to make it difficult while you... understand what it says.

     Regarding the tryptophan experiment, you quoted me as saying: "In this paragraph the first stage of the experiment is described, the one I described in the following words: "In the first stage, they took this gene and through selection on bacteria that carry it they located a mutant gene that not only produces histidine, but also produces tryptophan in a very Not effective." About this you said: "This is exactly what I claimed - the funkia of tryptophan synthesis already existed from the beginning." The problem is that the quote from my words does not mean that the function of tryptophan synthesis already existed in the first place. He says that they made a selection in favor of its creation. It did not exist at the beginning of the experiment but was created during it by, you know, evolution. This is clear to anyone with an understanding even from the quote from the study I brought. I affectionately call what you did "creative reading": you read what you want, not what is actually written.

     until next time…

378. Buddha.

     Regarding the "get up to kill yourself" and the examples you gave, I said that in survival situations morality becomes ambiguous, and maybe even irrelevant.

     "I wouldn't start explaining anything about free choice to a child. Nor does he talk to him about "morality" and "good" and "bad". I would explain to him that he lives in a society where there are other people (truth) that these people have things that make them feel satisfied and there are things that don't. (True) His behavior affects other people (True) They will treat him according to the effect of what he will do to them (True) If he makes them happy then they will in most cases make him feel satisfied and vice versa.

     I would also teach him that there are things he does that will make him feel happiness and joy. Making other people happy will in most cases make him happy himself and vice versa (scientific truth) the company of people who love him will make him happy."

     Ok, replace the word satisfied with the word good, in essence there is no difference.
     What you said is very similar to "If you do bad things to people, they will do bad things back to you, and vice versa".
     And by the way, if the child hangs out with people, what makes them happy and/or makes them happy is calling people on the intercom and running away or kicking cats and dogs or scratching cars or...?
     And what about the things that make him happy but they hurt another person only on the condition that the other person is aware of these actions? Like cheating for example?
     And what about stealing from a very, very, very rich person, so that he will not feel the little that was stolen?
     Is such a theft legitimate?

     "If you think this is a hypocritical and opportunistic view, think again..."

     I really thought again..(-:

     Regarding sado-mazo, obviously I don't consider it immoral-abuse, it's their choice, have fun.

379. Ethology, I'm glad you haven't retired yet, because this is going to be interesting.

     "You are still a quote-mining liar who shows zero interest in reality and is still a demagogue. Bring Nafricha." - And you still use difficult expressions, probably because you have nothing else to sell.

     "You have already been told that your request that evolution will go from cytochrome C to histone H4 is completely arbitrary and based on a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. "- very true for the third time. I still stand by my words that evolution should indeed ultimately be based on a great leap in spatial structure. As you will see later according to the "scaffolding method", simply because she has no other choice.

     ” Therefore your demand that cytochrome C evolve to histone H4 is based on a complete misunderstanding of molecular evolution. Even if it wasn't possible, it doesn't disprove the theory" - actually yes. But it's nice that you discover the buds of internalization.

     "This claim is irrelevant. Even if each and every one of the amino acids of angiogenin and ribonuclease A were different (and they are not, there is about 50 percent similarity between these proteins), we would still be left with the *fact* that there is no need to change the *spatial* structure of the protein to Adapt it to a new function." - In this case no. In other cases, definitely yes.

     "What research? Worse than that, did you say "maybe"? Don't even cite the study if it's just a "maybe". The sun may not rise tomorrow. Want to argue about it?" - here is the study:

     http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1

     "We will have to change most of the spatial structure to fit the new function." In order to disprove this statement, which no structural biologist I know would dare utter unless he was drunk, two proteins with a similar structure that perform a different function must be found. that's it. "- No. That's why I specifically talked about histone and cytochrome. You keep repeating things that have been said over and over again. I wonder why. And yes, I still maintain that evolution should be based on major changes in spatial structure. I'm not going to repeat this topic again, so don't bother.

     "Stop snooping online. That's your argument. Show that there is no such gradual transition or admit that your argument is a failure." - please - there are no functional gradual steps in turning a car into an airplane, for example, because at some point we will have to add an engine compatible with the airplane, and such an engine requires dozens of components at the same time. You can argue that there is no difference between an airplane and a car, but the fact is that both are actually complex systems. Just like biological systems and even more so. Even the great evolutionists themselves use the example of a mousetrap which is clearly a system designed by humans. I mean the analogy is good. And now we will see you refute this claim, which is, as mentioned, the central claim in the theory of intelligent design.

     "Because there is such a thing called "neutralistic evolution" and this thing is important in the evolution of genes. Therefore, when your argument against the theory of evolution assumes that there is no such thing as neutralistic evolution, your argument is not attacking the theory of evolution, but a straw man created in your imagination. “- Again, you want to discuss neutralist evolution? Please define what is the maximum jump in the sequence space for such an evolution. Is it up to a neutral accumulation of 100 ha? 50 ha? 300 ha?

     "
     "In this paragraph, the first stage of the experiment is described, the one I described in the following words: "In the first stage, they took this gene and through selection on bacteria that carry it, located a mutant gene that not only produces histidine, but also produces tryptophan in a very inefficient way." - which is exactly what What I claimed - the funkia of tryptophan synthesis already existed from the beginning.

     "Reality does not agree with you and neither do I. It is not clear to me where you got the arrogance to have a discussion about a study that you have at least not read. Do your homework and get back to me. "- you are welcome to keep your jokes to yourself honey. No, there is no problem disproving evolution. It probably bothers you.

380. Ori,

     I'm satisfied if you read the Wikipedia entry to the end.

     Since we are dealing with science, this is what is written there about free choice according to science:

     "Until the discovery of quantum theory by Einstein and Niels Bohr, science was dominated by the stream of determinism that opposes the existence of free will. According to their concept, man is a product of his genetic load on the one hand, and the environmental influences that affected him on the other hand. Since a person has no influence: neither on his genetic load (because this is determined before his birth) nor on the external environmental influences that affect him - how is free choice possible? One of the thinkers expanded on his words and said that if he had known the condition of the earth at the beginning of its creation, he could have predicted the entire future.
     With the discovery of neurons and their mode of operation in the 20th century, the deterministic concept was strengthened: if the brain controls a person's behavior and decisions, and this brain is composed of units whose activity is determined by some electrical charge threshold (of external origin) - how is the person responsible for his choices? Nor did the current of cognitive psychology, which compared the human brain to a computer, leave any room for free choice.
     The discovery of quantum theory raised a renewed question about determinism: if the observer influences the observation, and if the behavior of the system can only be predicted statistically - perhaps there is free choice after all, and not everything is predetermined. But on the other hand, it can always be said that the influence of the observer on the observation had to occur due to the set of circumstances, and the prediction is statistical only because we do not yet know how to calculate causality in the quantum world. This does not mean that this Torah lacks causality."

     It seems to me that you did not understand either me or Wikipedia.

     The answer you gave that appears at the beginning of the entry explains why people are confused when they say "free will". It's like, for example, the definition of God in Wikipedia:

     "God, according to various beliefs, is a supreme being who created the world and leads it."

     Also, the definition you brought does not pass the logical test because there "free will" = "...they are the fruit of an independent and free will..." That is, the word "desire" is used to define the word "desire".

     It might help if you manage to define the word "will" and the word "free"...

     The word desire has two relevant definitions in Wikipedia.

     According to psychology: "a cognitive process in which an individual decides to perform an action".

     According to "Motivation": "The set of processes that stimulate, direct and maintain human behavior towards a certain goal".

     I accept the second definition. The first definition is unscientific to me also because psychology is not a science (even though it has scientific elements in some areas of research) and mainly because I do not accept the psychological definition of "deciding" and "individual" and denying the existence of the "I". In my opinion "I am supreme" is an illusion just like free will.

     A Buddhist teacher would simply ask you "Who is the one who decides"? If there is no decision maker, no decision can be made. Therefore the computer does not decide and neither do you. The concept of "decision" is another variant of the ego illusion.

381. buddha,

     "You did not understand me. Think that the machine does not throw a dice but performs a quantum observation that returns a random number on each try. There is no way to predict the result of the machine. Does she have free will? How are you different from the machine?
     The principle of prediction is not at all relevant to the matter."

     Is the human brain a machine that makes a quantum observation and returns a random number (say when you ask a person to pick a random number)? If that were the case then I would agree that there is no room for free will in man.

     Definition of free will from Wikipedia:
     Free choice or free will are expressions that indicate that a person's actions and decisions are the fruit of an independent and free will, and are not predetermined and dictated by deterministic causality, nor by fate, or higher powers. According to this concept, a person has decision-making power and freedom of choice regarding his actions and the possibility to control them, thereby determining to a certain extent the course of his life.

     I refer to the second part of the definition, that a person's actions are not predetermined. The mind is still a deterministic machine, but despite this a person's actions are not predetermined.

     Again from Wikipedia, scientific determinism:
     If the state of a system at a certain time is known and all the laws of nature were known, it would be possible to predict the course of events until the end of generations.

     I have already explained why I think this is not true. Note that my objection has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. Even in a completely deterministic world, given humans, it will not be possible to predict the course of events until the end of generations. This is a new animal, and I say that it might be called "free choice".

     The idler's argument (again from Wikipedia): "It was said that I am going to be tested tomorrow. Someone smart, with unlimited predictability, predicted the grade I would get (the grade is event A), and wrote the grade on a note (what is written on the note is event B). I cannot change what is written on the note, and since I am sure it is the same as the grade I will receive, I cannot change the exam grade either. If so, I should cancel (and find out tomorrow that what is written on the note, as well as the actual grade, is "failed")."

     We will agree that if you had gone to the test then you would not have failed, so you should not give up. If so, in front of you is a folded note with the score of your test written on it, so there is really no point in going to the test, so to speak. I know that if I looked at the note before the test, I could worry that the prediction would be wrong, so, with the understanding that the word of the futures contract is not the last word, I will take the test.
     What about a person who truly believes that he has no ability to influence and that events can be predicted until the end of generations, does he have any reason to take the test and avoid failing?

     Maybe yes maybe not, but sure maybe,

     "You provided me with a refutation criterion, I refuted" - in which we will be more precise. I provided a rebuttal criterion and you think you have disproved it. Maybe you're right, maybe the criterion really has been disproved/irrelevant, but I can't give the last word and state that the criterion has been disproved/irrelevant because what to do, I'm aware that I don't have enough knowledge on the subject. It is precisely for this reason that I did not bring criteria that I think will disprove evolution, but criteria that a biologist wrote.

     "An electrically charged body moves through a magnetic medium, the direction of its movement changes perpendicularly to the direction of the magnet. If you create a magnetic field from your floor to the ceiling, and throw an electrically charged ball into the middle of the room, it will move right or left, even though intuitively you would expect it to be pulled up or down (because in this particular case the magnetic field that is applied is in an up or down direction."

     - I do not agree in this specific case that the movement of the ball is not intuitive (which already shows you one big problem with relying on intuition, which is that different people perceive concepts and ideas in different ways). The case you described may seem counter-intuitive because it is more convenient to think of arrows as the direction in which the force is applied (simply because an arrow is a marker of direction) and also because before our acquaintance with the magnetic field we were familiar with the electric field where the arrows of the field do show the direction of the force. The only thing that might be counterintuitive about the magnetic field is that it's supposed to be asymmetric, and maybe that's what you meant (why to the right and not to the left?).

     "Mostly intuitive, and I explained to you why you can rely on intuition in the case of a theory." - Others have already answered you, but I will just add that all you said is that a theory is not necessarily true, you did not explain why intuition is a reliable tool for testing the reliability of theories. You wrote that intuition is an integral part of our senses. Sense by definition is the ability to receive information and convert it into signals in the brain. And so while senses can be misleading they are of course useful because they allow us to receive information from the environment and process it. Intuition is not a sense in this sense and in some cases is really useless. You have a hard time seeing evolution in your mind's eye because in your short life the species seem static to you. How come there is no information that comes from the environment and is processed in the brain, but rather a failure of the brain to examine ideas objectively. You could just as well flip a coin and decide based on the result whether you accept the evolution or not.

382. Ethnology or anyone who knows,
     In the article about Wolfram, it is noted that he claims in his book that he found a computational explanation (that is, one that derives from a computational law) that explains the phenomenon of diversity in nature better than Darwin's principle of natural selection
     http://www.haaretz.co.il/magazine/1.1855208

     Do you know the subject?
     Is there a more in-depth explanation of what this is about?

383. Maybe yes maybe not, but sure maybe,

     It seems you didn't understand me. I will try to answer you

     "...I don't think killing is "good" but I won't judge myself morally if I kill someone in self-defense..."

     Good for whom? When? Who decides what is good? What is moral? It may be "good" for you and it may not be "good" for the person you kill. If you start testing the concept, you will very quickly reach "get up for your slaying, your back for your slaying" etc. Is it morally permissible for Israel to bomb terrorists in Gaza even if they harm children? Is it morally permissible for terrorists to harm Israeli children in order to fight the occupation? Or only in soldiers? What people define as "morality" is simply a collection of nonsense.

     "I still haven't understood why this is a lie, you and I know that there are no colors, so it would be a lie to teach him what is "blue" and what is "red"?"

     "Blue" is the name of a chemical property of a substance that absorbs light rays of a certain frequency.
     If you define "morality" as "a wrong philosophical explanation that people have invented to explain biological forms of behavior" then it's not a lie but I guess that's not what you meant.

     "Do you really want to tell a small child that he is a robot? Won't that drive him crazy? Can he even understand it?”

     It won't drive him crazy and he will be able to understand it more easily if you explain it to him correctly according to his age. see below.

     "And what does this mean about "taking responsibility" for his actions?
     If you really really tell a child the whole truth and only the truth, one day he will beat someone and tell you that he is just a robot with no control over his actions, what will you do then?"

     I wouldn't start explaining anything to a child about free choice. Nor does he talk to him about "morality" and "good" and "bad". I would explain to him that he lives in a society where there are other people (truth) that these people have things that make them feel satisfied and there are things that don't. (True) His behavior affects other people (True) They will treat him according to the effect of what he will do to them (True) If he makes them happy then they will in most cases make him feel satisfied and vice versa.

     I would also teach him that there are things he does that will make him feel happiness and joy. Making other people happy will in most cases make him happy himself and vice versa (scientific truth) the company of people who love him will make him happy.

     I guess you get the gist. It is basically the same as your "morality" but without lying.

     If you think this is a hypocritical and opportunistic view, think again...

     Now for a more interesting topic. You wrote: "In no case will it be moral to mistreat a certain person". At first glance, that is a statement that everyone seems to agree with, but is it really about morality? First the BDSM community will disagree with you. This is a community of mature people who abuse each other... Everyone agrees that relationships between a sadist and a masochist are completely moral relationships. The sadist's desire and the pleasure he derives from abuse are legitimate. You can't blame a person for enjoying doing something. That's just how it's programmed. What makes the abuse immoral is the victim's lack of consent. In fact, this is equivalent to any act that person A does to person B and serves the desires of person A and hurts person B. Therefore robbery and theft are also immoral. Some will say that exploiting workers for example is also immoral and some will say that it is not. Some will say that physical abuse is moral when it is aimed at certain groups, etc. In short, everything depends on context and society.
     What would be more accurate is that in most cases an act of physical abuse will cause most viewers a very unpleasant feeling because of their involuntary identification with the victim and they will act (even by force) to stop it. Look, for example, at the multitude of angry reactions to every article describing the abuse of animals by some psychopath. The hundreds of responders would immediately execute him.
     I happen to empathize with their emotional response. I am only aware of the fact that there is nothing moral about it.

384. Buddha.

     "Those who understand the process of evolution understand that man has no "reason" for anything. There is no rational reason for a person to want to live. He is a biological robot that is programmed to want all kinds of things. Concepts such as "good" and "bad" and morality are derived from the above programming. In fact, good and bad are measured in each person according to parameters that support his survival."

     I don't think killing is "good" but I won't judge myself morally if I kill someone in self-defense.
     I also don't think that stealing is a "good" thing, but if I have no food and no one to help me, I will go and steal.
     But note, this will not make the theft "good", simply that I have "extenuating circumstances".
     So in a war of survival, some of the concepts of "good and bad" are no longer valid or become vague, it is true, but still, for example, under no circumstances would it be moral to mistreat a certain person, or rape for example.
     There are concepts of good and bad that are very, very solid and do not depend on the parameters that support human survival.

     "Also, during evolution, specific mechanisms have developed in the brain that encourage cooperation between close people in the same group. It also exists in monkeys and in various forms in other animals as well. The most obvious example is, for example, a strong emotional barrier that most people have from physically harming a person who is in the same space with them. Many studies have been done on the subject and I will not list them here, but I will give only one example. It would be much more difficult for a person to stab another person in the same room to death than to push a button that would set off a bomb that would kill 1000 people from a distance. What does this say about morality?"

     It doesn't say anything about morality, it just means that most people are immoral.
     And I guess if you ask that person if he was acting morally in choosing to push the button, he'll say no.
     If he tells you yes, I recommend you smile a warm and loving smile, and elegantly walk away from the place, he is completely psychotic.

     "On the basis of the above-mentioned mechanisms, people invented philosophical explanations and called them "morality". Just like they invented "God"."

     Note that morality is often contrary to these mechanisms, as you said, it will be much more difficult for a person to stab one person than to blow up 1000, but morality tells us that we are obligated to cancel the emotional mechanism and stab this person so that the 1000 will live.
     Of course, morality does not mean that it is moral to kill, but what if killing one person is one "bad act"/"sin" and killing 1000 people is 1000 "sins"?

     "Why is this understanding important? Just like in the case of God. Truth matters.

     In order to create a society of people who will behave in a certain way that you define as moral (mainly to avoid violence and actions that harm others and society) it will be very ineffective to talk to the children about morality. It's just like teaching religious education. Religious education is no more effective than secular education. There is also violence, crime, etc. there. In fact, moral education is religious education for all intents and purposes because it teaches the children an irrational principle and arbitrary rules of behavior are built based on this principle.

     There are other better methods in education and this is not the place to detail them, but the first principle in education is truth. If you teach a child things based on a lie even if you yourself believe it it will not work. the lie have no legs."

     First of all, I still don't understand why this is a lie, after all you and I know that there are no colors, so it would be a lie to teach him what is "blue" and what is "red"?
     Second thing, even if it is a lie, you and I believe that there really is no free choice for a person, can you really/want to tell a small child that he is a robot? Won't that drive him crazy? Can he even understand it?
     And what does this mean about "taking responsibility" for his actions?
     If you really really tell a child the whole truth and only the truth, one day he will beat someone and tell you that he is just a robot with no control over his actions, what will you do then?
     So I, from the beginning, will tell the child that there is a free choice, and that there is a moral to strive for.
     If he tells me at some point in his life that I lied to him or that I am still lying to him because "good" and "bad" do not exist in reality.
     So I will give him a ringing contradiction and explain to him that he has no reason to complain for 2 reasons
     1. Because I didn't do anything bad, because "bad" doesn't exist in reality.
     2. Because I'm a robot.. Oops! I have a completely deterministic flick split.
     It seems to me that then he will understand why I "lied".

     P.S. What was said about a contradiction to the child is not a real part of my perception regarding education, but only a joke.
     I was never beaten as a child and I will never beat my children, not even an "educational conflict", I do not think that any violence can be educational.

385. Maybe yes maybe not, but sure maybe,

     I will explain.

     What is the difference between an atheist and a religious person (eg a Jew)?

     The religious believes that there is a superhuman being who created the world and told man how to live.

     The atheist understands that there were once people who invented an idea called "God" and wrote a story about it and it's just a story.

     For the atheist "God" exists but it exists as an imaginary idea.

     Assuming you are an atheist, do you think it is "important" to understand that "God" is an imaginary story made up by people or is it irrelevant whether you really believe that God exists or not?

     I guess you will agree that it is important for us to understand that God is just an imaginary story.

     (I mean God as he is described in the various religions. This does not deny the possibility that there is a supreme power that created the big bang and never interacted with humans).

     "Morality" and the importance of "man" are just like God. In fact most people who define themselves as atheists are not really atheists. They actually believe in "Adam".

     Those who understand the process of evolution understand that man has no "reason" for anything. There is no rational reason for a person to want to live. He is a biological robot that is programmed to want all kinds of things. Concepts such as "good" and "bad" and morality are derived from the above programming. In fact, good and bad are measured in each person according to parameters that support his survival.

     Also, specific mechanisms in the brain have developed during evolution that encourage cooperation between close people in the same group. It also exists in monkeys and in various forms in other animals as well. The most obvious example is, for example, a strong emotional barrier that most people have from physically harming a person who is in the same space with them. Many studies have been done on the subject and I will not list them here, but I will give only one example. It would be much more difficult for a person to stab another person in the same room to death than to push a button that would set off a bomb that would kill 1000 people from a distance. What does this say about morality?

     On the basis of the above mechanisms, people invented philosophical explanations and called them "morality". Just like they invented "God".

     Why is this understanding important? Just like in the case of God. Truth matters.

     In order to create a society of people who will behave in a certain way that you define as moral (mainly to avoid violence and actions that harm others and society) it will be very ineffective to talk to the children about morality. It's just like teaching religious education. Religious education is no more effective than secular education. There is also violence, crime, etc. there. In fact, moral education is religious education for all intents and purposes because it teaches the children an irrational principle and arbitrary rules of behavior are built based on this principle.

     There are other better methods in education and this is not the place to detail them, but the first principle in education is truth. If you teach a child things based on a lie even if you yourself believe it it will not work. the lie have no legs.

386. Buddha, I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but if so:

     What does it matter to me if morality is originally an evolutionary mechanism?
     And what is the meaning of morality is an illusion? Do you mean that the concepts of good and bad do not really exist in reality?
     If so, what does it matter? Color doesn't exist either, and taste doesn't exist, and smell doesn't exist, is that why we stop using the words blue, delicious and pleasant?
     How do I "program" the child effectively? Do we perform genetic engineering/brain surgery on children?
     Morality is bought by actions and speech.

     Did I get your point? Or did I glide to distant regions?

387. Maybe yes maybe not, but sure maybe;
     Because words have power and you are using the word faith incorrectly. And the discussion is about my claim that a layman has no ability to refute or judge the practice of advanced teachings and evolution is such a teaching. That's my argument and that's what the discussion is about. Therefore, sentences such as "I don't see in my mind..." are white noise.

     Shogun or Rabbi Nachman or a point for thought,
     It's embarrassing if you don't understand why I'm quoting from the Torah. You claimed that the Torah "invests in learning morality" and I showed the "morality" that exists in the Torah.

     By the way, the Torah invests, really? In which universe does the Torah work and invest? Does she get paid? I know that people invest and work, but with you, the Torah does that, oh well.

388. Ahhh, I haven't been here for about a week due to school pressure and I see that there have been a lot of comments in the sea. I will still respond to xianghua, because now on the weekend I have free time. This is going to be a long response. Those who are still following, enjoy.

     xianghua,

     You are still a quote-mining liar who shows zero interest in reality and is still a demagogue. Next breakdown.

     "In the specific example I gave. Although I could only qualify this for the two proteins I gave as an example (cytochrome c and histone h4), but because according to the theory of evolution many proteins *indeed were supposed to undergo* a major change in their spatial structure, it turns out that my claim is absolutely correct on a principle level."

     You have already been told that your request that evolution will go from cytochrome C to histone H4 is completely arbitrary and based on a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. I will quote my words again: "The evolution of genes progresses mainly by copying segments from a gene or existing genes to a new gene and the gradual evolution of the copied segment in order to adapt more and more to its role. Therefore, the new gene will be entirely homologous to another gene (and therefore the protein will also be entirely homologous to the other protein) or a part of the new gene will be homologous to a certain gene and another part of the new gene will be homologous to another gene (and the protein will show a similar pattern). Bottom line, the products of molecular evolution always have homology to the sequences from which they arose. You ask me to explain to you how two genes/proteins with *no* homology between them can be formed from each other. This request reveals a complete lack of understanding of how molecular evolution works." Therefore your demand that cytochrome C evolve to histone H4 is based on a complete misunderstanding of molecular evolution. Even if it wasn't possible, it doesn't disprove the theory, which isn't just limited to your favorite straw man version of molecular evolution.

     Also, I will be generous with you and assume that there is some protein that is able to bind DNA like histone H4 (but it is *not necessarily* histone H4) and that this protein is homologous to cytochrome C or part of it was homologous to cytochrome C, as expected if it is an evolutionary derivative of it. As you have been shown with the protein ribonuclease A and the protein angiogenin, the spatial structure does not need to change much for a different function to take place. Your argument begins with a misunderstanding of evolutionary biology and ends with a misunderstanding of biochemistry and structural biology. Do your homework, get back to me later, and maybe do it without trying every moment to divert the discussion topic to irrelevant things.

     "I noticed that you also ignored my second argument against yours. Even if the spatial structure of both is similar, the sequential distance may be very different, so here too it is not possible to gradually move to another sequence. That's why I also asked you how many khas separate them, I haven't received an answer yet."

     This claim is irrelevant. Even if each and every one of the amino acids of angiogenin and ribonuclease A were different (and they are not, there is about 50 percent similarity between these proteins), we would still be left with the *fact* that there is no need to change the *spatial* structure of the protein to Adapt it to a new function. I am going to repeat this point again in a moment because you do not give up the opportunity to slip away from admitting a mistake.

     "If this is not enough, it turns out in a study from 2010 that maybe even in homologous proteins (sequentially similar), there is not necessarily a gradual transition. And it turns out that I covered all the possibilities."

     What research? Worse than that, did you say "maybe"? Don't even cite the study if it's just a "maybe". The sun may not rise tomorrow. Want to argue about it?

     "Take for example the proteins alpha hemoglobin and myoglobin, they both have a similar structure and almost the same function (oxygen transfer), but both differ by almost 70% in their sequence and are not actually considered homologous."
     And they are an example of why? To the fact that you are again trying to confuse arguments by misrepresenting familiarity with the material? enjoy Won't work for you and I'm not going to let you change the subject. For the second time in this response: this is the nonsense you said about the spatial structure of proteins: "We will have to change most of the spatial structure to fit the new function". In order to disprove this statement, which no structural biologist I know would dare utter unless he was drunk, two proteins with a similar structure that perform a different function must be found. that's it. it's done. You have been given an example of such two proteins. Your claim has been refuted. Bickering about the similarity of the sequence between these proteins and the like will not rescue your charge from his pit. You chattered at first about the spatial structure. You received an answer regarding spatial structure. Your whole attempt to divert the discussion to other areas is a futile attempt to distract, not mine, but the public's. Dime demagogy that doesn't work on those who know the material.

     "In other words, in order to prove my claim, it is necessary to show that there is no functional gradual transition between system a and b. And this is the root of the current dispute between the scientists of intelligent design and the scientists of evolution."

     Stop snooping on the net. That's your argument. Show that there is no such gradual transition or admit that your argument fails. Evolutionists are not required to assume that *every* step along the way from one protein to another has some adaptive advantage or even some function. This is because of your second implicit assumption, “that neutralistic evolution does not exist or is unimportant. This assumption is wrong."

     "And that's why I ask for the 11th time, are there functional transitions between one complex system and another?"
     You were given two examples of such transitions in two different studies published this year. Your excuses and lies (yes, there are lies) against these studies will be reviewed later in the response.

     "Stand by your words and prove that I assumed wrong."
     Ahem, why is your implicit assumption "that neutralist evolution does not exist or is unimportant" wrong? Quite simply: because there is such a thing called "neutralistic evolution" and this thing is important in the evolution of genes. Therefore, when your argument against the theory of evolution assumes that there is no such thing as neutralistic evolution, your argument is not attacking the theory of evolution, but a straw man created in your imagination. In addition, in light of your words to the Buddha about neutralistic evolution, I feel the need to mention something I already said earlier, "You have a dichotomy: either the entire protein sequence was created in the mode of neutralistic evolution or it was all created in the mode of adaptive evolution. Well, creationists have never been good at understanding how evolution works. In practice, the two modes work together in the evolution of new genes." Stop attacking neutralistic evolution and adaptive evolution in gene evolution dichotomously. they are not.

     "If we follow this line, creating a hole in a car windshield is adding a complex system to the car (ventilation system). Do you agree with this statement? Can you suggest a division between them?"
     I'm not going to honor your repetition of a demagogic argument you've already made before with an original answer. Below is a quote from my answer to this ridiculous point. "Demagogy in a penny. First, actually, even in the real world breaking something can be useful. Try to activate the fire alarm during a fire without breaking the glass behind which the button is located. Breaking the glass creates a "new system" with which you can save people. In a similar way, you don't necessarily "break" anything when you delete something from the genome. There are so many things that can be created by deleting things from the genome. For example, it is possible to combine genes by deleting the space between them so that both are under the same control. It can be adaptive, depending on environmental conditions and the genes involved. You are simply a demagogue who chooses his examples according to the amount of sand he wants to throw in the eyes of the audience." Do not worry. We will also get to your no less demagogic answer to these things.

     On the example I gave of a fire alarm in which the button is broken, you wrote: "It's nice that you added the quotation marks." You understand for yourself that this is not a complex system." Another demagoguery, as usual in the holy place. The quotation marks indicate that these words are a quotation of your own words, of an expression that you are using. This is done to emphasize that my use of this phrase is equivalent to your use of it. It's a normal literary tool that you use for your demagogic needs. how much fun Give a factual answer or don't give one at all.

     Regarding my words on the subject of combining genes as something that creates a new system, you wrote: "It is also possible to combine a watch with a calculator. But there is no creation of a new system here." If so, it turns out that according to you, the famous Casio watch-calculator is not a new system, but an old fashioned watch and calculator that has existed since time immemorial, probably since the creation of the world. Only God knows how you define "system". From now on, when you say "system" add some description word so that they understand that you mean some meaningless ethereal thing that only you understand, something like "Creationist system" will be fine. Alternatively, give a meaningful definition for "system".

     Regarding the fact that in Lansky's experiment a new system was created by duplicating different segments, you wrote: "Duplication of an existing system. No creation of a new system". Lansky's 40 generation bacteria had a gene called citT that was under the control of a sequence called rnk. Did Lansky's 1st generation bacteria have such a system? No. So a new system was created here. At most, I'm willing to admit that Lenski's experiment did not create a new "creationist system", whatever that is. satisfied? 😉

     You tried in your previous comments to downplay the importance of the study published in Science that documented the creation of a completely new gene from a previous gene. You claimed that the original gene had a weak function and all that the researchers recorded was the increase of this function. It's no less important and interesting, but they did more than that and I'm not going to let you get away with admitting a blatant mistake. For your part, you repeatedly choose to ignore facts and quote out of context from everyone who comes by. You've tried to mine citations from the study itself, you've tried to mine citations from my comments and now you're mining citations from a popular science article about this study. Either you are a liar who read the study and choose to deceive the public about its contents, or you are unable to obtain this study, in which case, it is not clear where you have the arrogance to argue with those who read it. No problem, I'm here to fix it. Below is the relevant paragraph from the study itself:

     "In a strain lacking trpF, we selected a spontaneous hisA mutant of Salmonella enterica that maintained its original function (HisA) but acquired a low level of TrpF activity sufficient to support slow growth on a medium lacking histidine and tryptophan, representing the innovation of the IAD model (see table S1 for strains). Two mutations were required for this innovation: First, an internal duplication of codons 13 to 15 (dup13-15) gave a weak TrpF activity but led to a complete loss of HisA activity. A sub-sequent amino acid substitution [Asp10→Gly10 (D10G)] restored some of the original HisA activity (10).”
     Näsvall, J., Sun, L., Roth, JR, & Andersson, DI (2012). Real-Time Evolution of New Genes by Innovation, Amplification, and Divergence. Science, 338(6105), 384–387.
     In this paragraph, the first stage of the experiment is described, the one I described in the following words: "In the first stage, they took this gene and through selection on bacteria that carry it, located a mutant gene that not only produces histidine, but also produces tryptophan in a very inefficient way." Abandoned ship as it sinks. Just thank you for being wrong and that's it, and try to find another demagogic excuse against this study.

     In a particularly amusing way, this paragraph not only demonstrates that before the bacteria developed a single-function protector a dual-function gene. It also did this by duplicating an amino acid sequence and substituting one amino acid for another. There are other mutations documented in this study, and they are all fascinatingly interesting. Like the mutations described in the paragraph above, they do not constitute "genetic destruction", so don't go in that direction the next time you try to pour demagoguery on the public against another wonderful example of evolution.

     To your question, "Do you retract this claim?" I answer a simple answer: why would I do that? Because you quoted a popular science article that serves your purpose by omitting some of the research when it simplified it? enjoy Reality does not agree with you and neither do I. It is not clear to me where you got the arrogance to have a discussion about a study that you have at least not read. Do your homework and get back to me. You still get failed in any basic biology course.

389. maybe yes..
     You are talking nonsense. Everyone knows that Chuck Norris is the strongest. He knows not only how to produce antimatter, he also knows how to separate matter and antimatter. And there are rumors that when it makes tension then it does not go up and down but the earth is the one that moves down/up.

390. By the way, I changed Shogun to a point for thought, in order to attribute more meaning to my comments (I'm still not the rabbi you think then, you can breathe easy 🙂

391. Maybe yes maybe not, but sure maybe,

     I think you are completely wrong about morality. The morality you believe in is a type of illusion very similar to religion. (an irrational belief in something that does not exist that developed from an attempt to explain mechanisms that exist in reality).

     Morality is a collection of biological phenomena that evolved evolutionarily in the brain of several mammals (mainly in humans) and nothing else. Brain research today provides detailed explanations for the phenomenon. Morals and values ​​are only ideas.

     The key to understanding is, as mentioned, an urge to investigate the truth with scientific tools.

     If you are interested in getting a certain public (namely the children at school for example) to behave according to certain patterns (for example to avoid violence and harming others) you need to think about the most effective way to change and design their "programming".

392. Maybe yes maybe not, but sure maybe
     You are right, my statistics probably do not represent the entire cross-section of the global Jewish population,
     But the very fact that Judaism insists very much on moral studies such as for example in Rambam's Halachot Tshuva
     which defines the basic qualities required of every Jew before he becomes a Jew who observes mitzvot, for example: humility + modesty + free love and respect for others, this only shows that morality is very nameless.
     Shalani, in my opinion, is worth teaching in any educational institution before they start teaching the normal subjects
     Shmulik,
     I can't understand why you post wikipedia citations for the laws of slavery and wife in biblical times
     Since when are Wikipedia Sanhedrin judges
     And how does it relate to the present and reality of today? This is of course not the morality I meant, for some reason I have the impression
     You're a smartass...

393. Shmulik.

     You're right about my belief in determinism, I just don't understand why you're locked on the AMN root so negatively.
     In Hebrew I can use this root in favor of a religious, interpersonal matter, the correctness of things (all things) and maybe more..
     Really, the whole discussion-debate around the word "believer" is pointless, especially in light of the fact that you understand my intentions.

     Regarding morality, all I'm saying is that morality has the highest value, if at the same time we can also teach them evolution, hallelujah, I don't mind, but its value is secondary to morality, that's all.
     And of course Superman is stronger than the Hulk, what kind of stupid question is this?

394. Maybe yes maybe not, but sure maybe,
     Why not be a troublemaker? You do not believe in determinism, but (if I read you correctly) you accept the idea of ​​determinism and if someone shows you otherwise, you will be convinced and this is the fundamental difference. The believer will not be convinced by anything in any way whatsoever

     I think you've missed my point again or you're just being lazy. The point is that today the theories require much more knowledge and are completely disconnected from intuition and the layman has no ability to argue against or for it.

     Between the dispute about the interpretation of quantum mechanics and the acceptance of evolution there is nothing and nothing. None of the commentators here or there doubt that quantum mechanics is the most accurate theory we have now for predicting reality (note, I'm not claiming that it won't be replaced one day by another) and I don't know anyone who claims that because he doesn't see in his mind's eye an electron spread between two Quantum states, Newton's theory is better.

     In order for you to reject a theory, you must have enough facts and evidence around which you can explain why you rejected it. The common layman has no ability to do this and indeed, all I have read from you is that you do not see in your mind's eye... so do not accept the theory of evolution, but with all due respect, pulling out Shechtman and hoping that you will be a worthy example, for example, is not serious.

     Again, you are welcome to develop an opinion on whatever you like and in the case of quantum mechanics, I have no idea why you decided what you decided and based on what, but sometimes it is more respectful to say I don't know. It's hard for people to remain ignorant and admit it, so they invent solutions for themselves that are linked to the way they would like reality to be, but with all due respect, reality doesn't care what they want and most of the time, by the way, these are the same people who run away to God's solution, if there are holes in the theory. The so-called God of the Gaps

     Regarding morality, well. Is there no way to also teach them not to curse teachers or rape and also teach evolution? Is this what the discussion has degenerated into? Who is stronger, Superman or the Hulk?

395. Shmulik.

     "But from an authority I would not expect to read the sentence, and I do not take it out of context: "I do not believe in evolution" since evolution is not a religion or a person, and therefore the sentence is not correct from a syntactic point of view nor from a principle point of view."

     What do I say and what will I speak? OK, I've tried to explain the correct context to you a few times now, but you insist, so oh, OK.

     "No one cares what you are able or unable to see in your mind's eye. Do you see an electron as a wave spread throughout space or is it in two quantum states? And this is exactly related to the issue of everyday reality versus the complexity of contemporary scientific theory which I described in the previous post. Our intuition is not built to understand billions of years or sub-microscopic sizes, therefore your Aristotelian argument is not valid and it certainly should not be written with authority."

     At the moment, many scientists support the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, I do not support the interpretation that claims there is no determinism, because I believe in determinism (here, too, would you associate the word "believer" with a religion or a person?)
     Or if you want, I don't support Copenhagen because I don't see in my mind the electron or any other particle as being in 2 places at the same time, why? Because I believe in determinism and according to my perception a physical entity can only be in one place at some specific time, just like light can only have one wavelength at a certain time.
     I'm not saying that the probabilities for the electron states are wrong, because the fact is that it works, I simply believe that in the future we won't need probabilities because we will discover the hidden reasons/variables that lead to these states, and the electron will no longer be in "two places at the same time", but in one specific place at one specific time .
     Or the electron is a type of wave that is affected in a certain way and therefore appears as a particle when it passes through a single slit.
     I don't know, maybe they will discover something completely different that we don't imagine and we will have to come up with a specific concept for the action/mode of existence of the quanta, in any case, I believe that in the end we will discover that the quanta also work deterministically.
     What do you say about that?
     Am I obliged to choose the prevailing scientific approach/interpretation?
     Why? Because I'm not an authority on quantum theory?
     And if I constantly support the prevailing approach, where exactly does that place me between "thoughtful freedom" and "thoughtful slavery"?

     "Why does this actually happen with evolution? Here is their explanation to Asimov: https://www.hayadan.org.il/asimovkofim_101980/"

     I just noticed now, you keep mixing up Judaism, as if I believe in it (although I appreciate it and do study it, as a person who loves and is proud of his Jewish culture, not as a believer)
     What is the connection between not accepting evolution and religious attitudes and beliefs? There is no connection.

     Making them human means that not every day a child curses the teacher at best, and does not rape/stab/abuse at worst.
     It is to make them human

     "And a final comment regarding the sentence: "The main thing is to make them human beings, then intelligent human beings". In my book, to be "human" is to have even a superficial acquaintance with the theory of evolution."

     And in my book, being human means not giving in to lusts that cause physical and mental harm to others.
     And I'm begging you, don't take the word "lust" and make a dig at the fact that I'm supposedly against desecrating the Sabbath and sleeping with a man and debauchery with women, okay? I'm really asking nicely.

     shogun

     "I also agree with you, after all it is said: "The way of the earth preceded the Torah", but it is known that most of the educated are also moral
     At least more than the uneducated, therefore education also contains morality, or more people with intelligence
     are more moral than people with low intelligence according to statistics."

     I would like to see these statistics.
     I don't know why, but it seems to me that if I do statistics in my environment, I can show that it is very close to 50-50

396. The Torah is indeed moral, especially what is done to 12-year-old girls
     http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%93_%D7%94%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%94_%D7%91%D7%99%D7%94%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA#.D7.99.D7.97.D7.A1.D7.99_.D7.90.D7.99.D7.A9.D7.95.D7.AA

     Genocide:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_violence#Genocide

     And let's not talk about approval of slavery

397. Maybe yes maybe not, but sure maybe,
     "Regarding morality and science, I did not say that morality should and science should not, but that morality should be first and foremost and science secondary to it.
     In schools, morality should come before science, certainly and certainly regarding the current generation.
     It is clear that parents should be active in the moral education of their children, but what can be done if some are not?
     So I think the school should do it.:
     I also agree with you, after all it is said: "The way of the earth preceded the Torah", but it is known that most of the educated are also moral
     At least more than the uneducated, therefore education also contains morality, or more people with intelligence
     More moral than people with low intelligence according to statistics.
     That's why even the religion, which mostly contains less educated people than educated ones, invests a lot in learning morals and even
     There are entire moral books that will not embarrass any psychology book.

398. Maybe yes maybe not, but sure maybe

     I'm not taking anything out of context and the next question you have to answer only to yourself: at what level did you read and study: popular literature or the articles themselves (and there are tons of them), from a trending website or a neutral website, how many hours did you spend (the experts in the field invest their entire professional lives in this) , do you know the sciences that support evolution (mathematics, statistics, physics, biology) etc. If you feel that you are an authority in the field, good for you, but from an authority I would not expect to read the sentence, and I do not take it out of context: "I do not believe in evolution" since evolution is not a religion or a person and therefore the sentence is not correct from a syntactical point of view nor from a principle point of view.

     I would not expect from an authority to see the following sentence: "I understand the issue of mutations over generations, etc., but just as I do not envision my dog's offspring developing feathers (or any other ability to fly) or walking on two feet or breathing in water even in a billion years A year, that's how I don't see in my mind's eye the bacterium developing into a person over billions of years"
     Nobody cares what you can or can't see in your mind's eye. Do you see an electron as a wave spread throughout space or is it in two quantum states? And this is exactly related to the issue of everyday reality versus the complexity of contemporary scientific theory which I described in the previous post. Our intuition is not built to understand billions of years or sub-microscopic sizes, therefore your Aristotelian argument is not valid and it certainly should not be written from an authority.

     Regarding whether you can challenge evolution. True, if you are not an expert, you cannot dispute evolution (or any other subject, where expertise is required). In a court of law, can you challenge the car accident investigator's determination that you were at fault for the accident if all your knowledge comes from reading articles in a car magazine? In a court of law, faced with the claim of a mathematician who has thoroughly examined the subject of the statistics of a poker game, can you challenge his claim without an iota of expertise? Will the judge listen to you? of course not. On what basis are you disputing, what are your arguments, have you researched and tested your argument, have you tried to refute your argument, are there studies, have you made observations. Suri, the subject is deep and complicated.
     As I wrote, evolution belongs to a unique breed of issues that make people think they have knowledge even though they don't and that it makes sense to decide if the Torah is true, whether to "believe", whether to accept, even without any knowledge at all because they feel like it, or to think they have knowledge because they Hear some buzz words and read 10 articles on the subject. Tell me another scientific subject where people who are laymen (and I am one of them) would be so arrogant and think that their claims are worth anything? This is not democracy, this is reality, stupid (paraphrasing the well-known sentence, not something against you, God forbid) and it exists even if you feel like it and you are invited to decide if you live a double life: accepting the scientific consensus that is convenient and when it is not convenient, your spirit becomes blind.
     Why does this actually happen with evolution? Here is their explanation to Asimov: https://www.hayadan.org.il/asimovkofim_101980/

     It is clear that there is (still) freedom of speech and you are welcome to do whatever you want, but there are no issues for your appeal and as I have already written, I accept the theory of evolution, because I trust science (and I have already explained how I define it and why I trust it). And it is certainly possible that tomorrow, science will tell me that it has changed the theory, and I will align, just as we aligned when Einstein replaced Newton (I wasn't really there, but I heard that we aligned). In fact, precisely because science changes its mind fearlessly (except when the religious were in power) and has no problem getting rid of old nonsense (in favor of new nonsense?) I trust it. That's exactly why!
     We are proud that we are changing our minds. The clergy are the ones who don't change their minds and stick to their faith, no matter what: "Once upon a time we really and truly thought that diseases were caused by sins and today we don't anymore, so what, the religion is still completely correct, we'll just change the interpretation, completely. It's no longer the sins that cause these diseases, it's the bacteria, of course, we knew all along, but who sends the bacteria?" By the way, I've already received such an answer in my email regarding gays and AIDS. I have kept the email as proof that I am not dreaming.

     Regarding morality, are we back to Superman vs. Hulk again (my favorite subject, by the way)? I don't understand what "first and foremost" is, I don't understand why to get into these corners of "if I have two candidates who are completely identical, and only their hair color is different, who will I choose" or "if they put a gun to my wrist, which would you prefer". There is no problem of hours, there is no need to enter this corner and Superman is stronger.
     By the way, while there is no problem teaching evolution in schools, teaching morality, it's a bit more complicated because I don't exactly understand what it means. The duty of explaining what to teach is on you (what does it mean to make them "humans") and usually, every topic in school is dictated from above and when "moral" type content is dropped from the top (the minister) to the bottom (teachers), it is called indoctrination.

     And a final comment regarding the sentence: "The main thing is to make them human beings, then intelligent human beings". In my book, to be "human" is to have even a superficial acquaintance with the theory of evolution.

399. Shmulik.

     First of all, your assumption is wrong, I studied and read a lot about evolution and was not completely convinced (hence the expression "I don't believe in it" that you keep taking it out of context and basing the nature of my knowledge on).
     Secondly, even if your deduction is correct or even if I haven't read enough into your opinion about evolution, when you say that I can't dispute evolution, are you actually saying that I have to accept it?
     If so, then what will I do if a competing theory arises tomorrow?
     We will be asked a more specific question, which theory, of the theories about the formation of the moon, should I choose?

     Regarding morality and science, I did not say that morality should and science should not, but that morality should be first and foremost and science secondary to it.
     In schools, morality should come before science, certainly and certainly regarding the current generation.
     It is clear that parents should be active in the moral education of their children, but what can be done if some are not?
     So I think the school should do it.
     And when I say morals, I don't necessarily mean teaching, that the education system will draw the morals from any book it wants, the main thing is to make them human beings, then intelligent human beings.
     I understand that you disagree with me, your right, I simply prefer a moral generation with loose science, than a scientific generation with loose morals.
     Obviously, it is better to have a moral generation fully worthy of a Nobel Prize in the fields of science, but we probably won't be able to produce it tomorrow.

400. Maybe yes maybe not, but sure maybe

     The following answer assumes that you are not some type of autodidact who has read and reads the professional articles in the field and you have already written that you have no formal knowledge in the field. If I was wrong, then your very in-depth comments ("I don't believe in evolution"...) did not help me understand that you are such an autodidact.

     No, you cannot dispute Torah, certainly not that advanced, armed only with the knowledge of a "ynet reader" and this forum, with all due respect.

     It is enough to be frustrated with dictatorships to see their result and confirm the conclusion that democracy is better. Our everyday reality provides us with all the information we need, but not so when it comes to advanced scientific theories. There is no way in the world to formulate quantum mechanics without reaching a certain level of knowledge since there is nothing in our everyday reality (that of primitive man, that of 500 years ago) that betrays the quantum world. The same with the theory of relativity and the same with evolution.

     In relation to religion, nothing that science does will contradict the possibility of God's existence, because there is nothing that science can do to prove that God does not exist, but here is what it did do for us: it did not find evidence for the stories of the Torah, it tells us, unlike what the religious priests said For us, diseases do not run rampant because man sins, but as science discovered and which formulated the theory of viruses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease), that unlike the claim of religious priests, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions do not occur because there are homosexuals, that the world was not created in seven days, that the world did not exist for only 6000 years, that you should get well from cancer, you should not donate money to rabbis or priests and the reason why I accept what science Tell me, I already explained.

     I think you knew all this and just with the inertia dragged into unnecessary demagoguery. There is no way that you don't understand the difference between a deep scientific theory and the stories of stories that were written all those years ago and received a different, consistent and more orderly explanation from the science that forced the religious priests to reinterpret the same stories with unimaginable malice of reverse engineering (in order to save their skins): " No, it's not really 7 days of creation, it's just a story", "No, there aren't two lights, it's just a way to present the moon", "A talking snake, of course not, just an allegory for temptation", "The sun was created on the fourth day, long after the separation between Day and night, well, the Torah is not a science book"
     Go to the Kippa website and see the stammering answers of the religious priests regarding the murder of raped women and the sale of 12-year-old girls, which the Torah commands.

     Regarding morality and science, it is important (critical) of course to teach both, although parents must not neglect their duty to impart moral values ​​to their children, and as a parent I am indeed busy with this and in my opinion, I do this much more than the schools and in any case, the attempt to confront one with the other and certainly the presentation of the subject As one at the expense of the other is ridiculous and the question of what is more important is childish. Who is stronger, Superman or the Hulk of the 80s? It is not morality or science. It's both, and if there is a lack of hours, they should learn less Bible and more science, evolution and citizenship. In addition, I would like to point out that my morality does not derive from the Torah and in order not to offend readers I will not detail here why.

401. Shmulik.

     "Do you know the principle of rebuttal? The principle that says it's hard to prove what's true, but once you find one refuting example, is that enough? So this is the answer regarding dictatorships. We've seen enough and they're all terrible (maybe with the exception of Singapore)"

     I didn't ask for an answer to the dictators, I just wanted to show you that you are wrong when you say that if I don't have formal knowledge then I can't dispute the theories of those with formal knowledge (this is what was implied by your words, if you go back and read them you will understand that indeed this is what they imply)
     If only those with formal knowledge can invent, deny or strengthen theories, then 99% of the world, approximately, has no possibility to say that democracy is better than dictatorship.
     In general, if you stand by your claim, then no secular person has the possibility to challenge the religion without formal knowledge of the religion (such formal knowledge does not amount to going up to the Torah at a bar mitzvah or learning Tanakh in school).

     "Sorry I didn't answer you regarding your question (or actually your conflict) between science and morality. It sounds to me like comparing apples to Seinfeld. Science is the uncovering of the truth by sweeping nonsense out and morality is the human attempt to produce a behavioral codex between humans and between humans and between humans and the environment (I dare to add)."

     You are completely ignoring the context.
     These were my words

     "Maybe yes and maybe not, but I really support what I said before.
     I think the first thing they need is education, moral lessons.
     Again, there is no problem with them teaching evolution, but it is so irrelevant without morality.
     Do you think science is more important than morality?"

     We talked about science education (evolution) and moral education, and I asked what do you think is more important to teach, science or morality.
     Context!

402. Buddha.

     "I agree with everything Shmulik wrote to you, but there is something much more important to me in this discussion and it is actually the main thing (and not that we argue whether evolution is true or not. We will leave that to the scientists.)"

     You always add the parentheses, you can stop with that, I'm not arguing with you about its correctness (-:

     "First of all, after we lie to the children, they will understand that it is legitimate to lie. You have to start from a clean slate with the truth and stay with the truth."

     Who said to lie?

     "More importantly The success of the education system in preventing violence is only partial. Today, children are taught what is "good" and what is "bad" and the nonsense of morality and results are nothing. A wise man once said that "the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same things and expecting different results"

     If we try to think pragmatically about what needs to change, the solution is in science education and intellectual honesty.
     It's a bit long for a response but in short I definitely think that studying science without the nonsense of religion from a young age is the key to fixing society. This will improve the socioeconomic status of these children in the future, make them do less nonsense and less children when they grow up and invest in their children more. All this will lead the company to a much better place. The ethos of violence they learn both in Bible classes and in history and homeland classes has an impact. The occupation of the territories (without going into the political issue) degenerates society into violence. These things depend on and arise from the development of a national identity which is a lie worse than religion. Those who truly understand evolution also understand that all humans are of the same species and there is no meaning to national identity. In short, this whole salad was created at a very young age."

     I agree with you that we don't need religion in education, but regarding everything else I don't agree with you, I'm just saying that as long as we live in the Middle East when Muslims are not really pacifists around us, I see the "national lie" as a unifying factor that keeps us here and it's really unwise to give it up, I say this without any desire to enter politics.
     That's debatable, but that's how I see it.
     Beyond that, evolution can also lead to race teachings, so you still have to teach these animals to be human.

     "Beyond that, in my opinion, you are wrong like most people in understanding "what is morality" and science gives new answers to this too, mainly in the new discoveries of brain research. Search Google for "the moral mind". Morality is an evolutionary biological creation and it also exists in monkeys. The morality that is taught in schools is a collection of nonsense that people invented and is worse than religious studies. It is a moral that says you must not kill your friend but you must kill your "enemy".

     I am not saying that what should be taught is religion, I am saying that morality should be taught, do you think that what is taught in schools today is called morality?
     Does anyone care about the reunion of the children at school? Or does the teacher simply come to teach what he was told to teach and for his part the children will stab each other? (during the break of course, then they are not his responsibility)
     Moral education is not coming once a week and saying that all people are equal, moral education should be done every day.
     Let them be taught biblical criticism, let them be taught philosophy, let them open their minds a little.
     Let them be taught psychology so that they understand what they are doing and the effect of their actions, there is a lot to teach.
     So, as I said before, we must first teach them how to behave, so that when you want to teach them evolution, they will not develop a race theory from it.

403. shogun,
     So you are a software engineer? Oh well, but I haven't heard a denial yet.
     On the face of it, I strive for evolution to be taught in schools and I hope that fewer people will consider themselves experts in the field who do not have a millimeter of training of any kind, formal or otherwise, just because the conclusions that arise from evolution scare them.
     Was it not clear from what I wrote?

404. shogun,

     A meme is not a gene. A meme is an idea. Study the subject a little because you are talking nonsense. Read The Water Machine by Susan Blackmore.

     You are right about one thing. The battle is indeed lost and in the end ignorance will disappear and everyone will advocate only science. Those who don't simply won't survive. The meme of "God" is a very powerful meme, but it loses its power and eventually disappears.

     It is important to teach the children from age zero that the Bible is a collection of practical stories written by people who did not even know what science is and that it should not be taken seriously except for its literary value (which in my opinion it does not have that either)

405. Maybe yes maybe not, but sure maybe,
     I don't understand why I don't go to sleep already...
     Do you know the principle of rebuttal? The principle that says it's hard to prove what's true, but once you find one refuting example, is that enough? So this is the answer regarding dictatorships. We've seen enough and they're all terrible (maybe with the exception of Singapore)

     Sorry I didn't answer you about your question (or actually your conflict) between science and morality. It sounds to me like comparing apples to Seinfeld. Science is the uncovering of the truth by sweeping nonsense out and morality is the human attempt to produce a behavioral codex between humans and between humans and between humans and the environment (I dare to add).

     Still, and I hope I don't sound like a politician, both are critical to our existence here and I believe (yes, I'm also allowed to use this word freely O) not a little in the golden rule - don't do to your friend what you hate (the problem starts when the "friend" is Hitler) but As a rule of thumb, it's not bad.

     For many, morality is linked to the Ten Commandments. Here's what Christopher Hitchens thinks so much
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9weXGtCk7c

406. maybe yes, maybe no,

     I agree with everything that Shmulik wrote to you, but there is something much more important to me in this discussion and it is actually the main thing (and not for us to argue whether evolution is true or not. We will leave that to the scientists.)

     Reporter:

     "...after we teach them to be human we can reveal to them that they are monkeys, not before that..."

     Here, in my opinion, is your and others' huge mistake.

     First of all, after we lie to children, they will understand that it is legitimate to lie. You have to start from a smooth slate with the truth and stay with the truth.
     More importantly. The success of the education system in preventing violence is only partial. Today, children are taught what is "good" and what is "bad" and the nonsense of morality and results are nothing. A wise man once said that "the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same things and expecting different results"

     If we try to think pragmatically about what needs to change, the solution is in science education and intellectual honesty.
     It's a bit long for a response but in short I definitely think that studying science without the nonsense of religion from a young age is the key to fixing society. This will improve the socioeconomic status of these children in the future, make them do less nonsense and less children when they grow up and invest in their children more. All this will lead the company to a much better place. The ethos of violence they learn both in Bible classes and in history and homeland classes has an impact. The occupation of the territories (without going into the political issue) degenerates society into violence. These things depend on and arise from the development of a national identity which is a lie worse than religion. Those who truly understand evolution also understand that all humans are of the same species and there is no meaning to national identity. In short, this whole salad was created at a very young age.

     Beyond that, in my opinion, you are wrong, like most people, in your understanding of "what morality is" and science gives new answers to this too, mainly in the new discoveries of brain research. Search Google for "the moral mind". Morality is an evolutionary biological creation and it also exists in monkeys. The morality that is taught in schools is a collection of nonsense that people invented and is worse than religious studies. It is a moral that says you must not kill your friend but you must kill your "enemy".

407. Shmulik
     I still don't understand where you are going
     No one is against all advanced technology
     And to the quality of life that science has brought us since the 20th century
     The point is that they look for contradictions between science and religion
     To beat each other to death.
     And if we understand that religion comes to tell us stories of peoples and traditions
     And science investigates reality, so we will also know how to separate
     between the fields and stop wasting unnecessary energy on
     These stupid wars
     What's more, according to Dawkins, there is an independent gene that is responsible
     determine whether a person will be atheist or religious,
     This is a gene called a meme and it has its own private evolution
     which is not necessarily affected by the hereditary genes,
     Therefore, also from an evolutionary point of view, the battle is lost.

     PS: And stop bothering me with questions
     If I am Rabbi Nachman Mazran or Rabbi Akiva or whatever
     Another rabbi, I'm a software engineer rabbi if that helps.

408. Shmulik, it sure isn't as childish as before.
     have a nice weekend.

409. Maybe yes maybe not, but sure maybe
     I will concentrate mainly because your response shot in all directions and by the way, your clumsy attempt to imitate me was embarrassing.

     Evolution is not a religion or a person, so the sentence "I don't believe in it" is nonsense.

     You were also confused about the aliens because again, this is not a question of faith but a question of fact, which I have no practical ability to confirm or deny, but if they prove to me that there are not, I will accept it and if they prove to me that there are, I will accept it.

     Regarding the dictatorship, I feel embarrassed to answer that, so I just say that soon in Israel we will find out what a dictatorship is

     Regarding
     The theory of evolution is part of science. Science is the only tool that has brought us to this point, on whose banner is engraved the slogan, to reveal the truth, as indeed it happens. If we dive in, we will of course find that science is made up of countless scientists who all they want is to contradict their colleagues and their predecessors, because that is the way to become famous and make money and guess what, this wild mechanism is successful. With it we live much longer, reach the moon and watch Real Housewives of New Jersey.

     I want to say that just like in any field in which you are not an expert, you do outsourcing. Just as I accept the opinion of the medical expert, he is the doctor, because I am not a doctor. and why? Because it is based on studies backed by peer review, etc. and that conceptual doctor, managed to increase life expectancy by dozens of years, in the last century. Just as I accept the physicist's opinion, because I am not a physicist, when he talks about the theory of relativity (and its problems) or about quantum mechanics and why? Because with the help of these theories, we enjoy atomic bombs, GPS and computers. For exactly the same reason, I accept the opinion of 68 national academies (the names are found here on the website) and a huge number of scientists whose field of activity is evolution and they tell me that evolution is a fact and even call for the subject to be taught in schools.

     Don't be in any doubt, I am a total skeptic but all my life I have seen this mechanism for exposing nonsense called science succeed. The mechanism eliminates charlatans who claim that they have succeeded in performing cold fusion and it does so successfully because the mechanism contains too many people who deal with the same thing so there is no way to hide a lie and above all because the mechanism succeeds in developing technologies, medicines, engineering and physical theories and in fact, it is the only tool that succeeds and therefore, I I put my trust in him also on the subject of evolution.

     Unlike you, I am not two-faced. I don't have cognitive dissonance. I don't accept him that is convenient for me and when I don't, I decide in my mind, because I feel like it, not to accept him. If you don't accept evolution, don't drive a car, don't even touch a toaster and certainly don't dare to use a computer and medicine. By the way, it is clear to me that you will now ask what is the connection between a toaster and evolution and I am not going to answer that. Check it out.

     Well, so still childish?

410. Shmulik.

     "You decided that you don't believe in evolution and I pointed out that evolution belongs to a rare family of subjects in which people, without any formal background, develop such a solid and principled opinion against it."

     Do you have a formal knowledge of evolution?
     And as for the big bang?
     Because if you don't have it, and yet you develop such a firm and principled opinion in her favor, it's childish.
     Do you have formal knowledge of dictatorship?
     If you don't have it, then why are you so against it? (I assume you are against it, if I assumed wrong correct me)
     To oppose a dictatorial system of government without any formal knowledge is simply childish.

     "In addition, evolution is not a religion or a person, so the sentence "I don't believe in it" is nonsense."

     Look, I believe I'm sane, but my sanity isn't a religion or a person, so? I'm not supposed to believe it? Am I supposed to know?
     How should I know?
     Were we created as evolution claims? I don't believe her.
     It's like saying "I don't know, but I don't believe."
     Is the big bang true? I don't know, but I believe so.
     "Is it true that there are aliens?" = "Do you believe in aliens?"
     Now "do you believe in aliens" does not mean "do you worship them"
     In short, pay attention to the context.

     "It is fitting that evolution should be taught in schools since this Torah is one of the rare ones that bring freedom from thought laboratories"

     Maybe yes and maybe not, but I really support what I said before.
     I think the first thing they need is education, moral lessons.
     Again, there is no problem with them teaching evolution, but it is so irrelevant without morality.
     Do you think science is more important than morality?

411. Maybe yes maybe not, but sure maybe

     You decided that you don't believe in evolution and I pointed out that evolution belongs to a rare family of subjects where people, without any formal background, develop such a solid and principled opinion against it.

     This is childish behavior

     In addition, evolution is not a religion or a person, so the sentence "I don't believe in it" is nonsense.

     It is fitting that evolution should be taught in schools, since this Torah is one of the rare ones that leave thought laboratories for freedom

412. Buddha.

     All the advantages you mentioned are real and exist, and I have no problem with the calmness you have about evolution.
     Like you and like the other infidels and the religious, I also use quite a lot of faith in the products of medical and/or technological science, but despite everything that practical science can tell me and create for me, this has no reinforcement for its explanatory story.
     What's more, I really didn't touch on the topic of the article at all.
     So regarding the study of evolution in schools:
     Although I don't have a religious problem with such studies, I think that our children are not that genius that all that is missing is evolution, there are things a little more important like morality.
     Children who cut each other's nipples in half and hold rape orgies and stabbings out of "drunkenness", know that they are animals, they don't need evolution to tell them that, they need moral, not scientific, education.
     After we teach them to be human we can reveal to them that they are monkeys, not before that.

     Regarding Shechtman, you claim that I am interpreting his case incorrectly, but you are also wrong in your interpretation, who is right? These and these are the words of a living God?

     Shmulik, I'm sorry, I don't understand how I am related to the reactions of Ethology and Chingua.
     Your response is inflammatory, I really don't understand what and why.

413. Maybe yes maybe not, but sure maybe,
     It is clear that everyone is wrong, there is nothing new here and you have not discovered America, except that evolution causes panic anxieties especially in the public of believers, naturally and this causes them to behave in a very certain way, which does not add respect to them.

     While in subjects such as law, medicine, mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc., no one who is not an expert would even try to contradict science itself, with a generic claim that they might be wrong, but in the subjects of evolution, anyone who knows how to type on a keyboard, allows himself to recycle Claims that have been hidden for a long time.
     Note, I'm not claiming that a doctor isn't wrong, but if every surgery department told you that you needed to have an appendectomy, you wouldn't go to the "surgery deniers" forum and recycle claims
     I do not claim that a certain physicist is not wrong, but no one, who is not an expert, would try to disprove quantum mechanics in a forum, by Cliff with evangelical music he found on youtube

     Anyone who has carefully read the long thread here has seen the depth of ethnologica's factual responses and he is not yet a doctor in the field, but his responses are still extremely impressive compared to the charlatan arguments of xianghua who still maintains that God is a scientific theory, tells me that because the people of the Discovery Institute claim that intelligent design is scientific, I have to say Amen and bring up the poor sandal argument as proof that there were people 65 million years ago. All this is to say that the science of evolution has progressed and gone much further than slogans such as natural selection, but the deniers of evolution are still arguing as if we are in the year 1800.

     On no other subject would either of us have dared argue with my expert to learn the field first. And saying I don't want to believe it, it's childish.

414. Maybe yes maybe not, but sure maybe,

     I disagree with you and in fact, in my opinion, the entire discussion about teaching science in schools is based on this dispute (there is really no point in trying to disprove or prove evolution to each other in the comments to the article...)

     First, I thank you for not comparing rabbis to scientists. Note that the rabbi can be smarter than the scientist, but it doesn't matter because the rabbi does not act according to the scientific method.

     I would also like not to compare the followers of the rabbis with the followers of the scientists. Scientologists do not assume that scientists know everything or that science is infallible. Every time a person uses a product of science (medicine for example) he takes on a risk. risk of error. The drug kills people occasionally. The plane might crash and the phone might get cancer. Despite this, we must put our trust in science for several reasons:

     1. It has proven effective in every area of ​​our lives (medicine, extending life expectancy, reducing suffering, knowledge, understanding of reality, improving the quality of life, etc.)

     2. It is constantly improving and correcting itself.

     3. It does not contain a large part of the damages of the alternative - superstitions.

     A person who "trusts" science does so with a limited guarantee, but this guarantee is not that small (even though it is indeed limited). When I deposit my money in the bank, I know that the bank may collapse, but the chance is smaller than the risk taken by my friend who buys gold bars and hides them in a sock (I really have one such friend).

     I am using the PC OS until a new version comes out.

     When I read a book by Dawkins, I don't have the tools to judge his biological claims, and even if I had, I can't reproduce the Lenski experiment or the Fanny experiment at home or reproduce the Andler experiment with fish in the bathtub (although I want to because I love animals). It is possible that all the results of these experiments are fake but very unlikely. why? Because scientists are constantly trying to reproduce the experiments of other scientists and "catch" them by mistake. If Dawkins writes a book that contains nonsense, famous scientists will stand up and publish criticism. When I read a scientific theory I am also aware of the criticism and from whom it came, so I feel really calm about evolution.

     By the way, an excellent example of this principle is in the field of encryption, for example. Encryption code that is not advertised as open source is worth nothing and no one will take it seriously. Serious developers immediately publish the source code and invite the whole world to attack it, etc.

     In the meantime, I saw the last comment you posted to Mr. Dan Shechtman and I repeat that you interpret his case incorrectly. For that matter, I would not have accepted Shechtman's idea when it was published, nor would he have accepted his own idea if it had been published by someone else... When enough people checked it and claimed that he was right, it gained weight and in the end became the dominant opinion and that is how it should be. The price a person will pay if he sticks to science is "cheaper" than any other method.

     That is why the children at school should be taught to excel in science and to understand that there is always the possibility of making a mistake and that is all. If a certain person doesn't like a certain theory, that's fine, but let him say modestly, "I don't like it at the moment, but I understand that it's the scientific consensus at the moment, and I don't have the tools, and I'm in the minority, so we'll live and see what happens one day" and teach this theory to his children and add his personal opinion And came to Zion a redeemer.

415. Shmulik, I don't have a degree in biology or anything related to the evolution of life.
     Professor Shechtman is an example that sometimes everyone is wrong, and even more so, even when a person as esteemed as Shechtman comes and tries to make them wrong, they turn their backs on him.
     And in our case, it's true that I'm neither an expert nor a semi-expert, but I also didn't emphatically claim that everyone is wrong, I didn't try to prove that evolution is wrong because I simply don't have such proof, I simply don't believe in it.
     Just like if the entire scientific community says there are no aliens and I doubt it, it doesn't mean that I firmly claim that there are aliens, but only doubt the scientists' assertion that there are.

416. Buddha, your comments are welcome.

     1. I did not compare between a Torah lesson and a science lesson, I compared between the followers of the sciences and the followers of the rabbis.
     There is no difference between a person who says "if the scientist determined the scientist knows" and "if the rabbi said the rabbi knows"
     Uri may not blindly believe in science, but that's how his words sounded to me.

     2. There is logic in your words and perhaps it is not worth relying on intuition, but still all your examples are the difference between an existing reality that can be seen at any moment, and a theory that cannot be seen but must be inferred from reality.
     Although the evolution and the bang are both theories that cannot be proven (that is, they can be shown as they show the action of the electron), the bang is more intuitive (for me) and therefore I quite support it.
     With all the failures and problems of intuition it is still an integral part of our senses, therefore I think that when reality is not quite clear, there is a place to use it.

417. OK

418. Be healthy Mr. Shogun.. After all, the issue of 'complexity' (or should it be called 'complicated'?) has been mined to the bone on different occasions by different commenters and also without any connection.. but it won't convince you (apparently)
     Humans are more complicated than tools of the illusory culture for example, and yet these tools are attributed to humans and humans to an unconscious process.

419. Probably, usually this is true
     , but that should be asked of Shmulik
     Or maybe the word: "Rabbi" just makes him feel bad 🙂

420. "What trouble is Nachman Mazren causing you?"

     shogun
     I'm guessing it's not a matter of 'complexity' but of the level of arguments..

421. Didn't we agree to say God and not write the concept of the washed up planning?
     And again we are back to the question of the clock?
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy#Criticism

     When you know that a person created something, that's all the information you need regarding the question of the origin of creation, even though evolution allows the creation of systems not by humans, and if you want to understand how, go study science at university. It is clear to me that now (because the site tolerates everything) I will be accused of turning to the authorities. It's not.

     If you were sued in court, would you ask in the forum what to do or would I hire an expert (lawyer) to represent you? Since you have already answered and asked this question several times and were not convinced, go study the formal material

     And regarding the rabbi, after he said shocking things here he promised not to return and lo and behold, his reincarnation returned

422. "You said there is no altruist in Israel, I brought one, and then you ask, "If I give you more and more selfish people, will you accept my theory?"

     Maybe yes, maybe not.
     There are people with Down syndrome.. Does this contradict the theory of evolution..?

423. Shmulik
     What is the Nachman Mazran complex doing to you?
     I will not answer this question for you and you are entitled to think that I am a reincarnation of his ideas
     Although I am not a rabbi 🙂

     In any case, I would appreciate it if someone could explain to me why planning is not needed for a complex work that is not man-made
     But you need a planner for a work that is man-made

424. Maybe yes maybe not, but sure maybe,
     Shechtman Bo Nathalit as an example, is an authority in his field and even before he won the Nobel Prize, he was an authority. He did not challenge the scientific knowledge of his time before becoming an expert.
     Want to say (and I already asked this): do you hold any degree in biology? Any degree in evolution? Or in short, what is your formal knowledge in the field?

425. Maybe yes maybe not, but sure maybe,

     I read your last comment to Ori and have a few small comments that are relevant to this blog.

     Regarding the lioness, in my opinion the issue is not at all relevant to evolution because it is a private case and therefore as you rightly wrote "the criterion is not relevant".

     The subject of the original post was not whether evolution is true, but the problem that it is not taught (enough) in schools.

     You wrote two things that seem problematic to me:

     1. "...a rational secular person (I assume you are a rational secular) tells me that if his "rabbis"/"scientists" say X then they know what they are saying.."

     Well, the big difference between rabbis and scientists is the method. The mechanism in science is built so that scientific knowledge constantly corrects itself because every experiment invites reconstruction and every theory invites criticism by a large number of independent scientists. Scientific truth is constantly changing to better describe (never perfectly) reality. That is why Dan Shechtman's example is a song of praise for science, and therefore those who advocate science will tell you that our children must be taught the main scientific theories at any given time. Evolution is a scientific theory that the entire scientific establishment supports and has thousands of testimonies that support it, therefore the most correct thing is to teach it in schools today until it is disproved if it is disproved. The fact that you personally advocate it is your full right, but please don't compare a science lesson to a Torah lesson.

     2. "When I fail to match intuition with theory, I cannot accept that theory."

     The theory that the earth is round is counterintuitive, as is the fact that time is relative (the twin paradox), quantum mechanics, the fact that matter is actually 99% empty, etc. You get all these theories. Regarding evolution, you simply "feel" that it is not true. It's because you "trust" your intuition that you can reasonably imagine how an organism changes over 3 billion years but you don't "trust" it about how an electron behaves... think about it. As mentioned, this is your right, but I'm not sure you should take advantage of it. By the way, in my opinion, it is very easy for the majority of the public, even the religious ones, to intuitively accept the fact that man evolved from monkeys because they are outwardly similar and in light of the differences we see between different breeds of dogs. It is much more difficult to go back to the level of the bacteria...

426. Ori..

     "I didn't notice that he wrote "individual", I was talking about a common trait in the population because of the example of the bats he gave. I wrote "we'll knock something in her head" because of the case of my uncle's dog that I already mentioned. Something went wrong with the pregnancy and the puppies came out deformed and dead, then the dog took a doll in her lap and cared for her. If there was a kitten there instead of a doll then she might very well have adopted the cat. Because the puppies were taken from her it may be that her instinct to care for them was planted to what was available in the house that once mentioned a puppy. Maybe something similar happened to the lioness. In any case, I am not saying that the case should be excused without investigating it. In general, if researchers test and find that there is true altruism in nature, then I will not deny it and agree that there is a problem in his understanding of how animal behaviors develop. If, on the other hand, researchers continue to find more and more selfish behavior in nature, with no sign of true altruism, would you be willing to change your mind?"

     You provided me with a refutation criterion, I refuted, and now I have to believe the researchers who will find more and more supportive behaviors?
     You said there is no altruist, I brought one, and then you ask "If I give you more and more selfish people, will you accept my theory?"
     are you real? I already refuted her.
     Or alternatively, the criterion is not relevant, for whatever reason you want.

     "Look, there is one problem with this whole discussion, and that is that I am not a biologist and certainly not an evolution expert. Jerry Coyne is a biologist who supports the theory of evolution, and when asked if it could be disproved he provided criteria. This is the important point here. Even if I can't defend the criteria well, that doesn't mean there's a problem with them. As long as biologists provide criteria for refuting evolution, and as long as they do not ignore new data that can disprove it (otherwise the criteria are worthless), evolution will be considered scientific in my eyes."

     Forgive me my dear friend, yesterday I was in Torah class, I heard enough nonsense for the coming week, I am not ready to hear any person, certainly not a rational secular person (I assume you are a rational secular person) tell me that if his "rabbis"/"scientists" say X then They know what they are talking about, they are the experts in sky/science matters

     "Why, if it turns out that the lioness is at a disadvantage, will she not be widespread in the population? As long as she manages to survive and produce offspring, there is no problem that adoptive and non-adoptive lionesses will develop side by side" - she will bring fewer offspring (if any) and fewer offspring will survive because she will invest precious time and resources to take care of the antelopes. If this behavior is hereditary then there is a high chance that it will disappear because any individual with such behavior will always be at a disadvantage against other individuals in the competition for limited resources."

     Why do you suppose she would abandon her children for adopting the antelope?
     And let's say she abandons them...
     You still have to make many, many, many assumptions to show that a mother who abandons her son brings about the end of her offspring.

     "Therefore the question "Why don't you find evolution to be the best explanation" is irrelevant, because it is the only explanation at the moment" - Okay, I will ask in a different way, why don't you find it to be a good explanation period?"

     I didn't say I don't find it a good explanation, I just don't believe it.
     And along the way I questioned some of the criteria presented to me.

     "I understand the matter of mutations over generations, etc., but just as I don't envision my dog's offspring developing feathers (or some other ability to fly) or walking on two legs or breathing in water even in a billion years, so I don't envision the germ Evolves into a person over billions of years" - did you mean by seeing in your mind's eye that evolution is not intuitive/not perceived? If so, then what is the difference between that and its correctness? We need to adjust our intuition to reality and not the other way around."

     I completely agree with you when it comes to reality, not when it comes to theory.
     When I fail to match the intuition with the theory, I cannot accept the same theory.
     The theory (magnetism and electricity) tells us that when an electrically charged body passes through a magnetic medium, the direction of its movement changes perpendicularly to the direction of the magnet.
     If you create a magnetic field from your floor to the ceiling, and throw an electrically charged ball into the middle of the room, it will move left or right, even though intuitively you would expect it to be pulled up or down (because in this particular case the magnetic field that is applied is in an up or down direction).
     So it is clearly not intuitive, but it is the reality and I am obliged to adapt the intuition to it.
     The laws of heredity work, even if they were not intuitive I am obliged to accept them, but evolution is a theory.
     The fact that quantum statistics works does not oblige me to accept the explanation that quantum has from randomness.
     The statistics work - it's a reality, and I'm obliged to accept it.
     Reality is random (not deterministic) - this is a theory that I am not committed to.

     "I have problems accepting transitions between a bug and a reptile, but from a reptile to walking on 4 and walking on 4 to walking on 2 is already heavy on me." - You did not explain why it is difficult for you to accept these explanations. And as I said earlier, what is the difference between this and the question of the correctness of evolution? It is not clear from your answer whether you find the evidence unconvincing, or whether no matter how much evidence was found you would not be convinced because you cannot see evolution in your mind's eye."

     Mainly intuitive, and I explained to you why you can rely on intuition in the case of a theory.

     "The question you have to ask yourself is, is the problem with evolution and all the biologists who find it correct or is the problem with your understanding of evolution? What do you think is more likely?”

     Of course, I do not compare myself to Prof. Shechtman, but I assume that he too has been asked many times whether it seems reasonable to him that he is right, even though everyone disagrees with him.

427. Ori,

     You did not understand me. Think that the machine does not throw a dice but performs a quantum observation that returns a random number on each try. There is no way to predict the result of the machine. Does she have free will? How are you different from the machine?

     The principle of prediction is not relevant at all to the matter.

428. buddha,

     The throw of the dice of the machine can be predicted, at least theoretically. If you take into account the density of the air, the force of gravity, the composition of the die, the angle of the shot, the initial speed of the shot, the height of the die from the table, the material the table is made of, etc. then theoretically you can predict the outcome of the machine. The machine itself, given all this data, will be able to predict the result of the die and its multiple of 2 even before the throw.

     A person like you and me, given a computer that can take into account all the data we want, will not be able to predict with its help what he will do in the future, because the prediction itself may have an effect on the result.

     It is for this reason that I have to address your question to you, why even though the mind is like a machine, regarding one the future can always be theoretically predicted and regarding the other it is not possible in certain cases?

429. Ori,

     I'm afraid you did not come to the end of my mind.

     I agree that it is impossible to predict the future perfectly.

     For the sake of it, let's assume that this is a very simple machine that throws a die, multiplies by 2 and reports its result.

     It is impossible to predict the outcome (assuming we have no way to calculate the outcome of the shot) but no one would argue that this machine has free will.

     Now come and explain to me what you mean when you claim to have free will and how are you different from the aforementioned machine? I claim that our brain is exactly like a machine like this.

430. buddha,

     So you agree that the future can't always be predicted? In any case, there is no contradiction between this and determinism. The prediction doesn't work because he fails to take into account his own effects, because if he took them into account the prediction would change and then the effects would change and God forbid. There is an attempt here to deal with an infinite number of variables, so the attempt does not succeed. In contrast, a machine that is beyond the event horizon of a black hole does not need to consider itself, and therefore has to deal with a finite (albeit very large) number of variables - this is at least my explanation for why prediction does not work without the need to give up determinism.

     This means that no one can tell you to make a certain decision and oblige you to make it, so at least for you the choice is indeed in your hands. There is nothing mystical here, it is simply a matter of definition. From your point of view (the decision maker), the decision you make is not random. In addition, no one can present to you a prediction about the decision you will make in the future, but only after you have already made the decision, even theoretically. If this is not free will then what is? (This is not a rhetorical question, if you remember I asked you in my first appeal to you what you define as free will. Perhaps you and most of the scientific community have a different definition that is indeed not possible.)

431. R.H. Rafai.M. and Uri,

     First I must point out that Yakir Aharonov's research is incomprehensible to me and I don't have the slightest understanding of quantum physics and I probably won't have it in this incarnation either, so I can't really refer to the interesting article and it's possible that I'm just wrong.

     As for my perception, I return again to the simplicity of things. Quantum mechanics is not relevant in my opinion at all to the subject of free will. It is relevant to the degree of determinism of the process.

     A simple analogy is a simple computer program that during running uses fixed data from memory and reaches a (deterministic) result compared to another computer program that incorporates quantum observations during running and will therefore reach a different unpredictable result each time.

     Both of the above programs are, according to my understanding, equally lacking in free will.

     In addition to this, I am very satisfied if quantum processes that take place in the brain "significantly" affect its behavior as a system because, according to my understanding, the brain is equivalent to a computer, therefore quantum processes also occur in a computer because it contains atoms, electrons, photons, etc. just like the brain and we know that all the processes in the computer are Determinists (otherwise I wouldn't be able to write this comment and upload it to the site).

     Another point is evolution. Since at least some of us agree that man evolved from a bacterium, and if we agree that the bacterium is a robot and has no free choice, then how and when did the ability to choose freely enter the organism? I would love to hear speculations on the matter.

     The most important. You both talk about the "predictability" of the helmet, etc. In my opinion, the ability to predict is not really necessary to understand the subject. The key to understanding is much simpler and is the illusory idea of ​​the "I". Since the "I" does not exist, there is actually no one to decide... If you try to describe to me how the "decision" process works in a way that is not equivalent to an algorithm or tossing a coin or a combination of both, I might be able to begin to imagine what exactly you mean. Since I am no longer able to perceive myself as an object, I am unable to imagine a state of free will even though I know this illusion.

     In any case, with all due respect to dear Aharonov (and there is respect!) the concept that there is no free will is currently, to the best of my knowledge, the dominant concept in modern science. I wonder what happened with his research? All publications are from 2009 when he was nominated for the Nobel Prize. Since then, in my opinion, they managed to operate the particle accelerator in Switzerland despite the disturbances that came from the future.

     Another thing that seems problematic to me, (and again I write this with the utmost modesty and it could be nonsense) is the speculation that existence is progressing towards some future "purpose" as well as Aaronov's statements that he "feels" that he has free will. Regarding the "purpose" I have no problem with the idea that the universe has some final position that it strives for on a physical level just like a falling glass is destined to crash on the floor. I have a problem when they try to contain this thinking about the "desires" of humans. "Purpose" and "meaning" are emotional concepts and when it comes to science it is better to use words like final position or objective function, etc.
     Regarding the feeling, in my opinion, the key to cracking the cause of any feeling is to better understand what the feeling is and who is feeling it. Aharonov says that he looked for answers in philosophy and religion and did not find them there. Eastern concepts long ago presented the common scientific explanation nowadays.

432. buddha,

     I'm still not convinced that things are as simple as you say. The helmet will indeed print the new decision, but first of all it does not change the fact that it was wrong in the first prediction. This is a very important point because even though it should theoretically be possible to predict in advance what the person will decide, if the person asks the helmet, "What am I going to decide?", it will not be able to give him a correct answer. Secondly, because the person may not fulfill the second prediction either, and thus there is a situation where there is uncertainty about a decision until the moment when the decision is made, and then the prediction is no longer worth anything. If we say that a person is told that at the end of 60 seconds he must make a decision, and during the 60 seconds the person can ask the machine what it thinks his choice will be, then only at the end of the 60 seconds (or a few moments before - when the person will not have time to react to the machine's prediction) will the prediction come true. You say things are simple but you don't address the fact that even though the material that makes up the brain behaves deterministically any attempt to predict how it will behave in the future is doomed to failure.

     If that doesn't convince you, think about the following example: What if the person and the helmet/machine are the same entity? After all, we agreed that there is no difference between a computer and a brain. Will the computer be able to predict what it will do in the future? The answer is no (assuming he doesn't deliberately try to fulfill his predictions). That is to say, an entity that has information about the state of all the atoms in the universe, assuming that it is determined not to fulfill its predictions, will never be able to predict the future.

     ” The reason you choose to complicate life for yourself and decide that the issue is complicated is because you are programmed to do so. That's also why I'm answering you. I am programmed to answer you. I have no choice in this matter" - the impression is created that you think that something is forcing you to make a certain choice. The fact is that any attempt you made to predict how you would react could have failed (if you had wanted to), no matter how much information about your brain structure you had. It is true that I might have been able to predict your answer, but you, no matter how much information you have and how much power of calculation you possess, will never be able to determine your answer in advance, because after the determination you will always have the option of writing a different answer.

     It was said that just before you sent the response, a prediction of what you were going to write would appear on your screen, and the prediction would indeed match what you wrote word for word. Would you insist that you have no choice in the matter and send the comment anyway? Or would you show the computer that it was wrong and its prediction is correct as long as you decide it is correct?

433. Buddha
     You reminded me of "the story about the physicist who is found guilty of murder, and before his sentence he turns to the judge and says to him: 'Mr. Judge, you know that Newton taught us that we are made of atoms and they are the ones who determine what we do, because their behavior is fixed and absolute. That's why I'm not guilty of the murder, because I simply didn't have a choice.' The judge reflects on the defendant's words and says: 'Yes, I too am made of atoms, so I have no choice but to sentence you to life imprisonment.'"

     http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3365730,00.html

     (Read carefully before jumping to conclusions)

434. Ori,

     Things are not complicated at all. Things are extremely simple.

     What you define as "random will" is actually "random outcome". You can delete the word desire from the sentence and everything will work out for you.

     "Will" is a certain signal in the brain. If you saw the movie I attached in one of the previous posts (London and Kirschenbaum), there they talk about an electric current that makes a person "want" to move his hand. In fact, it is about creating a signal that is interpreted in the brain as a "desire" to move the hand.

     Today there is a helmet that can be put on a person's head and presented to him with a menu in a restaurant and while he is perusing the menu and has not consciously "decided" what he wants to eat, the computer will print on the side what the person is going to order.

     Obviously, if we show the person the computer printout, his order may change, but if he is still wearing the helmet, the helmet will immediately print a new printout of the new order before the person announces it.

     The whole above story is extremely simple and completely identical to the operation of a computer. If you studied computer science you can just stay there. Anyone who understands how a computer works understands how the mind works. There is no mystery here.

     The reason you choose to complicate life for yourself and decide that the issue is complicated is because you are programmed to do so. That's also why I'm answering you. I am programmed to answer you. I have no choice in the matter.

     post Scriptum.

     I had to add the p.s. This is because I have no choice in this matter either. Understand?

435. buddha,

     I said that the concept is problematic because in a certain sense it is impossible, just like a round triangle, or objective morality (again, depending on how exactly you define it), and this has nothing to do with determinism. I agree with you in everything you say about the mind being a computer and the "I" being an illusion, I simply do not agree that from this it follows that there is no free will, since it may be impossible to begin with. It is similar to a debate between theists and atheists about objective morality. One side says there is no God and therefore there is no objective morality and the other side says there is and this is evidence for God. There is another possibility and that is that objective morality is impossible whether there is a god or not, and this is the possibility I tend to accept.

     "Truly free will" is equivalent for me to random will. The random will is not affected by factors that are, and if a person makes a decision and then you turn back time and run again then maybe he will make a different decision. If the will is not random, i.e. affected by any factors, regardless of whether the factors and their effect on the will can be predicted in advance, then the will is not truly free.

     That's why I get frustrated with things in a different way. Let's imagine that someone built a machine that can predict the future based on the state of all the atoms in the universe, or perhaps something more realistic, a machine that scans the subject's mind, builds a computer model of him and can predict his reactions to different situations with a good approximation. Now an experiment is conducted and the subject is asked to write down some number on a sheet of paper. At the same time, the machine is asked to calculate which number the subject will choose. The machine does succeed in predicting the number and this supposedly proves that there is no free will. But what if we change the experiment and let the subject see the machine's prediction before making a choice? Obviously, in such a case the voter could intentionally choose a different number than the number the machine predicted he would choose. That is, the machine predicts everything is fine and dandy as long as a person is not given the opportunity to see the forecast. More generally, the machine does not have to affect the person directly for its prediction to turn out to be wrong. A second person who sees the prediction can tell the first person to pick a different number and so on.

     This problem can be tried in two ways. One way is to build a second machine that will predict the prediction of the first machine, and also predict the number that the subject will choose after being exposed to the prediction of machine A. Here the problem is not really solved, because if the person had access to the second forecast then he would have chosen a different number from it as well. A second solution is to place the machine in a place from where information cannot escape to the subject, for example beyond the event horizon of a black hole. But in this case what is this machine good for us? Any outside observer would never know what the forecast was and any inside observer who knew the forecast would not be able to broadcast it outside.

     My point is that no one can tell me what my choice will be in the future. People can tell me after you've made the choice that they knew I would do that, but no one could have said that beforehand, moreover, as long as it is theoretically possible for information to pass from the machine to me before the choice is made, then there will always be the potential for me to find out about the choice and change the My choice, so even the contracts will not be able to know for sure what my choice will be. If we suppose that even though a prediction about the number I would choose was presented in advance, I would not be able to choose another number, as if some physical law were forcing me to make a certain choice, then I would agree that there is no free will.

     As long as theoretically (and not just practically) no one can come to a person and tell him: "You are going to do so and so" (and be right of course) then as far as I'm concerned there is room for free will in certain ways. I want to emphasize that I do not believe in souls or anything else outside of matter that creates that free will. The subject who tries to fail the machine can be replaced by a computer that obviously has no life, and he will also succeed in failing it.

     Hope I didn't confuse you too much, it's hard to express such ideas in writing. If you see mistakes in my thinking please correct me, I would love to find out that things are not as complicated as I thought.

436. I understand you have no questions? You already came prepared with the answers and excuses...

437. Ori,

     You saw the links that I provided, it is explained there and in many other articles, and for me it is a closed and clear topic. I don't know on what basis you base the claim that "the concept of free will is problematic"?

     In short, since the mind is a computer and since the computer does not have free will then the mind does not have free will. In fact, free will (like the concept of the "I") is an illusion that our mind "strengthens" because they are part of its software. For me, these illusions are much less strong than for the average person, but this is only my subjective report of my sense of reality. The principle is of course valid for every living being and I have not heard of a current scientific concept that contradicts it. If you have it, I'd love to hear it.

     Susan Blackmore explains it nicely:

     http://tomerpersico.com/tag/%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%96%D7%9F-%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%A7%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A8/

     http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3840886,00.html

     From Wikipedia: Free choice in science

     Until the discovery of quantum theory by Einstein and Niels Bohr, science was dominated by the stream of determinism that opposes the existence of free will. According to their concept, man is a product of his genetic load on the one hand, and the environmental influences that affected him on the other hand. Since a person has no influence: neither on his genetic load (because this is determined before his birth) nor on the external environmental influences that affect him - how is free choice possible? One of the thinkers expanded on his words and said that if he had known the condition of the earth at the beginning of its creation, he could have predicted the entire future.
     With the discovery of neurons and their mode of operation in the 20th century, the deterministic concept was strengthened: if the brain controls a person's behavior and decisions, and this brain is composed of units whose activity is determined by some electrical charge threshold (of external origin) - how is the person responsible for his choices? Nor did the current of cognitive psychology, which compared the human brain to a computer, leave any room for free choice.
     The discovery of quantum theory raised a renewed question about determinism: if the observer influences the observation, and if the behavior of the system can only be predicted statistically - perhaps there is free choice after all, and not everything is predetermined. But on the other hand, it can always be said that the influence of the observer on the observation had to occur due to the set of circumstances, and the prediction is statistical only because we do not yet know how to calculate causality in the quantum world. This does not mean that this Torah lacks causality.

     Note: In my opinion, quantum theory is not at all relevant to the subject, but in any case it does not change anything. As proof, even if the brain is likened to a computer that receives part of its input from an unpredictable quantum source, then this source is external to the machine. Quantum principles also apply to our home computer and still as a system it operates deterministically.

438. buddha,

     You wrote that the mind is a deterministic biological computer and I of course agree with that, but then you added that free will does not exist. Here I disagree with you because determinism or no determinism, the concept of free will is problematic. All this of course depends on the definition of "free will", so could you elaborate on what you mean?

439. Maybe yes maybe not, but sure maybe,

     I didn't notice that he wrote "individual", I was talking about a common trait in the population because of the example of the bats he gave. I wrote "we'll knock something in her head" because of the case of my uncle's dog that I already mentioned. Something went wrong with the pregnancy and the puppies came out deformed and dead, then the dog took a doll in her lap and cared for her. If there was a kitten there instead of a doll then she might very well have adopted the cat. Because the puppies were taken from her it may be that her instinct to care for them was planted to what was available in the house that once mentioned a puppy. Maybe something similar happened to the lioness. In any case, I am not saying that the case should be excused without investigating it. In general, if researchers test and find that there is true altruism in nature, then I will not deny it and agree that there is a problem in his understanding of how animal behaviors develop. If, on the other hand, researchers continue to find more and more selfish behavior in nature, with no sign of true altruism, would you be willing to change your mind?

     Look, there is one problem with this whole discussion, and that is that I am not a biologist and certainly not an evolution expert. Jerry Coyne is a biologist who supports the theory of evolution, and when asked if it could be disproved he provided criteria. This is the important point here. Even if I can't defend the criteria well, that doesn't mean there's a problem with them. As long as biologists provide criteria to disprove evolution, and as long as they do not ignore new data that can disprove it (otherwise the criteria are worthless), evolution will be considered scientific in my eyes.

     "Why, if it turns out that the lioness is at a disadvantage, will she not be widespread in the population? As long as she manages to survive and produce offspring, there is no problem that adoptive and non-adoptive lionesses will develop side by side" - she will bring fewer offspring (if any) and fewer offspring will survive because she will invest precious time and resources to take care of the antelopes. If this behavior is hereditary then there is a high chance that it will disappear because each individual with such behavior will always be at a disadvantage against other individuals in the competition for limited resources.

     " Therefore the question "why don't you find evolution to be the best explanation" is irrelevant, because it is the only explanation at the moment" - ok, I will ask in a different way, why don't you find it to be a good explanation period?

     "I understand the issue of mutations over generations, etc., but just as I don't envision my dog's offspring developing feathers (or some other ability to fly) or walking on two feet or breathing in water even in a billion years, so I don't envision the germ Evolves into a person over billions of years" - did you mean by seeing in your mind's eye that evolution is not intuitive/not perceived? If so, then what is the difference between that and its correctness? We need to adjust our intuition to reality and not the other way around.

     "I have problems accepting transitions between a bug and a reptile, but from a reptile to walking on 4 and walking on 4 to walking on 2 is already heavy on me." - You did not explain why it is difficult for you to accept these transitions. And as I said earlier, what is the difference between this and the question of the correctness of evolution? It is not clear from your answer whether you find the evidence unconvincing, or whether no matter how much evidence was found you would not be convinced because you cannot see evolution in your mind's eye.

     The question you have to ask yourself is is the problem with evolution and all the biologists who find it correct or is the problem with your understanding of evolution? What do you think is more likely?

440. So we're back to Weil's tornado argument again?
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_fallacy

     If I misunderstood the subject of the 100 mutations and you did not mean Weil's tornado, there is no law that says zero chance cannot occur. You don't exactly know how many planets there are in the universe, the multiverse is another option that science is slowly making scientific, and even if we don't go as far as the multiverse, there may be other mechanisms that control natural selection that we haven't revealed yet that create shortcuts and don't require a full mapping of the explanations you presented and Case in point, arguments that weaken natural selection are welcome by any scientist who wants publicity (and all of them are), but it must be remembered that this is all it is, an argument that weakens the theory of natural selection and does not strengthen any other theory.

     xianghua,
     We didn't agree to stop saying the term intelligent planner and intelligent planning scientists because if God (as you are Indian) then, without a choice you have to say God's scientists?
     Do you already admit that God is not a scientific theory?
     Do you already understand that weakening one theory does not strengthen another theory?
     Do you believe that God was created about 7000-6000 years ago?

441. R.H. Rafai.M,

     There are many studies that show that the brain is a deterministic biological computer. This is actually going to disturb the religious much more than the theory of evolution when they notice it, but because it is not visual like the saying "man was created from the ape" so they pay less attention to it.

     For example, here are two articles from "Hidan".

     https://www.hayadan.org.il/cast-doubt-all-the-way-to-the-truth-261012

     https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-will-0810113/

     Search for "free will" on Google and you will find many explanations as to why it does not exist.

     Evolution also teaches us the same thing. Most people (even the religious) would agree that bacteria are actually robots. The same goes for insects... Since all mammals evolved from bacteria, there is a problem for those who claim that at a certain point the organism turned from a "robot" into something else.

     The Buddhists discovered a long time ago that man does not exist as an object but is a collection of phenomena like anything else.
     Even a robot or a computer is actually a collection of phenomena.

     Here is something short from Wikipedia:

     "In terms of content, the Buddhist path differs in its approach to the question of the "self"; Different from other contemporaneous teachings, both Western and Eastern, which deal a lot with this question, ... one of the three insights that the Buddhist practitioner is supposed to gain, is an insight called "ante" (Sanskrit: "anatman") which means "no-self". This is a thin and subtle idea, the meaning of which is that there is nothing in any object that can be said to be the "self". The "self" perceived by consciousness is only an apparent self, and is not a reality, but a process, ..."

442. Safkan,

     It is about naturalistic cumulative evolution.

     First, XIANGUA initially rules out naturalistic evolution, but we found that it works 100% (for example, the change in the ARA-3 test tube in the 20,000th generation in the Lenski experiment).

     After that it's about accumulation. In the Lansky experiment, any bacteria that you take from a sample that after 20,000 generations from the aforementioned test tube has a high chance of multiplying it long enough to develop the property of digesting lemon salt because it is genetically different.

     An example of the statistical analogy is for example throwing 1000 dice at the same time and the goal is to get the number 6 in all of them. If you throw the dice once the chance is 6 to the power of 1000 (unlikely) but suppose that every time you throw the dice you are allowed to leave on the table the dice that are already showing "6". and discard again only those that do not show "6". How many turns will it take until all the dice show "6"? (between 6 and any number not too big)

     Now let's complicate things a bit. Suppose that in each round of rolling the dice someone randomly picks a number and only the dice showing it remain on the table. On the next turn when the same number comes out, more dice will remain on the table, but if there are none left on the table, only the dice that show the old number and the remainder will be thrown again. How many turns will you need until you manage to get all the dice on the table after a certain throw to show the same number? This is of course equivalent to throwing the same number 6 times in a row.

443. Buddha

     Without referring to XIANGUA's other claims, the claim he made that it is impossible to compare the rarity of 100 mutations compared to the rarity of 2-3 mutations is a correct claim. You may know poker but you don't know probability.

     Below is the description of the probabilistic consideration (roughly worded so that it can be understood). For the sake of simplicity, I will replace the number 100 with the number 99. If, for example, a certain combination of events of 3 "independent of each other" mutations is expected to happen (say) once every 10 years, then a combination of 99 "independent of each other" mutations of the same type is expected to happen once in - 33^10 years, where ^ here marks an increase in power. The 33 is the quotient "99 divided by 3". The term "independence" is from the domain of probability and cannot be explained precisely here, but the intuition about its meaning is sufficient here. The time of 33^10 years is trillions of times the time of the universe (the time of the universe is 14 billion years according to the estimate), therefore the probability that a combination of 99 mutations will occur during the existence of the universe is a "zero" probability.

     It is possible to attack the XINGUA claim about "sudden combination of 100 mutations" from other directions, but it may be difficult.

444. I understand.
     Yes, I also read some interesting things here and there.

     "Meditation brings you to experience the absence of "I" and the absence of free will. It's of course just a feeling and I don't rely on it."

     So what do you rely on? (I may not have understood your statement, I would appreciate it if you elaborated).

445. R.H. Rafai.M,

     Yes. I claim we are all robots.

     Starting with: "We are survival machines and nothing else - robotic tools programmed blindly to preserve the selfish molecules called genes" (Dawkins)

     And including everything I read about brain research, decision making and determinism. If you are interested, read Susan Blackmore as well (not in the context of water but in the context of free will).

     Or in short Spinoza without the concept of God.

     Meditation brings you to experience the absence of "I" and the absence of free will. This is of course just a feeling and I don't rely on it.

446. He must have retired from poker because he kept losing all the time.. Apparently he refuses to believe that reality doesn't work the way he would like to think.
     By the way, I wanted to ask you what evidence you back up your words that we are all robots? Are you claiming I'm a robot? Are you claiming to be a robot? I didn't understand you properly.

447. xianghua,

     Why are 2 or 3 mutations okay and 100 not? We are talking about several billion years... you keep repeating it without giving any reason. A wolf can turn into a Pinscher in a few years. Multiply that by a billion.

     Have you ever played poker where you had a four in your hand and went ALL-IN and lost to someone who had a poker, and besides that there was another poker on the same turn for someone else (but lower) and two full houses for other players, etc.? If not then you haven't played enough poker because if you play enough it will surely happen to you too.

448. Hi Buddha,

     I do not rule out neutralist evolution when it comes to two or three mutations. But when it comes to nearly 100 mutations, it's another story.

     Lenski's experiment does not demonstrate the development of a complex system but rather a control change of an existing system. This is similar to changing control on an air conditioner timer. Imagine that your air conditioner will suddenly work non-stop and will not take into account the time you have allocated for it. Are you clear that this is technical damage to the air conditioner? Is it true that in that case you will call a technician straight away?

449. the last camila,
     xianghua has already admitted that their designer is none other than God himself and I have already read here not to agree with their washed-up terminology but to explicitly say the word God.

     All their arguments are God of the Gaps arguments, arguments that are an insult to intelligence.

450. xianghua,
     We didn't agree to stop saying the term intelligent planner and intelligent planning scientists because if God (as you are Indian) and then, without a choice, God's scientists?
     Do you admit that God is not a scientific theory?
     Do you believe that God was created about 7000-6000 years ago?

451. shogun,
     The duty of proof applies to those who make a claim regarding reality, not to those who conclude based on tested and verified knowledge and based on rational (ie logical) thinking that a claim made by someone else is improbable. This is one of the innovations of the creationists, a new stage in their evolution if you will, in which they try in an inclusive way to place the responsibility for their claims on those who realized that their claims are hollow and dare to point to this void.

     The scientists, on the other hand, make a different claim and they support this claim with positive facts, observations and experiments (because it is the scientists' duty to show that evolution is a good explanation for the observed reality. Based on the knowledge that has been accumulated so far within the framework of science, it can be concluded that the creationists' claim is nonsense. It simply does not hold. The creationists, who try To disguise, also here in inclusiveness, in a variety of nicknames such as those who believe in intelligent design, make a very clear claim about reality but are mainly engaged in attacking science and the scientists and do not at all try to defend their claim as required (and held) as stated by the scientists.

     The fact that there are complex objects that are created by completely natural processes should be a huge warning sign that the creationists' conclusion is clearly not trivial, on the contrary, the fact that such processes are known only strengthens the possibility that all complex things (except those that we know are man-made, it's just it would be silly to generalize them too) evolved naturally. Assuming the existence of a planner in these cases only complicates matters much more since you are now required to explain who planned the planner. Claiming that the same planner has always existed raises many additional questions, the first of which is the question, if a planner could always exist then the universe we know can also always exist, and since we already know natural processes that enable the development of the universe as well as the development of the variety of life from an ancestor, the need for such a planner completely unnecessary.
     Worst of all, if you still chose to adopt the intelligent planner, it is clear that you will now activate it every time you do not know something. It is the ultimate filler that can be used at any time and no hole is too big for it, but the true meaning of this concept is: "I have no idea". Try and see, switch between the two concepts and your knowledge of the world will be given up to the same extent.

     (the typo is intentional)

452. xianghua,

     I agree with your claim "When you fail to refute the claims, you refer to the one who claims them. Hope that's not your style." Indeed Ethologika combines in his responses a personal attack on you and I want you to know that there are also those who really disagree with you but find no point in personal attacks. In any case, we are all biological robots living a deterministic life experience devoid of free choice. He who is born so and so is so and so, etc.

     I'm short of controlling the level of your discussion about the proteins, but one claim keeps coming up again and again. Neutralistic evolution.

     All evolution (genetic change) is random and is therefore necessarily neutral. This is similar to copying a file on a computer in the event that it contains a number of small mistakes that the error control system does not recognize. This was proven in the Lenski experiment. In the test tube chain of bacteria that eventually learned to digest lemon salt, it all started with a meaningless genetic aberration in the 20,000th generation. This deviation did not affect the phenotype in any way until a much later stage when additional mutations occurred. Combining all the mutations eventually caused a big change.

     When I learned about the Lenski experiment, I thought to myself when they would perform a genetic test of the different generations, and indeed about a month ago we were informed on our favorite "Hidan" website that this would be done.

     So please, please stop arguing against neutralistic evolution.

453. Shmulik,

     1. Without literal shortcuts, in evolution we talk about populations. A population of a certain creature is given. All the individuals in the population have several mutations which for the sake of simplification we will say are identical. Given a certain environment it turns out that in this environment some of the mutations are good, some are bad and some are neutral. If in the overall weighting the weight of the good mutations exceeds the neutral mutations, the population will tend to grow.

     2. When it is said in evolution that something is gradual, all that is being said is that any change in the transition from sequence A to sequence B in the genome is a step that is likely to happen. What happens in the creature itself when sequence B is expressed in it can be very different from the situation in which sequence A is expressed in it, even if the change between A and B is tiny.

454. Ethology,

     When you fail to refute the claims, you refer to the person making them. Hope that's not your style.

     "For the benefit of the readers, I will summarize your stupid statement saga on the subject of the spatial structure of proteins. You originally said that "we will have to change most of the spatial structure to fit the new function". - Very true. In the specific example I gave. Although I could only qualify this for the two proteins I gave as an example (cytochrome c and histone h4), but because according to the theory of evolution many proteins *should indeed undergo* a major change in their spatial structure, it turns out that my claim is absolutely correct on a principle level. I noticed that you also ignored my second argument against yours. Even if the spatial structure of both is similar, the sequential distance may be very different, so here too it is not possible to gradually move to another sequence. That's why I also asked you how many khas separate them, I have not yet received an answer.

     If this is not enough, it turns out in a study from 2010 that maybe even in homologous proteins (sequentially similar), there is not necessarily a gradual transition. And it turns out that I covered all the possibilities. Take for example the proteins alpha hemoglobin and myoglobin, they both have a similar structure and almost the same function (oxygen transfer), but both differ by almost 70% in their sequence and are actually not considered homologous.

     ” For this to be true, you must make an implicit assumption that any or most of the intermediate steps on the path to flagellin have no biological function whatsoever. "- very true. That is, in order to prove my claim, it is necessary to show that there is no gradual functional transition between system a and b. And on this revolves the whole root of the dispute today between the scientists of intelligent design and the scientists of evolution. And so I ask for the 11th time, are there functional transitions between one complex system and another? Can you demonstrate this in human engineering for example?

     "This assumption is unfounded. To this assumption you must add another implicit assumption, that neutralistic evolution does not exist or is unimportant. This assumption is wrong. All your words have nothing to do with your original argument, do not support it and are not close to it at all. You are once again hiding behind a smokescreen of changing the subject and trying to mock your opponent's positions for discussion. The joke is on you." - note that you said "this assumption is wrong". But you did not specify why. Stand by your words and prove that I assumed wrong. See explanation above.

     "Pay attention to what you asked me to show you: "Can you demonstrate how it is possible to move from system A to system B, which is completely different from it, in gradual steps?". This has been demonstrated to you by these studies, but you do not admit your mistake. "- Again, if we follow this line, creating a hole in a car windshield is adding a complex system to the car (ventilation system). Do you agree with this statement? Can you suggest a split between them?

     ” In fact, even in the real world breaking something can be beneficial. Try to activate the fire alarm during a fire without breaking the glass behind which the button is located. Breaking the glass creates a "new system" with which you can save people." - It's nice that you added the quotation marks. You understand yourself that it is not a complex system.

     ". For example, it is possible to combine genes by deleting the space between them so that both are under the same control. It can be adaptive, depending on the environmental conditions and the genes involved." - It is also possible to combine a clock with a calculator. But there is no creation of a new system here.

     " forget about it. In Lansky's experiment there was mainly duplication of genes, not deletion. This was told to you in my previous response, but you chose to ignore it completely." - And what did you get out of duplicating it? Again - duplication of an existing system. No new system creation.

     "The original gene did not have a weak function and a strong function. He had only one strong function." - Are you sure of your words? This is not what is written here:

     http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121022145340.htm

     In the new model, the original gene first gains a second, weak function alongside its main activity

     Nasvall, Lei and Andersson tested this model using the bacterium Salmonella. The bacteria carried a gene involved in making the amino acid histidine that had a secondary, weak ability to contribute to the synthesis of another amino acid, tryptophan

     Do you back down from this claim?

455. Ethology, two easy questions (correct me on any wrong assumption and I'm sorry in advance for the wording, I'm a layman in the field)
     1. In the evolution of a bacterium of a certain species, several changes occur at the same time. Since the survival of any living creature derives from the sum of its properties, why is it not possible for the species to survive, because it has developed a property or properties that allow it to survive, but at the same time it has developed unhelpful and perhaps even harmful properties, but the total is positive?

     2. Gradual changes: Recently in Brazil a baby with two heads was born. I have no idea if he will survive but this change cannot be considered small. Now let's do this exercise for kidneys, that is, suppose that in the past mammals only had one kidney and at once, within one generation, in one individual, 2 kidneys were formed. The creature thrived better and now we all have 2 kidneys. Why then do I read again and again that evolution must be gradual? Or did I not understand the concept of gradual correctly?

456. Shmulik,
     Thanks. I did notice his discussion style. I think he's even worse than that. He is just a liar. He quotes me out of context again and again, he "forgets" whenever he wants what he asked others to demonstrate, he uses demagoguery on a dime and more.

     xianghua,

     Fortunately, I have debated enough with creationists to know the arrogance that characterizes you. Maybe it works with an audience that hasn't studied biology, but not with me. This response of yours also simply fails in almost every basic biology course.

     "The above study certainly supports my claim, as I explained earlier, and as you apparently knowingly ignore. I won't repeat that again, unless you like talking to yourself." I'm just going to quote myself from earlier. "This is a basic biochemical study in which the researcher tried to identify areas essential for the activity of the said protein. In this study, no attempt was made to create a hypothesis or test a hypothesis about the evolutionary history of the gene or protein, because this is not a study of the evolution of this protein (evolutionary considerations were involved in this study, but the evolution of the protein was not studied). He doesn't disprove anything about the theory of evolution because he didn't even try to answer an evolutionary question and didn't deal with it. As mentioned, this is a basic biochemical study that characterized the protein."

     For the benefit of the readers, I will summarize your stupid statement saga on the subject of the spatial structure of proteins. You originally said that "we will have to change most of the spatial structure to fit the new function". To contradict this, one example is sufficient in which two proteins carry out different reactions, but their spatial structure is largely unchanged. You have been given such an example: the protein ribonuclease A and the protein angiogenin catalyze different chemical reactions, but their spatial structure is very similar. This is the point where, if you were a person of integrity, you would abandon your original claim as false. In response you asked a bunch of irrelevant questions and your attention and the attention of the readers was diverted to it. As a response, you gave the following irrelevant argument: "I literally gave the histone h4 and cytochrome c. Both are very different in their spatial structure and have completely different functions."

     The answer to this quibble is obvious. The subject of the discussion is whether, in order for one protein to have a different function from another protein, most of their spatial structure *needs* to be different. The answer to this is a resounding no and is exemplified by ribonuclease A and angiogenin. This does not mean that there cannot be two proteins with a mostly different spatial structure that perform different functions, so saying that there are two such proteins does not help you. In this answer of yours, you attacked a straw man in a way that shows that you do not know the material and that your integrity aspires to zero. I already made it clear to you that this is a straw man. Your response now is absurd at its finest. You still try to avoid admitting that you've made a mistake, but do so by throwing out a meaningless line: “Wrong. I never claimed that. This is the second time I've said this." What the hell is that about? You are both ignorant and dishonest.

     Your response on the subject of the statistical failure also shows zero integrity. Your original claim was: "Even if there are a trillion types of useful proteins in the sequence space, the chance that two of them will be close to each other is extremely small (a trillion out of 100^20 is nothing)". You are told that "there is no way to calculate this without a huge margin of error that puts this argument on chicken knees". In a desperate attempt to find evidence for this claim, you have now made one major mistake: you attribute to me claims that I did not claim and consequences that do not follow from what you were told. You wrote that "if we go by your claim, that statistics have no meaning, then we can claim that the bat, for example, developed in Mecca. But it is a fact that no evolutionary scientist claims such nonsense, because the chance of it is terrifyingly zero. Do you disagree with their claim? Do you think the baton could have developed in Mecca? If your answer is no, then you agree that out of the total sequences for a given protein, only a minority of them are useful in a biological context." I will not claim the nonsense you attribute to me. I'll do it because of statistics, but not the same scrambled statistics you're trying to support.

     Empirical experiments show that each type of mutation has a certain probability. There are several types of mutations, for example a mutation that changes one "letter" in the genome, a mutation that deletes a "letter" in the genome, a mutation that adds a "letter" to the genome, a mutation that replicates a certain segment in the genome and many other types and subtypes. Each of these types has some probability of happening, and the probability can be calculated by an empirical experiment. In order to create some kind of new gene from the existing genes, for example the gene for flagellin, a certain amount of such mutations is required. The more mutations there are, the more likely they will occur one after the other in different individuals that are in the same evolutionary lineage and "accumulate" slowly, and the less likely they will all occur in the same individual at once. This is the reason why, in my opinion, a protein like flagellin will not be created in one "stroke". As is clear, this answer is not at all related to the claim that "out of the threshold of sequences for a given protein, only a minority of them are useful in a biological context". For this to be true, you must make an implicit assumption that any or most of the intermediate steps on the path to flagellin have no biological function whatsoever. This assumption is unfounded. To this assumption you must add another implicit assumption, that neutralistic evolution does not exist or is unimportant. This assumption is wrong. All your words have nothing to do with your original argument, do not support it and are not close to it at all. You are once again hiding behind a smokescreen of changing the subject and trying to mock your opponent's positions for discussion. The joke is on you.

     Regarding the studies in the evolution of microorganisms, you just wrote: "These are not complex features at all. Most of them require a mutation or two. Is this what you call a complex system? Are you serious?". I want to point out to the audience how this response of yours demonstrates your blatant lack of integrity. For creationists, any feature whose creation has been observed is not "complex" by definition, but we will leave this point for a moment. Let's say these are not complex features for your taste. Pay attention to what you asked me to show you: "Can you demonstrate how it is possible to move from system A to system B which is completely different from it in gradual steps?". This has been demonstrated to you by these studies, but you do not admit your mistake. I already wrote before what your excuse is going to be: 'Perhaps a creationist like you will try to get out of this by focusing on the words "completely different from her" and claiming that in these studies the creation of a feature that is completely different from the original feature was not demonstrated. To remind you, evolution does not create things from nothing. It uses the raw materials it has, so we will expect homology between the genetic sequence that codes for the new feature and between other genetic sequences. Your creationist expectation of something else rests on a poor understanding of the theory.' Come on, don't lie. I'm waiting to hear him.

     Of course, your individual comments on these studies are no better. In Lenski's research you will again address the "complexity" of the feature. Of course, with creationists every feature that we have already seen with our eyes that evolution created is not "complex" by definition. We'll leave it here too. You argued that evolution cannot create one system from another. You have been given two examples of this. Your response is that the system created is not complex enough for your liking. Well, my matter-of-fact response to this is to address the audience and point out your complete lack of integrity.

     You also wrote about the Lenski experiment, that if the deletion of an attribute causes the creation of a new attribute, then "according to this logic, if we break a car windshield, we can call it a new system." This is because we will now have a vent. Just look at how easy it is to disprove the conclusions of one of the most important experiments done in the field of evolution." Demagoguery on the dime. First, actually, even in the real world breaking something can be useful. Try to activate the fire alarm during a fire without breaking the glass behind which the button is located. Breaking the glass creates a "new system" with which you can save people. In a similar way, you don't necessarily "break" anything when you delete something from the genome. There are so many things that can be created by deleting things from the genome. For example, it is possible to combine genes by deleting the space between them so that both are under the same control. It can be adaptive, depending on environmental conditions and the genes involved. You are simply a demagogue who chooses his examples according to the amount of sand he wants to throw in the eyes of the audience. Worse than that, you try to link the erasure claim with the Lenski experiment. forget about it. In Lansky's experiment there was mainly duplication of genes, not deletion. You were told this in my previous comment, but you chose to ignore it completely.

     Your response to the second study makes me quote mining. You are trying to make this research look like it "improved" an existing feature. You quoted me as saying: "Under conditions where the organism needs the weak function of this gene to work more strongly, selection will occur in favor of individuals that have two copies of this gene. Two copies of this gene will allow the expression of more of its protein" and so on. To this you said: "Enough, really? You bring an example of improving an existing trait as evidence of the development of a new system that requires thousands of dna bases?"

     As anyone who has read my comment knows, no, I am not giving you an example of improving an existing feature. The original gene did not have a weak function and a strong function. It had only one strong function. You pretended in your previous response that it was not true and did citation mining for the study itself as well. About this I told you: "Contrary to what you said, the researchers reproduced all the steps, from the creation of the mutant with one weak activity and one strong activity to the creation of a gene with a single function after a process of molecular evolution. Your behavior is despicable, worthy of condemnation and in fact demonstrates well that you are a cheap demagogue and nothing more, of the variety of Zamir Cohen, Amnon Yitzhak and Co. As the other readers of this comment realize, this research, for our purposes here, is simply beautiful. It well demonstrates the evolution of a new gene from beginning to end, and no amount of demagoguery will change that.” You're just a liar. I'll say it again: you're not wrong. You're a liar. In order to quote me as if I didn't say that sentence, it is necessary to knowingly ignore the content of my response.

     You can say hello to me right now. I won't mind. You are a liar, a demagogue, showing zero knowledge of evolution, biochemistry, structural biology and even genetics. Again and again Zora Sand is caught in the eyes of the readers. Again and again you rattled your brain to get out of the corners your ignorance got you into. I, for my part, will continue to answer you in my free time, because you simply do not require effort. You are so ignorant that nothing you say changes anything. These are the same excuses over and over again. What you decide to do is your choice.

457. "Maybe yes, maybe not, but for sure maybe",
     I have an easy question: do you have a degree in biology? Advanced degree in biology?

     Regarding the "Hebrew planner" that you and Uri keep referring to, is he God or just an alien?
     If he is just an alien, the question arises as to how that alien was created and if he is God, then explaining our existence here by throwing in the word "God" is the same as a patient asking a doctor: why am I deaf and the doctor answering, because you don't hear.
     To say God, explains nothing

458. Ori.
     "Now to the lioness and the antelope. We are looking for behavior that is common in the population. For example the bats that share blood. For Dawkins, who sees the genes as a unit undergoing selection, it will be very difficult to explain this fact if it turns out that there is no selfish motive (at the level of the genes) for this behavior. Bats that give and don't get back are at a clear disadvantage to bats that take blood and don't give back. In the case of the lioness, this is a private case and not some behavior that is common among the lion population."

     Regarding common behavior in the population:
     The complete criteria (you brought it, not me):

     Evolved "true" altruistic behavior among non-relatives in non-social animals. What I mean by "true" altruistic behavior is the observation of an individual sacrificing his reproductive output for the benefit of individuals to whom he is either unrelated or from whom he does not expect to receive return benefits. In this "true" altruism your genes give benefits to others and get nothing back, and this shouldn't evolve under natural selection. And, indeed, we don't see such altruism in nature. There are reports that vampire bats regurgitate blood to other individuals in the colony to whom they're unrelated, but those need confirmation, and there may also be reciprocal altruism, so that individuals regurgitate blood to those from whom, one day, they expect a return meal. Such cooperation can evolve by normal natural selection.

     Why does he use the singular?
     "an individual sacrificing its reproductive output for the benefit of individuals to which it is either unrelated or from whom it does not expect to receive return benefits"

     He says an individual
     And that he does not expect profit from those he helps...
     And it is very, very likely that he was not confused because even in the article I cited someone points out that it is against evolution.
     Apparently the lioness is an individual who helps the antelope without any gain

     "If it turned out that many lionesses adopt antelopes and even though they are at a disadvantage compared to lionesses who take care of their cubs this behavior is still widespread in the population, then evolution as we defined it earlier would indeed be in trouble. Another problem is that it is not at all clear what the source of this behavior is. If something was knocked into the head of the lioness and she started taking care of the antelopes, then the matter is not related to evolution at all. Just as if a deer as a result of, let's say, a head injury "decides" to run to the predator and thus sacrifice itself for the common good, it will not disprove evolution, another such example is where a person will, let's say, tame one bat to share with other bats without getting anything in return, this too has nothing to do with evolution .”

     Why, if it turns out that the lioness is at a disadvantage, will it not be widespread in the population?
     As long as she manages to survive and produce offspring, there is no problem that adoptive litters and non-adopting litters will develop side by side.
     And if this is still problematic in your opinion (explain to me why), then the Darwinists should kill this lioness quickly, because if she produces offspring and they inherit this trait from her, evolution has gone.
     And regarding "we'll knock his/her brain out", more gray definitions? Who is crazy and who is sane? When is a pile defined as a pile?
     It is impossible to work with it, it is impossible to establish such a refutation criterion, it is so elusive that every example you find will encounter another non-mathematical definition.
     Note, from social and altruism we have come to brain damage.

     "In any case, why don't you just accept evolution? You said that you don't deny it, but you also don't adhere to it, but why don't you find evolution to be the best explanation for the existence of the variety of life that we see today on Earth? And what will be your answer regarding the intelligent planning, aren't you wrong here as well? In other words, do you find the evolutionary explanation no more convincing than the creationist explanation?"

     I already agreed with you that intelligent design is not a scientific description, because it cannot be ruled out, as you said, it is a nice framework that can be hung behind a scientific theory, the bang? By design, the evolution? In a superior design…
     If there is anything "scientific" in the theory of the intelligent planner, it goes into the humanities class, into philosophy.
     Evolution (whether it is designed by intelligence or not) is the only scientific theory that explains the development of life, therefore the question "why don't you find evolution to be the best explanation" is irrelevant, because it is the only explanation at the moment.
     I understand the matter of mutations over generations, etc., but just as I do not envision my dog's offspring developing feathers (or any other ability to fly) or walking on two feet or breathing in water even in a billion years, so I do not envision the germ developing to man over billions of years.
     I have problems accepting transitions between a bug and a reptile, but crawling to walking on 4 and walking on 4 to walking on 2 is already heavy on me.
     And even if we accept the idea that a "germ" developed man, it still does not mean that there is a common ancestor for all life.
     The fact that there is a genetic similarity between all life does not require that they have a common ancestor.
     So do I have another scientific idea for how we were created? No, I haven't, but in the absence of other suspects that doesn't mean evolution is to blame.

459. Maybe yes maybe not, but sure maybe

     Before I address the lioness and the antelope I want to emphasize something. The writer of the second set of criteria sees five elements in the theory of evolution, in short: development, usually slow and gradual, splitting, a common ancestor for all two creatures, natural selection as the main mechanism.

     The criteria come to disprove these elements of evolution, but not all of them come to disprove the first part, and of course it is possible that some of the elements are true and some are not. In addition, evolution that sees the species as a unit undergoing selection (for example) will not be refuted by all the criteria.

     Now to the lioness and the antelope. We are looking for behavior that is common in the population. For example the bats that share blood. For Dawkins, who sees the genes as a unit undergoing selection, it will be very difficult to explain this fact if it turns out that there is no selfish motive (at the level of the genes) for this behavior. Bats that give and don't get back are at a clear disadvantage to bats that take blood and don't give back. In the case of the lioness, this is a private case and not some behavior that is common among the lion population. If it turned out that many lionesses adopt antelopes and even though they are at a disadvantage compared to lionesses who take care of their cubs this behavior is still widespread in the population, then evolution as we defined it earlier would indeed be in trouble. Another problem is that it is not at all clear what the source of this behavior is. If something was knocked into the head of the lioness and she started taking care of the antelopes, then the matter is not related to evolution at all. Just as if a deer as a result of, let's say, a head injury "decides" to run to the predator and thus sacrifice itself for the common good, it will not disprove evolution, another such example is where a person will, let's say, tame one bat to share with other bats without getting anything in return, this has nothing to do with evolution either .

     "Any scientific theory, and the fact that it is the most logical and has thousands of criteria and has thousands of supporting findings, does not oblige me to accept it as truth from a rational point of view. Why don't I get it specifically? The truth is that I don't categorically deny it, but I don't stick to it either." - I completely agree with you, and nowhere did I say that you must accept evolution as an absolute truth. What I am saying is that as of now this is the best theory we have, supported by a lot of evidence and not disproven even though it is possible. The fact that it is impossible to verify that a certain theory is absolute truth does not mean that this theory is just a meaningless guess. Look at classical mechanics. It has been disproved but is still used, for the reason that it serves as a good approximation of what happens in reality under certain conditions.

     In any case, why don't you just accept the evolution? You said that you don't deny it, but you also don't adhere to it, but why don't you find evolution to be the best explanation for the existence of the variety of life that we see today on Earth? And what will be your answer regarding the intelligent planning, aren't you wrong here as well? In other words do you find the evolutionary explanation no more convincing than the creationist explanation?

460. Ori.

     I understood you regarding the relevance of the criterion (even the most delusional), but it makes the same theory problematic, again, it is true that there is not too much choice in choosing the criteria, but it is a problem..
     After all, at first they thought that the earth was flat (due to a trivial but defective observation) and then they discovered that the earth is round (but still flat) or hemispherical, and only after a while they came to the conclusion that the earth is spherical.
     So assuming that today we are without advanced technology, I can ask: how many generations will we have to pass until we discover that the "truth" is different?
     I can say that the moon is a sphere, and the earth is flat, therefore we see the shadow as curved and not as a straight line, the earth does not have to be spherical, it can be flat and round.
     If the refuting criteria are not achievable at the present time (due to current technology or any other temporary reason), why would a person accept the theory that the earth is round and not flat?

     "Here in social he means an animal that helps an animal from whom he does not expect to receive a favor in return. This can be checked by observation."

     Do you know the lioness and the antelope?

     http://www.panapress.com/Kenyan-lioness-adopts-sixth-baby-oryx–13-471999-17-lang4-index.html
     From the article:

     "The question at the moment is how long the lioness will continue to defy all the laws of evolution and continue turning on the calves for adoption as cubs,"

     And the YouTube video:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZw-1BfHFKM

     Really worth seeing, regardless of our discussion it's just amazing.

     Does this rule out evolution?

     "I have a question, why don't you accept the theory of evolution? Suppose and I were to convince you that it is scientific, would you then accept it or does the evidence not convince you?"

     In general, any scientific theory, and that it is the most logical and has thousands of criteria and has thousands of supporting findings, does not require me to accept it as truth from a rational point of view.
     Why don't I get it specifically? The truth is that I do not categorically deny it, but I do not adhere to it either.
     True, it seems logical, but not everything that seems logical is necessarily true, there may be other possibilities.
     I accept the big bang, and if there is a discussion about how we were created/how the universe was created, I will support it, but I will not adhere to it as an absolute truth (there was a time when I did adhere to it), because I know, despite the findings, that nothing is really committed, especially after Many more speculations have been made for the Big Bang, some of them also related to quantum mechanics.
     In general, quantum theory disrupted the whole good order of science, but I tend to believe in determinism.
     In short, although I admire science, I do not see scientific truth as absolute truth.

461. Maybe yes maybe not, but sure maybe

     "If you told me to walk and walk and walk until I fall off the earth or find its edge, then I would probably argue like about the chimera" - so let's say that's what I would tell you, and let's say that as an additional criterion I would tell you to show during a lunar eclipse that the moon was shadowed by the earth He is a band (what we would sometimes expect to see if it was in the form of a disc). In that case, I provide two criteria, one of which is more "fanciful", would you argue in such a situation? And if so, then what do you suggest, that I drop the first criterion, and then if let's say someone does find the end of the earth, what do we tell him then? That doesn't disprove it because it's delusional?

     Regarding the deer (skip to Discussion):

     http://webs.wofford.edu/moellerjf/Animal%20Behavior%202011/stotting%20in%20gazelles.pdf

     Just a small correction: the wolves tended to chase deer that jumped at a lower rate and the explanation that the deer transmits its strength to the predator is a possible explanation (maybe there is another explanation). What is clear is that they do not sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the other deer.

     Regarding altruism, I quote the full criterion:

     Evolved "true" altruistic behavior among non-relatives in non-social animals. What I mean by "true" altruistic behavior is the observation of an individual sacrificing his reproductive output for the benefit of individuals to whom he is either unrelated or from whom he does not expect to receive return benefits. In this "true" altruism your genes give benefits to others and get nothing back, and this shouldn't evolve under natural selection. And, indeed, we don't see such altruism in nature. There are reports that vampire bats regurgitate blood to other individuals in the colony to whom they're unrelated, but those need confirmation, and there may also be reciprocal altruism, so that individuals regurgitate blood to those from whom, one day, they expect a return meal. Such cooperation can evolve by normal natural selection.

     Here by asocial he means an animal that helps an animal from whom he does not expect to receive a favor in return. This can be checked by observation. This is not a round three, because for example the bats that share blood can return favors to one another and they can not, and this as mentioned can be verified by observation.

     "What about people who put themselves at risk for the common good?" - Humans are problematic. First of all because they are social animals, and secondly because in humans behavior is also influenced by culture and education, and what we are looking for is instinctive behavior.

     I have a question, why don't you accept the theory of evolution? Suppose and I were to convince you that it is scientific, would you then accept it or does the evidence not convince you?

462. Ori.
     Regarding speech, I said it didn't matter, I just pointed out that regarding your response about sign language, that signs are not speech, that's all.

     Regarding what I would say without technology that allows direct observation, I don't know how to tell you, maybe, depending on the criteria you would provide me.
     If you told me to go and go and go until I fall off the ground or find the edge of it, then I'd probably argue like I did about the Chimera.

     Regarding the "debate" about the chimera...
     If the chimera appears as a counter to the creationists' claims about it—
     That is, if the claim of the creationists is "evolution requires the formation of a chimera and therefore it is not true - because not even one chimera has been found in nature"
     And the answer of the Darwinists is, "Well, then first of all you are murderous retards, and secondly if A-N-H-N-V, the Darwinists, we find a natural chimera, we promise to repent" (did I understand correctly?)
     — and is not a real criterion of the theory, so yes, I put an end to the debate about the chimera (I thought we were debating, but oh well... so be it..)

     If you have a link to what you said about a cool deer, if not, that's fine, I trust you are not talking nonsense.
     But in any case, even if a deer was found to be altruistic, it is considered social, isn't it? And we are looking for an asocial who will behave altruistically... a bit problematic... like looking for a round triangle, right?
     Or are we now talking about every living thing that will behave altruistically?

     "Once again I say as before in the current response, a criterion based on a behavioral characteristic is problematic because a behavioral characteristic is not an unequivocal characteristic." - If we define altruism as behavior in which the individual sacrifices himself/reduces his chances of survival for the benefit of individuals who are strangers to him, then this will be an unequivocal definition that can be checked by observation."

     What about people who put themselves at risk for the common good? I guess you've heard of Major Roy Klein, a blessed memory...
     Ahhhh... but actually we are socialists (not in the economic sense of the word..) so now all that remains is to define anti-social...
     How do we define it? And who is even qualified to define this?

463. Maybe yes maybe not, but sure maybe

     "It really doesn't matter, but I'm still sorry, sign language is not speech, even signals (any movements, like courtship signs for example) and calls (like barking and growling) are not speech, they are indeed a form of communication, but communication is not speech" - so What is not speech? If the vocal cords of the chimpanzees were structured differently and they were able to say words instead of showing them with signs, would it make a difference?

     "The circularity of the earth is an evidentiary fact that exists and is seen in practice and not indirectly based on other facts. On the other hand, evolution (Darwin's) is a theory, not a fact" - I don't want to go into the definitions of facts and theories, so we will remember the time when it was not possible to directly see that the earth is round. All that was then was indirect evidence, such as the circular shadow of the Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse. At a time like this, if I suggested to you to disprove the theory to find the end of the world, would you then say that the claim that the earth is round is not scientific?

     And this is of course not the only example. Before it was possible with the help of satellites to directly measure the movement of tectonic plates, and all that supported plate tectonics was indirect evidence, would you then say that the theory is not scientific?

     ” And what to do that a criterion like the chimera is completely delusional? I understand why he seems legitimate to you, but would it be legitimate to ask you to prove that you don't have a sister?" - Will a chimera of two evolutionarily distant animals discovered in nature put the theory of evolution in question? Yes. This. I don't understand what the argument is about here. The question was asked what would disprove evolution, and the chimera - no matter how illusory - would do so, and would probably testify to planning. Don't you think it's likely that you'll find a chimera? Okay, so focus on the other criteria, like for example those dealing with fossils. You did not address the fact that the creationists are the ones who bring up chimeras as something that would prove evolution and it may be that this is exactly why the chimera was mentioned. If this is the case, would you agree to end the discussion about the chimera?

     About the deer. Such altruistic behavior in which the deer attracts the heart node of the predator is evolutionarily unstable. Indeed, after observations, it became clear that the predator does not chase the jumping deer (the explanation for this is that the deer shows its strength to the predator and sends it to chase a weaker deer). This means that we have a prediction and then confirmation by observation. If it turned out that the predator usually chases the jumping deer and preys on it, and despite this we would see this behavior in the deer population, then it would be difficult to find an explanation for this within the framework of Darwinism.

     "Once again I say as before in the current response, a criterion based on a behavioral characteristic is problematic because a behavioral characteristic is not an unequivocal characteristic." - If we define altruism as behavior in which the individual sacrifices himself/reduces his chances of survival for the benefit of individuals foreign to him, then this will be an unequivocal definition that can be checked by observation.

464. Ori
     "It is clear to me that there is nothing that evolutionarily prevents any animal from developing speech, but based on the knowledge we have today, no such animal exists" - not that it matters but it is not exactly true, they managed to teach apes sign language with a certain degree of success."

     # It really doesn't matter, but I'm still sorry, sign language is not speech, even signals (any movements, like courtship signs for example) and calls (like barking and growling) are not speech, they are indeed a form of communication, but communication is not speech.

     "There is no problem that you choose the weak points, but you cannot treat them as if they were the only points I presented. The same link I provided presented four criteria and one of them was a chimera, I don't know why the author specifically chose a chimera, perhaps because creationists present chimeras in many cases as something that should have been found if evolution was correct (for example half fish half cow as a transitional stage between a terrestrial animal and a marine animal), And the writer wanted to emphasize that not only is this not what evolution says, but it would even disprove it.

     In any case, when you present the criteria for refuting a theory, you simply present what will disprove it, regardless of how absurd it may seem. What to do, while in laboratories it is possible to create chimeras in evolution, they cannot develop, therefore if it is found it will disprove it. What do you think a refutation criterion for the claim that the earth is round would look like? Here is a criterion: find the edge of the world. Weird right? Then the denier will come and say that the claim that the earth is round is not scientific, that there is no chance of fulfilling this criterion. But the point is that precisely because the earth is round, he will not be able to fill it."

     # But this is really not similar to the criterion for the circularity of the land, because you see the land, there is no conclusion here, there is a fact here.
     If tomorrow we look at our world and it appears to be a square, we will have a serious problem explaining it, but it will still be a fact.
     The circularity of the earth is an evidentiary fact that exists and is seen in practice and not indirectly based on other facts.
     On the other hand, evolution (Darwin's) is a theory, not a fact.
     You can't argue with mutations, you can't argue with similarity between the species, these are direct facts, but the theory is an inference, that is, it is revealed indirectly, therefore, unlike the circularity of the earth and mutations, it should have criteria - not illusions - for refutation.
     And what to do that a criterion like the chimera is completely delusional? I understand why he seems legit to you, but would it be legit to ask you to prove you don't have a sister?
     Here's a theory: so-and-so unknown murdered so-and-so peony.
     And here are the facts: we know based on the DNA that so-and-so was near her, and we have evidence that the two were together that day.
     Criterion of rebuttal: so-and-so is asked to prove that he was not at the scene of the murder at the time of the murder or to find the murderer. (the chimera?)
     So we built a criminal (or evolutionary) theory based on facts, and we ask for it to be refuted by contrary evidence? And if there is no evidence? Or alternatively, there are proofs but they will only be found in a few years? So in the meantime we will rot in prison?
     Do you understand why the chimera is problematic? I have no problem with the circumstantial evidence (mutations and DNA similarity) but the conclusion is not binding.

     "And evolution seems to you to have predicted the ego from itself just like that?" - In a certain sense yes. For example, the deer that supposedly warns others when it starts to get high in front of a predator and draw attention to it. Supporters of group selection would say that behavior serves the common good, and that there is actually altruism here. But this behavior is evolutionary unstable, so another explanation should be preferred. I said earlier that the second set of criteria I brought introduces natural selection into the definition of evolution, according to which such altruistic behavior that serves the common good is not possible."

     # I didn't understand, so some say that the deer is altruistic, but from an evolutionary point of view this is not possible and therefore another explanation should be preferred? Why prefer another explanation? Because it contradicts evolution?
     Do you understand that any pattern of behavior can be explained by many different theories, some of which disprove and some of which support evolution?
     One will say "altruism" (and reject evolution) and the other will say "the deer is trying to scare/confuse the tiger" (thus rejecting altruism which rejects evolution)
     That is why the "behavioral" criterion is problematic, because any "psychologist" can testify for/against evolution, and for that reason this criterion should be completely rejected (it turns out that it is even more problematic than the chimera).

     "I remind you again, I'm not really defending intelligent design, if it's a point of merit for evolution, it's also a point of merit for intelligent design" - there is an important difference between evolution and intelligent design that you don't stand for. Not everything that can be invented fits the theory of evolution. Evolution is not just a framework that can be adapted to any set of facts, unlike intelligent design. Even if we find something that we would not expect to find if an intelligent planner planned life it will always be possible to say that his ways are mysterious, and this is precisely why this claim cannot be refuted. Just as it is impossible to disprove the claim that the biblical story of creation is a metaphor and does not contradict science, because if imagination is enough, any scientific fact can be adapted to the story of creation."

     # I agree that as long as there are no unequivocal and achievable criteria, a "planner" should not be called a scientific theory.

     "I didn't understand how you can say "egoist" and "altruist" and "behavior" and "regardless of interest" in the same sentence" - it's a matter of definition. If you want, we can separate altruism into two concepts, altruism and true altruism, but it doesn't matter because what you are being asked is to show an antisocial animal that sacrifices itself for the benefit of others. Maybe it makes him feel good about himself and maybe he wants to go to heaven, but it doesn't matter because from an evolutionary point of view such behavior is illogical.

     # Again I say as before in the current response, a criterion based on a behavioral characteristic is problematic because a behavioral characteristic is not an unequivocal characteristic.
     Every criterion subject to dispute is problematic - social/non-social and altruism/egoism is a fact that may open a dispute.
     It's like finding a ray of light of some wavelength and arguing whether it is considered blue or light blue, there is no debate about the wavelength just like there is no debate that the jumping deer is the jumping deer, but one can argue whether it is blue/light blue or altruistic/egoist.

     "Again, the argument can be: if there is a planner, he planned everyone to be egotistical to a certain extent in order for them to survive." – A planner (assuming he is omnipotent) can plan non-egoistic living beings and still see to it that they survive. In fact a species of individuals in which everyone looks out for the common good before they look out for themselves can survive better than a species in which each individual looks out for himself. In any case, since the planner is omnipotent, unlike evolution, there is nothing you can find and say that could not have been created by a planner, because then thank God he is not omnipotent."

     # You deserve applause, really!
     At this moment you have eliminated any possibility of the "planner" as a scientific theory, breathe!
     Which means that from now on all I care about is the criteria of evolution.

     "It may be that if we really go through the criteria one by one we will find some that are relevant, but the examples I put my finger on seem particularly dubious to me, that's why I put my finger on them" - that's not what you did. You tried to compare intelligent design with evolution, when in practice evolution does have criteria that you admit may make it scientific, whereas for intelligent design you cannot provide a rebuttal criterion that I cannot fulfill"

     # true and false(-: I tried to compare, indeed, but I tried (and still try) even regardless of the comparison to show that the criteria are not achievable, either because they are not relevant or unambiguous or because they are not logical.

465. shogun,
     Are you Rabbi Nachman Mazran?

466. ארי
     If, however, a creator is not required for each complex work
     which is not man-made, so how was it created and why?
     The piece was created.
     For example, a human being is a complex creation made up of
     Works are complex in themselves.
     If man as a complex creation does not require a creator
     complex so why would it in itself create complex works?

467. Ethology,
     You pay attention to xianghua's technique right? To write that he has already answered you even though he hasn't, but the inexperienced readers get the impression that you are just bullying. Don't worry I, and many others, do not fall into this trap. Your responses are required and highly detailed

     xianghua,

     You still haven't admitted that God is not a scientific theory. You still haven't admitted that weakening any theory does not strengthen another theory. You still haven't explained why you didn't read, you used the washed-up terminology "the intelligent planner" and you didn't immediately write God.

     You started really well. You told us about Popper's refutation principle and we all thought there was a real basis for an argument here but then, when I asked you to propose a refutation test for the theory of the intelligent designer (back then we still called it that, remember), you failed miserably. I made you admit that you are talking about God in his own right and realizing that you have no ability to disprove him, you proposed another test: if he appears, it will prove his existence and therefore even in retrospect the theory that he existed was scientific. This is of course nonsense. When I pushed you further, you created a delusional theory based on a clock with DNA, which does not exist in reality, then you claimed that man is more sophisticated than this clock (without explaining what sophisticated is and why man is more sophisticated) and then you claimed that only God could produce something like that. This logical chain is more porous than a vacuum. non sequitur and as usual with you, it's a God of the Gaps argument

     Then you went on to claim that if it turns out that creatures were created gradually (as reality does prove) it would prove that God does not exist. This is of course another nonsense. God (precisely in your opinion) is omnipotent (and for some reason you ignore that) and of course he can create this situation and any situation he wants. He can also create fortifications, traits that have no survival advantage. Why? So. Nothing will prove that God does not exist and we are not trying to claim it either. We are only arguing, in this discussion, that the subject of evolution does not require God.

     What freaks you out and probably many other believers as well is the fact that even though you have decided, because you want to, that God exists, an idea comes to him, supported by countless testimonies and laboratory evidence called evolution, which makes what you decided in your mind redundant. It's annoying but life is hard. The idea in general goes like this: somehow life was created. Evolution doesn't deal with that. Somehow a memory mechanism was created for these living creatures (and I think that evolution does not take care of this, but I may be wrong). Radiation, different pressure levels, heat, cold and all create changes and the memory mechanism collects properties and changes over time and gets rid of properties and changes. These changes, as far as we know, are essentially random, at least at the level of resolution that we know how to observe, while the reason that some of these changes remain is called natural selection, an idea that has taken many forms and is still different as science has progressed, and it is clear to me that as time goes by, more mechanisms will be revealed that control natural selection, but By and large, this is the explanation and it is the best natural explanation we have found. All your arguments that try to weaken evolution have been hidden in this discussion by people such as ethology, but even if there is an argument that will be a challenge to natural selection, that's all it will be, a challenge to science. Great, that's what scientists want, challenges.

     The problem is that with you an argument that weakens natural selection automatically strengthens the theory of God, and as I explained it is a non sequitur. As an example, I will give the question I asked that embarrassed you: Is there any barrier that prevents a bacterium from changing and what was your response: There is one study (not many studies), which you did not bring, even though I asked again and again and I will again ask for a link to it, which demonstrates, according to you, that there is a statistical barrier. block why? Changes are seen under a microscope every day and in any case a statistical barrier is not a barrier. A block is something like a usage rule. If you show that evolution contradicts the law of conservation of energy, we will talk. If you show me that evolution goes beyond the speed of light, we'll talk. For you, this research is living God's words and when it is used to strengthen a God theory it is a God of the Gaps argument, like all your arguments. The God of the Gaps argument is an insult to intelligence and all creation that debates (and I've seen quite a few such arguments on YouTube) runs away from the God of the Gaps argument. I can send you to a debate on youtube between Professor Lawrence Krauss and Professor Craig (a believing Christian who posted on the Discovery Institute list you sent me to, 4 postings) where Craig tries to explain why his arguments are not God of the Gaps. Of course he failed but at least he is aware that it is forbidden to enter this corner. you are there This is where you thrive but it is not where scientific theories, medicines and engineering and technological products are produced

     And a question for dessert: Do you believe that God was created 6000-7000 years ago?

468. Hello again Ethology,

     Fortunately, I have studied enough biology and biochemistry to understand from your words that you are a little afraid to respond to the matter. And more on main topics such as the scaffolding method. The whole theory of evolution rests on them.

     "The claim that a study from 1988 shows that the protein flagellin cannot be formed by the evolutionary processes known to science should have been supported, even though this study did not deal with the evolution of this protein." - Very true. But the above study certainly supports my claim, as I explained earlier, and as you seem to be knowingly ignoring. I won't repeat that again, unless you like talking to yourself.

     "This is despite the fact that you received an example in which two proteins catalyze a different chemical reaction, but they are almost identical in their spatial structure. Instead, you treat what you were told as if it says that all the proteins with different functions have an almost identical spatial structure." - Not true. I never claimed that. This is the second time I've said this.

     "Secondly, your reference to your statistical failure sets an irrelevant criterion. Scaffolding or no scaffolding, your arguments should stand on their own. Base your statistical nonsense that "even if there are a trillion types of useful proteins in the sequence space, the chance that two of them will be close to each other is extremely small" - I base this on a number of criteria. Among other things, as mentioned, the admission of the evolution scientists themselves. That is, they also understand very well why evolution needs gradual steps. After all, if we go by your claim, that statistics have no meaning, then we can claim that the baton, for example, developed in Mecca. But it is a fact that no evolutionary scientist claims such nonsense, because the chance of it is terrifyingly zero. Do you disagree with their claim? Do you think the baton could have developed in Mecca? If your answer is no, then you agree that out of the total sequences for a given protein, only a minority of them are useful in a biological context. And then again it brings us back to scaffolding. You are trying to avoid it. It is clear to me personally why - this is an impossible task. The calculations of Hubert Yuki and Douglas Ax in the field should also be noted.

     "Third and last thing, you have already been given studies that show the evolution of complex features in microorganisms." - These are not complex features at all. Most of them require a mutation or two. Is this what you call a complex system? Are you serious?

     "She uses the raw materials she has," - true. Again, try the scaffolding method. There you start with existing components and not from scratch.

     "Let's start with Lansky's research. First, you show you haven't read it. A quick review of the research would have made it clear to anyone with an understanding that the ability to consume citrate among E.coli bacteria developed, among other things, following the creation of a new control sequence." - New control yes. A new complex system does not. Just like I said. By the way, the bacterium already had the ability to digest citrate before.

     ” Let's suppose that the creation of some feature involves "genetic destruction" or even if "genetic destruction" is the only mechanism by which this function was created. Why is this a problem for me? It still gets you wrong no matter how you try to spin it. At the end of the day, system A gave rise to system B, as the theory of evolution states," - good joke. By this logic, if we break a car windshield, we can call it a new system. This is because we will now have a vent. Just look at how easy it is to disprove the conclusions of one of the most important experiments done in the field of evolution.

     ” Refer to the points I made above after you read Lenski's research. Any comment of yours that shows you didn't read it will be automatically killed." - I commented, see above. By the way, I'm just starting to warm up. I haven't come to the really good arguments yet.

     "Under conditions in which the organism needs the weak function of this gene to work more strongly, selection will occur in favor of individuals that have two copies of this gene. Two copies of this gene will allow expression of more of its protein. More than a protein that performs some function weakly, will lead to the fact that, in general, the individual will be able to perform this function more strongly. "- Enough, really? You bring an example of improving an existing feature as evidence of the development of a new system that requires thousands of dna bases?

     There were genes that developed a "specialization" in the production of histidine only and others that developed towards an increase in the ability to produce both histidine and tryptophan. This is molecular evolution at its best: creating a new trait." - an old trait that has undergone improvement. There is no new patent here.

     ” As the other readers of this comment realize, this research, for our purposes here, is simply beautiful. It well demonstrates the evolution of a new gene from beginning to end, and no amount of demagoguery will change that." - As mentioned above, no new gene.

     Last but not least, if you still do not address the evolutionary scaffolding claim (which, as mentioned, is the basis of the entire theory of evolution and in fact most of the objections to evolution today are related to it), I will consider this an admission that this is impossible in your eyes. And in such a case I say goodbye to you.

469. Reminder to those who are still reading: the current discussion started when xianghua had to support the claim that a study from 1988 shows that the flagellin protein cannot be formed by the evolutionary processes known to science, even though this study did not deal with the evolution of this protein. Since this criticism was told to him, xianghua tries to change the subject in vain and avoid answering the original criticism (how fun!). Now I am engaged in lecturing our honor about a lot of gossip on other subjects. Do not expect a factual answer from him in the near future on the original issue. One should expect discussion topics to be changed at the pace of an average roulette wheel without any coherence or maintaining a matter-of-factness on his part. He simply piles claim on top of claim and replaces each one as soon as it falls. I will continue to cut, within my free time. read recommend I try to keep it informative, although I am completely sarcastic with it.

     xianghua,

     How do those who fail basic biology courses? Are you still forced to brainstorm to look good? Too bad. Let's start with the easy points.

     First, of course you didn't admit that you were rattling the kettle when you said, and I quote, "we will have to change most of the spatial structure to accommodate the new function". This is despite the fact that you received an example in which two proteins catalyze a different chemical reaction, but they are almost identical in their spatial structure. Instead, you treat what you are told as if it means that all proteins with different functions have almost the same spatial structure. To this straw man you say, "Hey, look, there are two proteins that do different things and their spatial structure is different." Well, come on. Stop brainstorming. Thanks by mistake, it's not too bad to be wrong, especially if you're a creationist who doesn't know biochemistry. Alternatively, you will be proven right and win the Nobel Prize for tremendous innovations in the field of structural biology.

     Second, your reference to your statistical failure sets an irrelevant criterion. Scaffolding or no scaffolding, your arguments should stand on their own. Base your statistical nonsense that "even if there are a trillion types of beneficial proteins in sequence space, the chance of two of them being close to each other is extremely slim" on... you know, statistics, not on chicken legs. Show that your arguments are correct or stop using them. Your answer to that should be up to you and you alone. Any attempt to deflect the question to your opponent without supporting your argument is simply another attempt to change the subject when you have no argument.

     Third and last, you have already been given studies that show the evolution of complex traits in microorganisms. These studies should solve your problems regarding the capabilities of the mechanisms proposed by the theory of evolution to create a transition "from system A to system B which is completely different from it in gradual steps". There is no need to talk to me and the readers in their brains about "scaffolding" that migoms. Perhaps a creationist like you will try to get out of this by focusing on the words "completely different from her" and claiming that these studies did not demonstrate the creation of a feature that is completely different from the original feature. To remind you, evolution does not create things from nothing. It uses the raw materials it has, so we will expect homology between the genetic sequence that codes for the new trait and between other genetic sequences. Your creationist expectation of something else is based on a poor understanding of the theory.

     All this leads us to a discussion of the studies I gave because they are the touchstones. Oh, how predictable you are. Let's start with Lenski's research. First, you show you haven't read it. A quick review of the research would make it clear to anyone with an understanding that the ability to consume citrate among E.coli bacteria developed, in part, following the creation of a new control sequence. In fact, several different "tribes" of e-voices have developed this feature in several different ways. The main mechanism by which this feature developed was the duplication of control sequences to appropriate positions in the genome and additional mutations that caused a stronger expression of the relevant genes. The multitude of ways in which this feature developed in the various E-Coli tribes are summarized in a nice table in the study itself and surprisingly only a few of them involve "genetic destruction", at least in any relevant biological sense. You are facing a clear case of creating a new functional genetic sequence and banging the kettle on "genetic destruction" as if it will help you.

     Second, and worse than that, the expression "genetic destruction" can be given the best interpretation that can be given to it while maintaining your dignity: deletion of some sequence from the genome. Let's assume that the creation of some trait involves "genetic destruction" or even if "genetic destruction" is the only mechanism by which this function was created. Why is this a problem for me? It still gets you wrong no matter how you try to spin it. At the end of the day, from system A, system B was created, as the theory of evolution states, and this was done in gradual steps. You would only have a point if genetic destruction was the only thing that would have created every trait ever created in evolution experiments. As mentioned, this is not even the case in Lenski's experiment.

     Instead of a normal response, you just gave the quote you always give (yes, not the first time I've seen you give it). Yes, mention again the literature review by Michael Behe, of the Discovery Institute. Who even cares that the study you were given was published this year, 2012, while your review was published in 2010? After all, Michael Beha Almighty foresaw the future and knew exactly what to write there about the Lenski experiments. Shall we debate the latest research in the field? enjoy Those looking to impress the audience throw in some academic quote instead of a substantive argument. Consider the points I made above after you read Lenski's research. Any comment of yours that shows you haven't read it will be automatically killed.

     Let's move on to the tryptophan study. You haven't read him either and worse than that, you are doing a lot of creationist quote mining for him. First, let's start with the description of the study. The researchers proposed a model for molecular evolution that used a gene with one dominant function and one weak function. Under conditions in which the organism needs the weak function of this gene to work more strongly, selection will occur in favor of individuals that have two copies of this gene. Two copies of this gene will allow expression of more of its protein. More than a protein that performs some function weakly, will lead to the fact that, in general, the individual will be able to perform this function more strongly. The two copies of this gene will now be able to evolve separately from each other. One copy will remain as it is and continue to strongly perform its dominant function. The second copy will evolve along a different path, towards improving the weak trait, so that it will be stronger on its own.

     They chose to test this model with the help of a gene that codes for a protein involved in the production of the amino acid histidine. In the first step, they took this gene and through selection on bacteria that carry it, they located a mutant gene that not only produces histidine, but also produces tryptophan in a very inefficient way. In the intermediate stage, they transferred this gene to a bacterium of the same species in which they "installed" several molecular reporting systems that allow its evolution to be easily followed. In the final step, they followed the evolution of the new gene, and guess what? All their predictions have come true. In the first stage, the partially active gene was "amplified" by replication. Here, too, several possible genes were created. For example, there were genes that developed a "specialization" in the production of histidine only and others that developed towards an increase in the ability to produce both histidine and tryptophan. This is molecular evolution at its best: creating a new trait.

     You are not interested in the truth. This is clear from the citation mining you did for this study. You simply quoted from the abstract of the study and showed zero signs that you read and understood the full study. In practice, contrary to what you said, the researchers recreated all the steps, from the creation of the mutant with one weak activity and one strong activity to the creation of a gene with a single function after a process of molecular evolution. Your behavior is despicable, worthy of condemnation and in fact demonstrates well that you are a cheap demagogue and nothing more, of the variety of Zamir Cohen, Amnon Yitzhak and Co. As the other readers of this comment realize, this research, for our purposes here, is simply beautiful. It well demonstrates the evolution of a new gene from start to finish, and no amount of demagoguery will change that. Any comment of yours that demonstrates you haven't read this study will be killed again.

     always fun 🙂

470. xianghua,

     Reporter:

     In Lenski's experiment, it is a regulatory change, which caused citrate to enter the bacteria in an uncontrolled way. In fact, a serious article has already been published on the subject that demonstrated that this is genetic destruction:

     "Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and 'The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution'," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4) (December, 2010)

     I'm not trying to argue with you, just understand what you mean:

     1. What does "regulatory change" mean?

     2. What does "genetic destruction" mean? Genes are genes and they change by mutations.

     3. The article you linked to costs $14 so I only read the abstract. Did you read the whole article? Can you provide a quote where it refers to the Lenski experiment? According to the abstract of the article, he talks about the classification of mutations according to "addition", "deletion" or "change" of a trait in the phenotype. how is that related?

     4. The Lenski experiment nicely answers your question about cumulative evolution and shows how a collection of changes that happened at different times and do not produce any value on their own together create a new feature. The changes are random of course. It is a fact that they only happened in one of the 12 test tubes of the experiment. The first change in the 20th generation is essential for the rest of the changes to happen at all or create the new feature.

     5. Something we forgot to bring to this damn thread. For anyone who claims that germs don't count and wants to see the creation of actual organs in animals, lizards on an island that developed stomach valves as a result of a change in diet

     https://www.hayadan.org.il/lizard-fast-evolution-230408

     Isn't that evolution too?

471. Hello Ethology,

     For some reason you repeat the word "bor" a lot. I don't understand why, are you sure you are not confused with someone else? As a matter of fact, the research on flagellin does support my claim. You, on the other hand, claim that flagellin evolved from another protein, earlier and shorter and with a different activity. Which brings me to the following claim…

     "In the bottom line, the products of molecular evolution always have homology to the sequences from which they were formed." - I understood you. In such a case, there is a way to test whether this claim holds water - the "scaffolding method", which I have already expanded quite a bit on in this thread. Can you demonstrate how it is possible to move from system A to system B which is completely different from it in gradual steps? You are welcome to demonstrate this in human engineering systems as well. If you tell me that human engineering systems are not the same as biological systems, then I will refer you to the evolutionary scientists themselves. At the head of them is Prof. Ken Miller, who tried to refute this claim in the famous Dover trial.

     "Even if I can't find you such a script, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist and the evidence for evolution won't evaporate into thin air because I'm not creative enough to imagine what you want." - I'm sorry but the whole theory of evolution depends on the question of whether such a transition is even possible. After all, if a gradual transition is not possible, the theory of evolution is not possible.

     "In all science, including biology, something "unexplained" is not "unexplainable" - very true. The location of a breeding clock on Mars is also not amenable to a known explanation. Does this mean we should rule out the rational explanation?

     Regarding the two experiments you gave - in Lenski's experiment it is a regulatory change, which caused citrate to enter the bacteria in an uncontrolled way. In fact, a serious article has already been published on the subject that demonstrated that this is genetic destruction:

     "Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and 'The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution'," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4) (December, 2010)

     The second example is generally an improvement of an existing feature and turning it from secondary to primary (tryptophan production). In fact, the researchers admit this even in the abstract itself:

     Here, we describe the innovation-amplification-divergence (IAD) model in which the "new function appears before duplication"

     "One example fitting this model is a preexisting parental gene in Salmonella enterica that has low levels of two distinct activities"

     That is, in the two examples you mentioned, no new system was developed.

     I gave an example of two proteins with a similar, but not identical, spatial structure that catalyze two completely different chemical reactions. In other words, you should right now admit that you messed up the sentence you wrote earlier." - a mistake on your hand. After all, I gave the histone h4 and cytochrome c. Both are very different in their spatial structure and have a completely different function (electron transfer versus DNA folding).

     "All this of course does not answer the argument you were asked to answer. You did not support your statistical calculation," - see above the scaffolding method. If you manage to prove that this is possible, I will retract my claim and admit that evolution is possible. Are you able to do this?

472. Due to the length of the response and for the benefit of other readers, I have summarized the discussion with xianghua at the bottom of this response.

     xianghua,

     "I'm not a garbage collector, but a recycler." You are rubbish, which for my purposes is defined as "revealing a complete lack of knowledge".

     "The study shows that most of the polypeptide skeleton is required for the minimal function of a certain protein." This is indeed what the study showed, or rather, it showed that most of the polypeptide skeleton is required for a *certain* function of a protein called flagellin. However, since you are ignorant and do not know how evolution works, you have decided that this fact means that this protein could not have evolved. It is not written in the study, and it is not written there for an excellent reason: his research method cannot establish this, because the study did not study the evolution of this protein. On top of all this you add that this fact is "completely contrary to the claim of evolutionary scientists" and goes on to quibble that "natural selection cannot identify 100 mutations in a specific order without having functional significance at every step". In practice, you did not show that natural selection *needs* to select in this case 100 mutations in a specific order to create flagellin (or another protein) and you did not show that each of these 100 mutations would not have "functional significance". The reason you didn't show it is very simple: the study you gave does not deal with the evolution of flagellin (or any other protein) *at all*. You just spewed nonsense from your feverish imagination. You have a hundred in creative writing and fail in reading comprehension.

     Regarding your choice of switching from cytochrome C to histone H4 as the touchstone for evolution, you wrote: "The choice is indeed arbitrary. […] You are welcome to choose any two non-homologous proteins you want (actually even with certain homologues it will work), and try the experiment I suggested. Assuming you support small steps expect a surprise.” oh the cat is out of the bag. In your insistence that every step has an adaptive advantage, you of course again ignore the existence of neutralistic evolution. Also, you are confusing "unexplained" with "cannot be explained", and more on that later. For these two sins I will forgive you this time, because your problem is more difficult. Your problem is more difficult because your touchstone for evolution is something evolution does not do. The evolution of genes progresses mainly by copying segments from a gene or existing genes to a new gene and the gradual evolution of the copied segment in order to adapt more and more to its role. Therefore, the new gene will be entirely homologous to another gene (and therefore the protein will also be entirely homologous to the other protein) or a part of the new gene will be homologous to a certain gene and another part of the new gene will be homologous to another gene (and the protein will show a similar pattern). Bottom line, the products of molecular evolution always have homology to the sequences from which they arose. You ask me to explain to you how two genes/proteins with *no* homology between them can be formed from each other. This request reveals a complete lack of understanding of how molecular evolution works. Why on earth, in light of the way molecular evolution works, would I be asked to find you a script in which you switch between two non-homologous proteins as the touchstone of the theory of evolution? Kiblat also failed a timed test in the molecular evolution course.

     Regarding your disregard for neutralistic evolution, you wrote: "Come explain to me how you get from zero to 100 in a neutral way. When the final product is a functional protein." First, you still fail molecular evolution. You have a dichotomy: either the entire protein sequence was created in the mode of neutralistic evolution or it was all created in the mode of adaptive evolution. Well, creationists have never been good at understanding how evolution works. In practice, the two modes work together in the evolution of new genes.
     Second, beyond a false dichotomy that reveals a complete misunderstanding of molecular evolution, your argument also fails in another creationist sin: even if I can't find you such a scenario, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist and the evidence for evolution won't evaporate into thin air because I'm not creative enough to imagine what that you want. In all science, including biology, something "unexplained" is not "unexplainable". For creationists, logic works differently.
     Third thing, contrary to what you said, you don't come from "zero" to anything in evolution. Evolution uses the genetic elements already present in organisms to make things out of them. This is demonstrated in so many studies, it's hard to choose which one to give you, so I'll pick two of the latest ones I've read. Richard Lansky's group recently published an analysis of how the bacteria in his famous experiment developed the ability to consume citrate. In these bacteria, a control sequence of enormous dimensions was developed from the "raw materials" that were available, not from scratch. Another experiment in the evolution of microorganisms was published this week in Science and demonstrated another mode of evolution of new functions through gene duplication and also there the evolution did not proceed "from scratch" but started from the raw materials that were available.
     Blount, ZD, Barrick, JE, Davidson, CJ, & Lenski, RE (2012). Genomic analysis of a key innovation in an experimental Escherichia coli population. Nature, advance on.
     Näsvall, J., Sun, L., Roth, JR, & Andersson, DI (2012). Real-Time Evolution of New Genes by Innovation, Amplification, and Divergence. Science, 338(6105), 384–387.

     In short, you expect me to explain to you how something happens in evolution that shouldn't happen. You came to the wrong place. I don't play this game. This is another perforated argument like a sieve that reveals complete ignorance of evolution and common creationist fallacies that is nothing more than a distraction from the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about.

     Regarding your quibble that "we will have to change most of the spatial structure to fit the new function" I gave an example of two proteins with a similar, but not identical, spatial structure that catalyze two completely different chemical reactions. In other words, you should now admit that you messed up the sentence you wrote earlier. Instead, you return to your homology fallacy that I discussed above, and ask me what is the difference in their amino acids and a host of other questions that will not save you. I'm not going to get off you and let you change the subject. Either you'll admit that what you wrote before was nonsense (and it was nonsense), or you'll present an argument that shows that "most of the spatial structure needs to be changed to fit the new function". Good luck refuting all the research in structural biology from the past few decades. You might win a Nobel Prize for this.

     I said that your statistical calculations of the proximity of functional proteins are worth a ragged slipper and there is no way to calculate them without a huge margin of error that puts your argument on chicken knees. As a response, you wrote that it was "funny because the evolutionary scientists themselves do not support the approach of proteins that are created in Mecca." Only God knows why throwing a straw man is considered a matter-of-fact answer in your eyes. really? Is this what evolutionists think? Molecular evolution creates proteins in one "stroke"? good to know! Read the studies I gave above and wait. These are beautiful examples of how mutations that we know can happen in the genome did create a function that did not exist in the experimental populations. Of course, all this does not answer the argument you were asked to answer. You didn't support your statistical calculation, but simply added some more ignorance on top of your previous ignorance to distract the readers in hopes that someone in the audience would think you had a clue what you were talking about. Woofty Do. Another cosmetic argument for the collection.

     Because it is difficult to follow, it is appropriate to give the summary of the previous chapters, because you repeatedly try to change the subject. We started with your claim about some biochemical study from 1988 that you claim shows that the theory of evolution has been disproved because it cannot make the protein flagellin. To deal with the fact (yes, it's a fact) that the study you gave does not at all deal with the evolution of flagellin and does not even try to explain how it was formed, a pile of gibberish and distractions that shows that you do not know evolution, structural biology, biochemistry and research methods in biology and are mainly intended to change the subject. After you got on top of it you piled on some more of your ignorance to cover the previous ignorance and again tried to distract the public from the fact that you are ignorant. I trashed your latest rant above. You still get to fail some really basic biology courses.

473. xianghua,
     What's really amazing is that you still don't see that weakening natural selection does nothing for God. One does not come at the expense of the other, certainly not when God is not a scientific theory and indeed, all your arguments are God of the Gaps arguments.

     Scientists come to try to explain reality based on evidence and if there is refuting evidence that comes to light, they change the theory and there is no shame in that. Einstein replaced Newton and we will also replace Einstein with something more accurate, but you just give up and shout: God did it.

     God of the Gaps arguments are the lamest arguments out there. They are defeatist and an insult to the intelligentsia

474. xianghua,
     Something else about bacteria. The word bacteria is just a general word that we invented to describe certain types of creatures. Nature does not know such a division, just as nature does not know quantum mechanics.
     It is clear to everyone from laboratory evidence that bacteria change and in English they evolve. For example, 30000 generations after a certain population is exposed to high heat, some individuals in the population develop resistance to heat. That is, they have changed, meaning they have evolved and the 30000th generation is not the same creature that was in the 1st generation.

     There is no barrier that the 2000000th generation will develop another feature that will be added to the collection of features it has already collected along the way and this generation will no longer be similar to generation 1. A statistical barrier, about which you told but did not provide a link (I searched and did not find) is not a barrier since there is no longer anything that prohibits things unlikely to occur. A barrier is something like a conservation law or the speed of light for a particle with mass.

     This is the theory of evolution. There is no way to deny it. I hope I won't see an answer like: "Well then, if you can't deny it, it's not scientific". I agonized over this point.
     And that´s it

     On the subject of God as a scientific theory, you are about the only one who claims that God is a scientific theory. greetings

475. xianghua,
     I want and we will call him God. It's what you think, you wrote it here and there's no reason to mince words. Why were you afraid to call him God in the first place? Whoever believes is not afraid.

     So let's summarize:
     1. You claim that the existence of God is a scientific fact.
     2. God, the theory is disprovable.
     3. The rebuttal is: "to demonstrate that the species were created gradually and not all at once". Here I copied what you wrote because it got so ridiculous.

     I mean, now, after you escaped the refutation test and tried to propose another test for a scientific theory, you again claim that there is a refutation, and yet so ridiculous?

     How can a person talk such nonsense?

     The species formed gradually. People were not created when dinosaurs walked the earth and in any case God can do that too. Again nothing prevents it from him and this is precisely the reason why God is not a scientific theory. After all, God, the one who you claim created the universe (you, as I remember, call him the planner) is omnipotent (again, according to your opinion) and as such, he can create whatever he wants, how he wants and as much as he wants, whether it makes sense to you or not .

     God is not a scientific theory, as I have shown again. Are you ready to admit here in front of everyone that God is not a scientific theory?

     shogun,
     Are you the one who once called himself "Rabbi Nachman Mazran"?

476. And one more little thing:
     "For example, there are objects in space
     The air we don't see or hear, but they are
     exist and there is a result that is absorbed by the senses, such as for example
     We do not see the radio waves, but they cause us to hear a sound
     through the television or radio receiver"

     As far as I know, none of this is explained by 'hocus pocus'.

477. shogun
     A hewn log is not particularly complex. But since I know people who do such things, I assume with a good degree of probability that its origin is human..
     When the 'product' (not necessarily a creation) is not man-made, then to say that a greater 'intelligence' created it is actually to say that something with a brain and neurons created it because the only intelligence we know has a brain and neurons (us) and certainly when there is Processes we call this: iteration where there are random changes, repeated feedback from the environment and God forbid and information is preserved - evolution. where there is not necessarily such a planner. If you claim that there is such a planner, you must define very well what this means. Otherwise you are equivalent to the people described here:

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

     (The guys described there for example, (from all kinds of different and odd islands) grew up to 'understand' that western technology is a gift from gods and such, as ridiculous as it is..)

478. Eric, according to your words when the creation is human
     So the component is also human and when she is not
     Man-made so there is no creator either.
     But how are you convinced of that? Because simple
     You haven't seen the creator.
     You rely on the sense of sight only and no other senses
     When we know that our senses do not necessarily perceive
     the whole reality, for example there are objects in space
     The air we don't see or hear, but they are
     exist and there is a result that is absorbed by the senses, such as for example
     We do not see the radio waves, but they cause us to hear a sound
     through the television or radio receiver
     Shmulik: Come on...

479. Shmulik,

     The designer (God if you will) theory is scientific. And it is scientific because it can be refuted. And the test of refutation is as mentioned (10 times for this thread) to demonstrate that the species were created gradually and not all at once. The claim that then we can claim that the designer could have created the species gradually is negated by the studies of the design scientists themselves, which show that there is no survival advantage in only half or a quarter of a biological system. On the other hand, I have repeatedly shown why evolution is as elastic as chewing gum, and why practically nothing will disprove it.

     "Even if you write 1000 times that evolution has been refuted, bacteria will still change and become immune and mutations will still occur." - and there will still be bacteria, to the dismay of the evolution scientists.

     Ethology,

     I am not a garbage collector but a recycler, and recycling nowadays is a blessed action.

     ” You claimed that the research you gave refutes evolution. Defend this claim without changing the carrier." - Very true. The research shows that most of the polypeptide skeleton is required for the minimal function of a certain protein. In complete contrast to the claim of evolution scientists. Dawkins, for example, expands on this in a whole chapter in his book The Blind Watchmaker. There he gives as an example a protein of 150 ha and explains in detail why evolution requires small steps. But as mentioned, there are no such steps. Natural selection cannot sort out 100 mutations in a specific order without having functional significance at each step. This is exactly what the research shows, and this is exactly what evolutionary scientists are trying to escape from. And not for nothing.

     "The rest of your words are simply irrelevant words that at best impress yourself and those in the audience who don't know what you're talking about. - Jokes aside, thanks.

     ” You start from a completely arbitrary script. From cytochrome C to histone H4? Is this the touchstone of the theory of evolution? You failed the introductory course to research methods in biochemistry." - The choice is indeed arbitrary. That's why I also added the word "suppose". You are welcome to choose any two non-homologous proteins you want (actually even with certain homologues it will work), and try the experiment I suggested. Assuming you support small steps expect a surprise.

     ” You assume that each step in the transition process from one sequence to another should have an adaptive advantage. Neutralistic evolution does not exist with you. You have failed the molecular evolution course." - So now you want to discuss neutralistic evolution? excellent. Come explain to me how you get from zero to 100 in a neutral way. where the final product is a functional protein. I am listening.

     "Look for the spatial structure of the protein angiogenin and the protein ribonuclease A. One specifically cuts tRNA and functions in blood vessel formation while the other will cut any single-stranded RNA and functions in the digestive system during food digestion. Although they function in different situations and specific to different chemical reagents," - as mentioned, are they homologous? Assuming no, how many X's differentiate them? If you would like to discuss a specific protein, I have no problem. Let's start with the protein aminoacyl transferase rna synthetase, which contains 3 binding sites.

     - "Even if there are a trillion types of useful proteins in the sequence space, the chance that two of them will be close to each other is extremely small (a trillion out of 100^20 is nothing)". There is no way to calculate this without a huge margin of error which puts this argument on chicken knees. "- Funny because the evolution scientists themselves do not support the approach of proteins that are created in Mecca. But for you there is no problem?

     R. H.,

     Sorry but I still don't understand your point. The rhetorical question "Has evolution been disproved" was said sarcastically, as I know very well that evolutionary scientists have no problem reconciling any contradiction with the theory. I demonstrated that a finding that contradicts the evolutionary prediction is also welcomed. That is, in terms of evolution, there is a prediction a. There is no problem to also accept finding b which contradicts it. This is contrary to the criteria for a scientific theory.

     The main difference between creationists and supporters of intelligent design is that creationists try to reconcile scientific research with the Bible. Again, the intelligent planning is not based on what is told in the Bible. Her only claim is that the world requires planning. And I have already provided some of the evidence for planning in this thread.

480. xianghua,

     The following link shows the second set of criteria I brought and Jerry Coyne details exactly what he meant by each and every one of them:

     http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/what-would-disprove-evolution/

     Note that he wrote complete discordance (I'm not trying to be evasive, just pointing out that for some reason the criteria that appeared in the YouTube lecture were worded a little differently), and then gives a specific example. As for the example you gave, I don't think it's a strong enough example compared to the example Jerry gave, and anyway that study is controversial. The best suggestion I can give you is to just write what you wrote here in the link I provided and get a direct response from Jerry.

     R.H.

     Defining value both as a need that is not necessary for existence and as a need directed outside of natural reality. I don't really have a problem with the first part, I still think there is no special meaning to this division of needs, but of course you can choose to divide them this way. My problem is with the second part, for the reasons that not every person believes in something outside of nature, and that even a person who believes can define the thing he believes in as part of natural reality. I don't see how maintaining symmetry to avoid a feeling of discomfort can be said to be an act directed outside of natural reality, after all the discomfort I wanted to avoid is natural and resulted from some kind of activity in my brain.

     I, like you, do not think that the chimpanzee is endowed with human consciousness, but then again neither are all humans. For me it is a matter of measure and not of essence, and after all we evolved from a creature with no awareness at all, so it is likely that human consciousness developed in stages. One of the interesting things about the mirror test is that there are people who have not been able to identify themselves, and therefore may not be aware of their existence. In that case, no matter how you rank the chimpanzee, some humans will always be below it.

     "We have, at least today, no possibility to define a chimpanzee or any other animal as a "human being" and to treat it as a human being" - I think that we can define it, and the attitude will come by itself afterwards when the new ideas are digested (which of course can take a long time). I am not suggesting that anyone change their definition of a person in an instant, but also not to give up in advance and deliberately avoid thinking about it. If time allows you may feel comfortable with ideas that at first seemed inconceivable to you.

     To you and Shogun, I didn't really mean for us to waste time here, I personally enjoy the discussions and that's why I'm here. By wasting time I meant that it was possible to pass the time with something necessary for our existence. If so, in my opinion, it is still not a value because at least I am not acting here with goals that are directed outside of natural reality.

481. shlomix,
     I agree with you that with the word fact we go deep into semantics, but it seems to me that gravity actually fits to be compared to evolution. Bodies are attracted to each other, that's the fact. The theory of why they persist has been replaced but not the fact. Evolution is revealed day by day in the laboratory. Maybe the mechanism of why one creature was created the way it was created and why another survives is still a theory (which may be replaced) but bacteria that change is a fact and I can't think of another word for the subject. I can direct you to Richard Dawkins on youtube who says that evolution is a fact (what, only creationists are allowed to appeal to authority?) but it's really not worth wasting your time.

     By the way, in English they say the theory of evolution just as the theory of relativity is called the theory of relativity. The translation of theory here is not the theory of relativity or the theory of evolution, but the theory of relativity and the theory of evolution, precisely because of the strong evidentiary infrastructure

     shogun,
     You missed again. There is no such thing as a trivial conclusion. You claim that something that seems planned to you must be planned by a planner, prove it and if it is so trivial, it will be easy for you to prove but don't put your burden of proof on us. Take the opportunity to read about Paley's watch.
     Evolution tells us exactly the opposite of your trivial conclusion. voila
     By the way, are you "Rabbi Nachman Mazran"?

482. Shmulik,
     For the sake of accuracy in terms, I must emphasize again that evolution is not a fact but a scientific theory with a strong evidence base, one that is confirmed daily in the laboratory as you say. It is a fact only in the simplistic sense of the word fact in the spoken language, and since the discussion here is at a higher level I find it appropriate to emphasize this.
     The theory of evolution is not a fact just like gravity is not a fact, no matter how many experiments you do to prove gravity. Gravitational force is part of the theory of Newtonian mechanics that was disproved by experiments that are explained through the theory of relativity. This does not mean that Newtonian mechanics should be thrown away - it is still a useful theory and has a strong evidence base at low speeds, but it reminds us not to call any theory a fact.

     I agree with your request at the end to get a clear response from Xingua to your question (for some reason, maybe due to the fact that we are on the 350th response and it hasn't happened yet, I have a feeling it won't happen).

483. ^Considering the fact that the only known 'planner' is a human being... (one with a brain and neurons)

484. shogun
     A hewn log is not particularly complex. But since I know people who do such things, I assume with a good degree of probability that its origin is human..
     On the other hand, a human, a monkey and a bacterium - originate from non-human processes...

485. Anthology/Buddha or anyone with insight on this:
     It is not clear to me how you came to the conclusion that complexity does not require a planner
     After all, whoever claims this, the duty of proof or disproof falls on him, because the logic of this conclusion is trivial, at least for every complexity that we know who created it and complexity that we do not know who created it, we apply logic from a simpler complexity that we do know who created it.

486. Dear xianghua,
     If you define yourself as a supporter of the intelligent designer approach, and on the other hand ask "Has evolution been disproved?", then I get the impression that, unfortunately, my father is right. Adherents of the intelligent designer approach are nothing but creationists. You know that evolution has not really been disproved, otherwise you would not support the intelligent designer approach.
     I'm sorry, I thought you were really better than the rest of the brawlers. But that same question proved that your motives are theirs, which is quite disappointing.

487. xianghua,

     "Let's see what the research really shows us and why you think it's wrong." It's just a shame that the rest of your comment doesn't relate to the research you cited. You're changing the subject again while completely pretending you're not. Or in short, brain drain.

     "And what makes you think that the aforementioned protein could develop gradually?"

     First sign of changing the subject: this question is irrelevant. You claimed that the research you gave refutes evolution. Defend this claim without changing the carrier.

     The rest of your words are simply irrelevant words that at best impress yourself and those in the audience who don't know what you're talking about. I'm not going to answer your argument because there really isn't one. I'll just go through mistake after mistake.

     – You start from a completely arbitrary script. From cytochrome C to histone H4? Is this the touchstone of the theory of evolution? You failed an introductory course to research methods in biochemistry.

     – You assume that each step in the transition process from one sequence to another should have an adaptive advantage. Neutralistic evolution does not exist with you. You have failed the molecular evolution course.

     - You said that "we will have to change most of the spatial structure to fit the new function". This is news to me. Look for the spatial structure of the protein angiogenin and the protein ribonuclease A. One specifically cuts tRNA and functions in blood vessel formation while the other will cut any single-stranded RNA and functions in the digestive system during food digestion. Although they function in different situations and are specific for different chemical reagents, their spatial structure is almost identical. You have failed again, this time in an introductory biochemistry course.

     - "Even if there are a trillion types of useful proteins in the sequence space, the chance that two of them will be close to each other is extremely small (a trillion out of 100^20 is nothing)". There is no way to calculate this without a huge margin of error which puts this argument on chicken knees. There are other reasons why he is on chicken knees, but you are not sophisticated enough to know anything about them.

     More brainstorming would be welcome, within my spare time. By the way, you are welcome to return to the topic. You know, the topic of discussion, the one you're supposed to respond to: how the research I responded to shows that evolution has been disproved. Successfully.

488. xianghua,
     you let me down
     You admitted through gritted teeth that the planner is God and here the question arises why not write straight God. Why write the planner? If it was in the USA then it is clear why: the charlatans there at the Discovery Institute wanted to infiltrate the school but what to do, the first amendment to the constitution forbids them to do so. Here there is no constitution and no first amendment to the constitution, so why not simply say, God.

     The disappointment began with you introducing the principle of refutation and then giving it up when you were asked to formulate a refutation test for God. Not Indian, as expected from an honest man, language and now the theory of God is not scientific. The disappointment continued in that you did not understand, after I explained again and again, that the weakening of one theory does not strengthen any other theory and certainly not one that does not need strengthening because it is not refutable, like the God theory.

     The disappointment reached its peak with bringing the sandal as a rebuttal to something while not understanding that the onus is on you to prove that it is a sandal. Oh the impiety. It is clear that you all visit the same sites where the same arguments are pumped to you over and over again, but this poor example, if you just search the Internet, was disproved a long time ago.

     I'll say it again: evolution is a fact. We see this in bacteria in the labs over and over, every day. Medicines are developed based on the science of evolution and when new findings are discovered, they are found to be compatible with theories that explain the cause of evolution. You keep confusing evolution with natural selection or whatever. Even if you write 1000 times that evolution has been disproved, bacteria will still change and become immune and mutations will still occur.

     The fact that it is now impossible to disprove this fact does not make the fact unscientific and it is nonsense to make such a claim. For example, I just ran into something in the dark. I come up with a theory that it's a wall. I turn on the light and see that it is indeed a wall. Now it is no longer possible to refute the fact that it is a wall. This does not make the wall a god or a theory that was once unscientific.

     Anyway, maybe my description of the wall was unnecessary, since you repeatedly ask if evolution has been disproven and therefore you at least accept that it is a scientific theory. Although it is not accurate since it is a fact, but it is better than God, who is not scientific.

     Are you ready to admit here, in front of everyone, that God is not a scientific theory and in your own language, that the Intelligent Designer theory is not a scientific theory and should not be taught in schools?
     An answer that is not a question is welcome

489. Avi, you may not have noticed but this is exactly the problem with the refutation criterion that Uri proposed. And the finding to which I linked is an instructive example that this is a wrong criterion. Evolution has no rebuttal test, what to do.

     Ethology,

     Before you label me as trash or a slob, let's see what the research really shows us and why you think it's wrong-

     "In this study, no attempt was made to create a hypothesis or to test a hypothesis about the evolutionary history of the gene or the protein," - true. And what makes you think that the aforementioned protein could develop gradually? Let's say we want to switch from a small protein such as cytochrome c, to another slightly longer protein - histone h4 is part of the nucleosome complex. Is it possible to move from one to the other gradually when each step has an advantage? The answer is no because we would have to change most of the spatial structure to accommodate the new function. And such a jump means a big jump. In fact, even if there are a trillion types of useful proteins in the sequence space, the chance that two of them will be close to each other is extremely small (a trillion out of 100^20 is nothing). You are more than welcome to refute the above.

     R. H.,

     I'm sorry, but I don't understand the source of your disappointment.

490. Oh and I have to comment: xianghua - you managed to disappoint me.

491. Ori,
     I think you touched on a very strong point here, which I think we should refrain from discussing for now: what is the threshold condition for the existence of values? I think that when you talked about "self-awareness" you were referring to this condition, but I want to refine it a little - in my eyes, the threshold condition is not self-awareness, but knowledge. For now, I prefer to avoid the definition of this very elusive concept, but I want to characterize it with one characteristic - desire.
     A characterization that is always true regarding consciousness is that the possessor of consciousness is possessor of some will. What does it mean to be willing? To have a desire means to have a certain "drive", and to be aware of its very existence. This is one characterization of consciousness, as the element common to all characterizations is knowledge - the knowledge of the will is what turns it from an impulse into a desire. If we have desire, then we can also have value (does the existence of desire require the existence of value? This is a difficult question for which I do not have a decisive answer).

     All these things are very, very vague, mainly because I fear that I am not free to enter into an in-depth discussion of these complex issues in this framework, so I mainly tried to give a very general picture that would reflect my opinion.
     You brought the examples of the dog and the attention, and yours with the symmetry. To determine where there is value and where there is drive, we must know whether the owner of the drive is aware of the drive itself? In your case as a child, you probably knew about your drive/need for symmetry, which means there is a desire here. Since this need is not necessary for your existence, surely it can be defined as a value, even if you feel otherwise. You wrote that you really had a need for symmetry, but here you must notice that you are using this terminology in a different way than the way I defined it - the definition of "what is a need" does not depend on your subjective feelings, but on the objective reality - do you have an existential need to touch the tree with symmetry or not? If not, then the drive is defined as value, as far as I'm concerned.

     Regarding the dog, pay attention to what I wrote - I did not ask whether the dog is aware of himself, but whether he is aware of his impulse, whether he knows he has an impulse or not. I don't think the mirror experiment helps here, and frankly I think this can only be confirmed using neuropsychological tools. By the way, I also have serious doubts about the appearance test - the chimpanzee knows he exists, he distinguishes himself from the environment, but this is not human consciousness!

     Again regarding babies and reproductive cells and chimpanzees - I did not say that there are no problems here. There is a big problem here, but we have, at least today, no possibility to define a chimpanzee or any other animal as a "man" and treat him as a man. You talked about the right to life, so here's an example: would it occur to anyone nowadays to sacrifice the life of one person for the sake of ten or twenty chimpanzees? This is a somewhat demagogic example, but it nicely demonstrates the fact that we are still not ready to treat any other animal as equal to a human. When I talked about reproductive cells, I meant of course zygotes. You wrote: "And what is interaction naturally? Who cares what is natural and what is not. The point is that right now your attempt to communicate with a chimpanzee can succeed better than your attempt to communicate with certain humans." So first of all - I wrote to you in one of the previous responses why my discussion is necessarily about natural processes, and not about artificial processes. You must understand - I refer to the mentally retarded as belonging to the species Homo sapiens. With the members of this species, as a collective, I have the possibility to interact. Not so with chimpanzees, again, as a collective rather than as individuals.
     It is also possible that there is actually no point in defining people with mental retardation as human beings. And yet, it is clear that no one would think of doing this. This brings me back to the first reason that led me to define Adam as a member of the Homo sapiens (if you remember) - because I am part of it, and chimpanzees will naturally always interest me less than humans. Maybe in the future people will treat me as some kind of racist, but I can't do anything about it.

     Regarding the last paragraph - I completely agree with Shogun on this matter, and I have already written this to both Buddha and Shmulik. However, I agree with you that it's a real waste of time (think of how many things I could be doing while I'm writing all these comments…) and it just shows how paradoxical values ​​tend to be.

492. xianghua,

     wow I'm glad I didn't bother to answer your previous message. I have given me some more evidence now that you are the type called "intelligent biology" on the "Hados" website. In this case, you are cataloged as a brain dump by me, because in the past I had a discussion with you in "Hados" in which you brought up the research on flagellin to which you have now given a link as a "refutation" of evolution. My response to your nonsense has been censored there. Below are excerpts from it + additions:

     First, it is a basic biochemical study in which the researcher tried to identify areas essential for the activity of the said protein. In this study, no attempt was made to create a hypothesis or test a hypothesis about the evolutionary history of the gene or protein, because this is not a study of the evolution of this protein (evolutionary considerations were involved in this study, but the evolution of the protein was not studied). He doesn't disprove anything about the theory of evolution because he didn't even try to answer an evolutionary question and didn't deal with it. As mentioned, this is a basic biochemical study that characterized the protein.

     Secondly, in this study they created several versions of the flagellin gene (=variants) in each of which pieces were removed from areas that were not evolutionarily conserved (=in these areas of the protein there was little similarity between this protein in different species). The goal of the study was to check if these areas are not evolutionarily conserved because they are not *critical* for function. In other words, the evolutionary consideration led to raising a hypothesis about the biochemical properties of the protein and the researchers tested it using standard methods of molecular biology.

     The result was a confirmation of the hypothesis. Variants that contained a deletion did continue to maintain their function at different levels (the function of the different variants was between 50 and 100 percent of the function of the original protein). In practice, this research produced versions of this protein that are "intermediates" of the kind you claim do not exist. For someone like me who knows that this study isn't even trying to test an evolutionary hypothesis that's not the main argument I gave against the nonsense you just said. Still, it's a spicy addition, the icing on the cake, if you will.

     Bottom line, right now you're being labeled as a brainiac by me.

493. It has not been disproved, there is no connection between the number of physiological traits and genetic closeness. The orangutan can be further away and at the same time develop human-like traits.
     And as for the second argument, neither Craig Venter nor all the people who build the artificial E. coli with him do not claim that the molecule was produced without small steps. Simply by these steps it was a replicating molecule and not a bacterium.
     The above argument is a classic argument of the group of fraudsters known as the Discovery Institute and it has been refuted in dozens of places.

494. Regarding one of the criteria that Uri suggested,

     Discordance between phylogenies based on morphology/fossils and on DNA

     http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090623-humans-chimps-related.html

     Here's a simple rebuttal - the human and the orangutan share about 28 unique physiological characteristics in common, while the chimpanzee has only 2. However, until now the scientists have insisted that the chimpanzee is actually closer, due to its genetic proximity. I understand that now evolution is disproved?

     The second criterion:

     Adaptation that could not have evolved by a step by step process of ever increasing fitness

     It is also unfounded in the following study:

     http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC211289/

     The researchers discovered that 310 ha are required to create a minimal protein (flagellin). That is, there are no small steps to its formation.

     Evolution disproved?

495. Uri, in my opinion the debates here also represent value, the value of the commenter to defend his view of his life
     Because if it wasn't important to him then it wouldn't be of any value to him and he wouldn't react violently to any response.
     Therefore, this action is not a waste of time talking and it does reflect to each person the degree of his personal value

     Of course, there are also universal values ​​such as the 7 commandments of the sons of Noah, for example, which the whole world morally commands.

496. R.H.
     "Nevertheless, this whim exists and he wants one thing or another that he does not have to in order to exist" - but what if he doesn't understand it? What happens with the mental retardation severe enough that a person does not have the ability to grasp the concepts of existence, needs and values ​​at all? How can it be said that a person who cannot grasp concepts such as natural reality can direct his actions outside of it? Look at a dog as an example. He has needs that are necessary for his existence: eating, drinking, sleeping, etc., and he also has certain needs that are not so necessary for his existence, at least not directly such as playing, eating his favorite food, a heartbeat from the owner, etc. I don't think the dog sees any difference between these needs. He does not eat because he understands that his body needs food to function, he eats because he is hungry. Similarly, he plays because he feels like playing, because his need to play has not been fulfilled for some time. And the same could be said about a baby or a person with severe mental retardation. I will give another personal example, as a small child I liked to maintain symmetry, and let's say if I was walking in a grove and touched a tree with my right hand I should have touched it with my left hand as well. It was a need that if I didn't fulfill I would feel uncomfortable. Of course, these actions are not necessary for my existence, but I didn't think about it at all at that moment. This need was just as real as the need to eat when I'm hungry or sleep when I'm tired, it made no difference to me, and that's exactly what I meant when I said that the basis of behavior is the same basis while the actions are different.

     "I argued that the whim of the mentally retarded person (not sure about a chimpanzee) is also a value." – Why not sure about a chimpanzee? I'll give you a question to think about, suggest a test that tests intelligence/self-awareness (or anything else you think is relevant to the ability to hold values) that you think any human (adult) would pass but no other animal would pass. I remind you that the test showing chimpanzees passed but not people with severe mental retardation.

     "Regarding the babies and reproductive cells - my basic assumption is that the baby will develop into a person with whom I can interact" - this is not the assumption regarding reproductive cells, is it? How many of them will become human? I think it is very problematic to rank living beings according to their potential to become in the future a being that you can communicate with. I will demonstrate this, let's say a baby is born with a serious illness and the doctors state with certainty that the baby will not live beyond a few months. In this case your chance of interacting with him tends to zero. Does that make him irrelevant in this discussion?

     "Because I know that most chimpanzees are not supposed to interact with me naturally." - What does "said" mean? And what is interaction naturally? Who cares what is natural and what is not. The point is that right now your attempt to communicate with a chimpanzee can succeed better than your attempt to communicate with certain humans.

     "After all, to the extent that we start treating chimpanzees as human beings, we will have to, as decent human beings, grant them human rights" - this does not necessarily follow. Of course it depends on what you define as human rights, and I do think that basic rights such as the right to life without suffering should be granted to chimpanzees, but no one is proposing to give them the right to vote. Just like you don't give children the right to vote even though they are human too. In any case, thoughts like "things will turn into absolute absurdity" should be minimized, what do you think people were thinking when they proposed equality between men and women for the first time? The fact that this or that practice is embedded in our society and the education we received does not make it more or less correct.

     "It seems to me that it is better that you give a value and I will try to show that it is directed outside of natural reality, or that it is actually a need" - this is a bit problematic because my position is that it will be possible to show that any value is actually a need, so if I raise a value and you show that it is a need, we are We will probably agree. In any case, let's take as an example everything we do here, whether it's the debate about evolution or anything else, we can all do things that are necessary for our existence at this time and yet choose to waste it talking. Do these actions reflect values?

497. Ori,
     I argued that the whim of the mentally retarded person (not sure about a chimpanzee) is also a value. This is because he could have existed even without this or that whim (let's say to wear green clothes every Tuesday... a bad example, but never mind) and yet this whim exists and he wants one thing or another that he does not have to in order to exist. I argue that he actually directs his actions towards an obviously unnatural reality, because the natural reality means that he will do what he has to do in order to exist and nothing else, and certainly will not choose to wear green clothes every Tuesday, when it has no meaning for his material existence. This is what I call value.

     Regarding the babies and the reproductive cells - my premise is that the baby will develop into a person with whom I can interact. It does not matter that some of the babies will not reach this stage because if they do not reach this stage they will most likely die, and then the fact that I define them as humans is meaningless (unless they become "plants"... well, too bad I will get too involved) . However, this is not my basic assumption regarding chimpanzees, because I know that most chimps are not supposed to interact with me naturally.

     As I wrote, it is clear to me that there is a great deal of difficulty in separating Homo sapiens from the rest of the animals. But considering the facts today, I do not find any other option appropriate. After all, to the extent that we start treating chimpanzees as human beings, we, as decent human beings, will have to grant them human rights (as they did in Spain, I think), and things will turn into a real absurdity, at least nowadays (and of course they may also lead to the end of Homo sapiens, if Suppose we can make the chimpanzees more intelligent).

     Regarding your last question - I still hold my previous opinion. It seems to me that it is better that you give a value and I will try to show that it is directed outside of natural reality, or that it is actually a need.

498. buddha,
     First, sorry for doubting your words regarding your ultra-Orthodox friends. It is inappropriate for me to try to descend into your private life and I trust your word. This is exactly what I complained about when xianghua was bullied about his religiosity.

     Regarding the issue of manufacturing - as I wrote, the use of the term "manufacturer" upsets me, for the reasons I detailed. Of course, it is better for the country that its citizens earn a living and pay taxes, but if you compare the ultra-orthodox with those people I described above in terms of the balance of contribution to society and receipt from society, in my view both of them receive more from society than they contribute to it. In my subjective eyes, I tend to prefer the ultra-Orthodox, who at least do not behave this way out of greed, but because this is how all the people around them behave. If you have ultra-Orthodox friends, you probably know how hard it is to behave differently from most of the people around you (and check; after all, there are ultra-Orthodox people who make a living on their own and still remain ultra-Orthodox).

     I'm sorry if I accused you of hating Haredim which is not true.
     However, it is impossible to deny the fact that in the State of Israel today there is hatred of ultra-Orthodox people that cannot be ignored. This hatred has many motives, some justified and some not, but none of them make the hatred legitimate. Open any article on Ynet that deals with the ultra-Orthodox - most of the talkbacks in it will express the hatred of the talkbackists towards the ultra-Orthodox, that they are (as a group!) "parasites", "free eaters", "dodging" and other greetings such as "wearing black", "primitive", " Idol worshipers", "hardlims" and so on. When I wrote that your response was full of anti-Orthodox stigmatizations, I was confronted with expressions of this hatred, which I am simply disgusted by. The definition you gave for stigma is acceptable to me, but isn't it also true regarding the hatred of the ultra-Orthodox that is so widespread in the Israeli public?
     In the Israeli public, it is customary to characterize all the ultra-Orthodox negatively (from "parasites" to "Haredim"), making a harmful generalization. Therefore, I have no doubt that there are strong stigmas against the ultra-orthodox among the Israeli public.
     (And ironically, I also made a kind of generalization, and stuck the stigma of "the secularist who hates ultra-Orthodox" on you. Forgiveness is with you).

     I firmly hold my position that the ultra-Orthodox are apparently trying to revive the yeshiva world that existed before the Holocaust. Before the Holocaust, there was no such situation where the majority of the ultra-Orthodox public studied Torah and did not earn a living (and it goes without saying that there was no such situation before the emancipation, which created ultra-Orthodox). The aspiration to establish a "community of learners" that will replace the old yeshivot world (and to a large extent also constitute "atonement" against the majority of the Jewish people who do not study Torah) is really prominent in the Chazon Ish, for example. The irony is that the ultra-Orthodox, for the most part, received this concept from their rabbis as Torah from heaven, and are therefore unable to say why they should study Torah and not earn a living. In this way, most of the days, the reason for the intensive study was forgotten, and the study itself remained.

     I have not read Noah Harari's book, but I have seen some of his lectures (which I understood the book to be a kind of summary of) in "Photographic University". I am very familiar with the claim that humanism, fascism/Nazism and communism are actually religions. And for my part I do not dispute that. But it is a fact that most of their struggles are not waged by atheists against humanism (they also tend to define themselves as humanists), but against the religions in which there is some concept of "God" (with rare exceptions like you).
     AKP, you claimed "there is no God, there are no terrorist attacks", I interpreted your statement as opposing religions in which there is a concept of "God", and therefore I showed that evil also exists in ideologies that took God out of the picture (and you are allowed to call them religions) - and no less evil than in the classical religions.
     And I know that none of this is relevant to you because you reject all religions, whether they have God or not. If so - why did you choose to write "God"??

499. "It is clear to me that there is nothing that evolutionarily prevents any animal from developing speech, but based on the knowledge we have today, no such animal exists" - not that it matters but it is not exactly true, they managed to teach apes sign language with a certain degree of success.

     It's okay for you to pick out the weak points, but you can't treat them like they're the only points I've presented. The same link I provided presented four criteria and one of them was a chimera, I don't know why the author specifically chose a chimera, perhaps because creationists present chimeras in many cases as something that should have been found if evolution was correct (for example half fish half cow as a transitional stage between a terrestrial animal and a marine animal), And the writer wanted to emphasize that not only is this not what evolution says, but it would even disprove it.

     In any case, when you present the criteria for refuting a theory, you simply present what will disprove it, regardless of how absurd it may seem. What to do, while in laboratories it is possible to create chimeras in evolution, they cannot develop, therefore if it is found it will disprove it. What do you think a refutation criterion for the claim that the earth is round would look like? Here is a criterion: find the edge of the world. Weird right? Then the denier will come and say that the claim that the earth is round is not scientific, that there is no chance of fulfilling this criterion. But the point is that precisely because the earth is round it will not be able to fill it.

     "And evolution seems to you to have predicted the ego from itself just like that?" - In a certain sense yes. For example, the deer that supposedly warns others when it starts to get high in front of a predator and draw attention to it. Supporters of group selection would say that behavior serves the common good, and that there is actually altruism here. But this behavior is evolutionary unstable, so another explanation should be preferred. I said earlier that the second set of criteria I brought introduces natural selection into the definition of evolution, according to which such altruistic behavior that serves the common good is not possible.

     "I remind you again, I'm not really defending intelligent design, if it's a point of merit for evolution, it's also a point of merit for intelligent design" - there is an important difference between evolution and intelligent design that you don't stand for. Not everything that can be invented fits the theory of evolution. Evolution is not just a framework that can be adapted to any set of facts, unlike intelligent design. Even if we find something that we would not expect to find if an intelligent planner planned life it will always be possible to say that his ways are mysterious, and this is precisely why this claim cannot be refuted. Just as it is impossible to disprove the claim that the biblical story of creation is a metaphor and does not contradict science because if imagination is enough, any scientific fact can be adapted to the story of creation.

     "I didn't understand how you can say "egoist" and "altruist" and "behavior" and "regardless of interest" in the same sentence" - it's a matter of definition. If you want, we can separate altruism into two concepts, altruism and true altruism, but it doesn't matter because what you are being asked is to show an antisocial animal that sacrifices itself for the benefit of others. Maybe it makes him feel good about himself and maybe he wants to go to heaven, but it doesn't matter because from an evolutionary point of view such behavior is illogical.

     "Again, the argument can be: if there is a planner, he planned everyone to be egotistical to a certain extent in order for them to survive." – A planner (assuming he is omnipotent) can plan non-egoistic living beings and still see to it that they survive. In fact a species of individuals in which everyone looks out for the common good before they look out for themselves can survive better than a species in which each individual looks out for himself. In any case, since the planner is omnipotent, unlike evolution, there is nothing you can find and say that could not have been created by a planner, because then thank God he is not omnipotent.

     " Goose bumps? For me it's not a feature, when I said feature I was talking about something like... hands?" - What definition of a feature do you use that does not include hair and hands?

     ” In general, hair is not really useful to a person... so there is no God? Because he created hair for man? And it's not enough in the hair, but it's sommer? God forbid!" - Are you kidding? You provided a criterion and I met it, and then you ask why this criterion proves that there is no planner? I really do not know. In fact, I argued from the beginning that the criterion does not prove that there is no planner, and yet I fulfilled it. You said that a designer wouldn't create a trait that benefits one species and not the other, having hair is useful for mammals to increase the layer of insulation when cold and look bigger when under threat, for a human having little body hair is of course not helpful.

     "It may be that if we really go through the criteria one by one we will find some that are relevant, but the examples I put my finger on seem particularly dubious to me, that's why I put my finger on them" - that's not what you did. You tried to compare intelligent design with evolution, when in practice evolution does have criteria that you admit may make it scientific, whereas for intelligent design you cannot provide a rebuttal criterion that I cannot fulfill.

500. You do an injustice when you call him the rational planner because the meaning is clearly God, the religious one. The concept was invented so that it would be possible to teach theology in science classes and in order not to say God and avoid the First Amendment to the Constitution, the Discovery Institute called it the Intelligent Designer. Fortunately for Americans, the court blocked this possibility.

     I find it hard to believe that you would find people who believe in an intelligent planner who is not God and even then, what's the point, haven't we really progressed regarding the essence of our existence here? If he is just a sophisticated being who is not God, then it is obligatory to ask how he was created and the question about the origin of life goes to him.

     There is nothing to disprove God. Who said that what is written in the Jewish Torah are really the living words of God? It is certainly possible that the Jewish religion is completely correct and God does exist, but he is cruel (after all, a kind God would not toy with one Job) and if I believed in God, I would not demand anything from him, neither wisdom, nor kindness, nor long-term planning.

     By the way, as I already wrote, the matrix solution replaces God's solution at any level and does not assume any kindness and compassion for the programmer, and cruelty that we see around us, is well explained by such a solution. Anyone who has played computer games knows that wars are the worst thing.

     And to conclude, in science classes it is forbidden to teach religion and it is important that all Israeli students learn about the principles of evolution.

501. "If there is a planner, then obviously there is nothing that would prevent him from doing so, but your question, "Why this way and not that way", could have been asked in every creation and is therefore meaningless. (After all, you could also send the believer to look for a talking animal that is not a human, and thus evolution would be invalidated)
     Understand? You send me to disprove evolution by finding something that was not created but could have existed because God is almighty, again... In any kind of creation you could send me to look for something so delusional.", "Same concept, you send me to find something "positive" which is defined from the beginning as "negative", a creation that was not created in the current universe.
     You look for altruism in an egoist, it's like asking to find a sane madman, it's just crazy."

     – you are missing the point. There is nothing in evolution that prevents an animal other than man from developing the ability to speak, and there is also no matter of definition here as in the analogy of a sane person. Humans have not discovered all the species that exist on Earth, and even among those that have discovered there is room for research and the study of their behavior. Evolution predicts that it is unlikely that an asocial animal will show altruism to animals that are not its relatives.

     — It is clear to me that there is nothing that evolutionarily prevents any animal from developing speech, but based on the knowledge we have today, no such animal exists.
     now what? We also know that a chimera does not exist, but because you managed to have one, you decided that only if nature produced some kind of chimera, then evolution would be ruled out, or alternatively it is proof of an intelligent designer.
     How can you not see that this is ridiculous?
     And of course it's a matter of definition, because when you say "asocial fire" it's a definition, and not just any definition, it's a definition from the humanities, and with all due respect to the humanities, the definitions there are not exactly Sinaitic Torah and not exactly mathematical.

     "If we assume that some creator has implanted certain mental powers/desires in every animal, then there is no problem that altruism is not found in a certain species because all species are egoistic and want to gain something" - but why are all species egoistic? You realize this is something you say in hindsight after we don't find altruism like we're talking about."

     — and evolution seems to you to have predicted the ego from itself just like that? Or in retrospect based on observation/philosophy and came to the conclusion that a certain animal survives because it has a survival mechanism and that is what makes it an egoist?
     Did Darwin and his friends really decide out of nowhere based on no prior knowledge, observation, inferences and hypotheses that the surviving animals are the most selfish but not too much?
     Did man claim there was an evolutionary survival mechanism before he thought of egoism?

     ” But there is nothing in intelligent design that predicts such an outcome. This may not be a point against intelligent design, but it is definitely a point in favor of evolution."

     - Again I remind you, I am not really defending intelligent design, if this is a point of merit for evolution, it is also a point of merit for intelligent design.
     Again, the argument can be: if there is a planner, he planned everyone to be egotistical to a certain extent in order for them to survive.
     This is equivalent to the claim "If there is no altruistic species, it is because natural selection imitated them from time immemorial, and hence evolution is correct"

     "By the way, it can be said that a contribution to the charity is also egoistic, because you feel good about yourself, so from the beginning the concept of altruism is a utopian concept that does not exist in any living being"
     - In altruism we talk about behavior that increases the chances of another individual to survive and decreases the chances of the altruist, regardless of interest."

     - I didn't understand how you can say "egoist" and "altruist" and "behavior" and "regardless of interest" in the same sentence

     "I explained to you why I do not accept them and why it is impossible to fill them in" - you did not address most of the criteria at all.

     — This thread is long enough, that's why I chose the weakest points in my opinion, I'm sorry if it's "unfair" that I chose this way, but what can I do?
     God made me an egoist (-;

     "If we find a "useful" trait in one species, and the same trait exists in another species but it is not "useful" to it, then all of creation is accidental and not planned.
     For if creation is planned by a perfectly wise planner, he will not create "unhelpful" things just like that for no reason."
     - Don't you see that this does not contradict the intelligent design? As I said an intelligent designer can create a species of one animal to serve another species of animal, for example man. Also, I'm not clear on what you mean by feature. Having hair is a trait that is beneficial in most mammals but not beneficial in humans. Does this contradict the intelligent design?"

     - Goose bumps? For me it's not a feature, when I said feature I was talking about something like... hands?
     In general, hair is not really useful to a person... so there is no God? Because he created hair for man? And it's not enough in the hair, but it's sommer? God forbid!
     And maybe he did it in honor of Valentine's Day? So you know if your friend is cold and put the jacket on her?
     Not a romantic? After all, our sages said, "He who chooses his people Israel with love"

     "I must point out, because you didn't understand at all, that I don't support any theory in an overwhelming way and I have no desire to believe in a planner or evolution or anything else, I'm just pointing out that the terms of the refutation are patently illogical."
     - So what do you believe if we can tell? Why are you unwilling to accept the theory of evolution as scientific while ignoring most of the criteria I have given?

     - I didn't say that I don't accept evolution as scientific or incorrect, I just said that the criteria are clearly unscientific (it's possible that if we really go through the criteria one by one we'll find some that are relevant, but the examples I put my finger on seem especially dubious to me, that's why I put my finger on them. )
     I believe in what I believe, maybe God, maybe karma, I don't really know, but it doesn't belong to science at all, my belief has no point or scientific interest, neither in the positive direction nor in the negative direction
     My "god" does not force me to behave in any way and does not force me to deny evolution or to believe that the world was created X years or Y years ago, because it is simply not relevant to the matter of "his/her existence", or to my way of thinking, or to my way of behaving in my life today - a day.
     More than that, my "god" doesn't care if I believe in him or not, I really don't threaten him or do him a favor.

502. Maybe yes maybe not, but sure maybe,

     "If there is a planner, then obviously there is nothing that would prevent him from doing so, but your question, "Why this way and not that way", could have been asked in every creation and is therefore meaningless. (After all, you could also send the believer to look for a talking animal that is not a human, and thus evolution would be invalidated)
     Understand? You send me to disprove evolution by finding something that was not created but could have existed because God is almighty, again... In any kind of creation you could send me to look for something so delusional.", "Same concept, you send me to find something "positive" which is defined from the beginning as "negative", a creation that was not created in the current universe.
     You look for altruism in an egoist, it's like asking to find a sane madman, it's just crazy."

     – you are missing the point. There is nothing in evolution that prevents an animal other than man from developing the ability to speak, and there is also no matter of definition here as in the analogy of a sane person. Humans have not discovered all the species that exist on Earth, and even among those that have discovered there is room for research and the study of their behavior. Evolution predicts that it is unlikely that an asocial animal will show altruism to animals that are not its relatives.

     "If we assume that some creator has implanted certain mental powers/desires in every animal, then there is no problem that altruism is not found in a certain species because all species are egoistic and want to gain something" - but why are all species egoistic? You realize this is something you say in retrospect after altruism like we're talking about has not been found, but there is nothing in intelligent design that predicts such an outcome. This may not be a point against intelligent design, but it is certainly a point in favor of evolution.

     By the way, it can be said that a contribution to Ebion is also egoistic, because you feel good about yourself, so from the beginning the concept of altruism is a utopian concept that does not exist in any living being"
     - In altruism we talk about behavior that increases the chances of another individual to survive and decreases the chances of the altruist, regardless of interest.

     "I explained to you why I do not accept them and why it is impossible to fill them in" - you did not address most of the criteria at all.

     "If we find a "useful" trait in one species, and the same trait exists in another species but it is not "useful" to it, then all of creation is accidental and not planned.
     For if creation is planned by a perfectly wise planner, he will not create "unhelpful" things just like that for no reason."
     - Don't you see that this does not contradict the intelligent design? As I said an intelligent designer can create a species of one animal to serve another species of animal, for example man. Also, I'm not clear on what you mean by feature. Having hair is a trait that is beneficial in most mammals but not beneficial in humans. Does this contradict intelligent design?

     "I must point out, because you didn't understand at all, that I don't support any theory in an overwhelming way and I have no desire to believe in a planner or evolution or anything else, I'm just pointing out that the terms of the refutation are patently illogical."
     - So what do you believe if we can tell? Why are you unwilling to accept the theory of evolution as scientific while ignoring most of the criteria I have given?

503. "Then he tells me that only if I find a computer growing on a tree (a natural chimera) your theory is incorrect" - note that I did not say that only finding a chimera would disprove the theory. You must fulfill one criterion and not all. This request seems delusional to you only because there are no chimeras in nature, but your almighty planner should have no problem creating them."

     — my almighty planner? drawing a very wrong conclusion.

     "Do we need to find some asocial animal that will develop altruistic behavior towards an animal that does not belong to it (that is, it is not of its kind/genus)?
     Whether I understood the intention correctly or not, the concept itself is exaggerated" - why exaggerated? What would prevent a designer from creating a species that behaves like this?"

     — If there is a planner, then obviously there is nothing that would prevent him from doing so, but your question "why this way and not that way" could have been asked in every creation and is therefore meaningless.
     Understand? You send me to disprove evolution by finding something that was not created but could have existed because God is almighty, again... in any kind of creation you could send me to look for something so delusional.

     "Until a few years ago (quite a few years ago) no one believed that Bea would adopt any animal (I don't remember the name of this animal) but this one was filmed in Africa (if you insist I will search and find the article for you).
     And if tomorrow a tiger is found to be adopted by Philo? Is evolution really based on this? What is the connection?
     I'm really asking, what is the connection between the behavior of a certain animal and the correctness of evolution" - I think Jerry's intention was to find an animal with altruistic behavior towards certain animals in general, and not individual cases. When my uncle's dog gave birth to dead puppies she "adopted" a doll. That's not the kind of example I'm looking for. Altruism between relatives has an evolutionary explanation, as does altruism among social animals that can return favors to one another, in contrast to this, altruistic behavior of a non-social animal to another animal does not confer an advantage, and therefore it cannot be explained with the help of evolution."

     — The same concept, you send me to find something "positive" that is defined from the beginning as "negative", a creation that was not created in the current universe.
     You look for altruism in an egoist, it's like asking to find a sane lunatic, it's just crazy.

     "Obviously, if a certain trait benefits one species, it will be a benefit to the other species as well." - Why is it obvious when evolution is not assumed? So as an example the fish that stick to bigger fish and clean them. If the cleaning fish had nothing to gain from cleaning then this behavior would not make evolutionary sense. And this is true for all interactions between different living beings. If you support intelligent design then there is no reason for the designer not to create a species of animal that helps another species without gaining anything."

     — If we assume that some creator instilled certain mental powers/desires in every living being, then there is no problem in not finding altruism in a certain species because all species are egoistic and want to gain something (by the way, it can be said that a contribution to Ebion is also egoistic, because you feel good about yourself, so that from the beginning the concept of altruism is a utopian concept that does not exist in any living being)
     Do you see why I don't need the refutation of evolution to rule it out or to confirm the existence of God? The same criteria you present do not strengthen or weaken, neither God nor evolution.
     These criteria just don't make sense.

     "I really find the conditions for disproving evolution to be failed/delusional/irrelevant." - The conditions seem irrelevant to you because you don't understand them or what evolution says, and they seem illusory to you only because you know you won't be able to fulfill them, and not because of a problem with the conditions but for the simple reason that the theory of evolution is true. And in addition, you may have referred to a third of the conditions I provided. I do not understand how a reasonable person can claim that all the conditions I have provided cannot be fulfilled and still not accept evolution."

     — I explained to you why I do not accept them and why it is impossible to fill them out.

     Let me go back a little, you wrote: "Seriously, what do you want from us??" - What is wanted from you is that you go out into the field and do research and try to disprove evolution instead of sitting at home and grumbling. Did it occur to you for a moment to stop complaining that evolution is irrefutable, and instead try to fulfill the criteria?"

     - By "from us" I meant any sane person who demands to deny evolution, without any connection to this or that God or God in general.
     I'm really trying to understand how these criteria are practical, how it is possible to fulfill requests like "find me an existing one that doesn't exist", and on that to base the theory and think scientifically.

     "You didn't answer my question, so I'll put it in a different way. Leave evolution for a moment, do you think the theory of intelligent design is scientific (disprovable)? Even if all the criteria for refuting evolution seem irrelevant to you, that still doesn't absolve you from giving relevant criteria to the theory you support. And if you are not able to give such criteria, then explain why you support this theory."

     - I brought you the same refutation condition that you brought to evolution, only from the direction of the intelligent planner.
     why did i do that To create the possibility for you to admit that this is a screwed-up condition, or to accept the intelligent designer as a scientific theory.
     These are the 2 options available to you

     I forgot to address one thing you wrote:

     "Obviously there is a way to disprove the intelligent planner:
     Because we say "how many are your deeds, the intelligent planner, you have done them all with great wisdom".
     So it is said that if you find some trait in one species, which is very good for it, and you find the same trait in another species, but it is not useful to it, it means that no one planned the world and really everything is accidental..."

     I saw a video of Zamir Cohen who said that trees have leaves to provide a person with shade when it's hot and that the leaves fall so as not to block the few rays of the sun in the winter. In other words, Zamir Cohen thinks that this characteristic of deciduous trees does not necessarily exist because it is beneficial to the tree but because it is beneficial to man, and this is of course possible if there is indeed a planner, but not possible if the tree developed through evolution."

     — Leave Zamir, I'm not really interested, I repeat the theory of the intelligent planner in its entirety:
     Blah, blah, blah, blah, therefore there is an intelligent planner whose intelligence is infinite.
     How can this theory be disproved?
     If we find a "useful" trait in one species, and the same trait exists in another species but it is not "useful" to it, then all creation is accidental and not planned.
     For if creation is planned by a perfectly wise planner, he will not create "unhelpful" things just like that without any reason.

     "I have to ask but, where is the wisdom in genetic diseases and suffering?"

     I must point out, because you didn't understand at all, that I don't support any theory in an overwhelming way and I have no desire to believe in a planner or evolution or anything else, I'm just pointing out that the terms of the refutation are clearly illogical.
     The fact that I point out that the refutation conditions are illogical does not make me a married religious Jew and the father of 8, right?
     Not even for a religious Jew, right? And it doesn't necessarily make me a believer or an unbeliever in the theory of evolution or in God, right?
     After all this I will point out that the wisdom of genetic diseases and suffering can have thousands of excuses.
     And again... the fact that there are thousands of excuses does not mean that I accept one of them or believe/disbelieve in them, and even if I accept these excuses it does not force me to believe in the ultimate conclusion they seek to create, right?
     Beauty.
     The same goes for evolution and its intricacies, even if I believe in evolution it does not force me to believe in the Darwinian model regarding the ancestors and all, nor does it force me to deny the intelligent designer.
     And even if I believe in evolution that you believe in, that doesn't make me believe in an intelligent designer.
     Now again I return you to the planner theory and the refutation conditions I set (if you didn't answer me for some reason): Is following this condition, the theory scientific? (yes/no, that's all)
     PS, don't worry, even if you say yes, it doesn't force you to believe this theory.

504. I forgot to address one thing you wrote:

     "Obviously there is a way to disprove the intelligent planner:
     Because we say "how many are your deeds, the intelligent planner, you have done them all with great wisdom".
     So it is said that if you find some trait in one species, which is very good for it, and you find the same trait in another species, but it is not useful to it, it means that no one planned the world and really everything is accidental..."

     I saw a video of Zamir Cohen who said that trees have leaves to provide a person with shade when it's hot and that the leaves fall so as not to block the few rays of the sun in the winter. That is, Zamir Cohen thinks that this feature of deciduous trees does not necessarily exist because it is beneficial to the tree but because it is beneficial to man, which is of course possible if there is indeed a planner, but not possible if the tree developed through evolution.

     I have to ask though, where is the wisdom in genetic disease and suffering?

505. Maybe yes maybe not, but sure maybe

     "Then he tells me that only if I find a computer growing on a tree (a natural chimera) your theory is incorrect" - note that I did not say that only finding a chimera would disprove the theory. You must fulfill one criterion and not all. This request seems ludicrous to you only because there are no chimeras in nature, but your almighty designer should have no problem creating them.

     "Do we need to find some asocial animal that will develop altruistic behavior towards an animal that does not belong to it (that is, it is not of its kind/genus)?
     Whether I understood the intention correctly or not, the concept itself is exaggerated" - why exaggerated? What would prevent a designer from creating a species that behaves like this?

     "Until a few years ago (quite a few years ago) no one believed that Bea would adopt any animal (I don't remember the name of this animal) but this one was filmed in Africa (if you insist I will search and find the article for you).
     And if tomorrow a tiger is found to be adopted by Philo? Is evolution really based on this? What is the connection?
     I'm really asking, what is the connection between the behavior of a certain animal and the correctness of evolution" - I think Jerry's intention was to find an animal with altruistic behavior towards certain animals in general, and not individual cases. When my uncle's dog gave birth to dead puppies she "adopted" a doll. That's not the kind of example I'm looking for. Altruism between relatives has an evolutionary explanation, as does altruism among social animals that can return favors to one another, in contrast to this, altruistic behavior of a non-social animal to another animal does not confer an advantage, and therefore it cannot be explained with the help of evolution.

     Here I want to stop and point out that Jerry Coyne includes in the definition of evolution natural selection as the main mechanism that drives it. And so the criteria come to refute this part of the definition as well.

     "Obviously, if a certain trait benefits one species, it will be a benefit to the other species as well." - Why is it obvious when evolution is not assumed? So as an example the fish that stick to bigger fish and clean them. If the cleaning fish had nothing to gain from cleaning then this behavior would not make evolutionary sense. And this is true for all interactions between different living beings. If you support intelligent design then there is no reason why the designer would not create a species of animal that helps another species without gaining anything.

     "I really find the conditions for disproving evolution to be failed/delusional/irrelevant." - The conditions seem irrelevant to you because you don't understand them or what evolution says, and they seem illusory to you only because you know you won't be able to fulfill them, and not because of a problem with the conditions but for the simple reason that the theory of evolution is true. And in addition, you may have referred to a third of the conditions I provided. I do not understand how a reasonable person can claim that all the conditions I have provided cannot be fulfilled and still not accept evolution.

     Let me go back a little, you wrote: "Seriously, what do you want from us??" - What is wanted from you is that you go out into the field and do research and try to disprove evolution instead of sitting at home and grumbling. Did it occur to you for a moment to stop complaining that evolution is irrefutable, and instead try to fulfill the criteria?

     You didn't answer my question so I'll put it another way. Leave evolution for a moment, do you think the theory of intelligent design is scientific (disprovable)? Even if all the criteria for refuting evolution seem irrelevant to you, that still doesn't absolve you from giving relevant criteria to the theory you support. And if you are not able to give such criteria then explain why you support this theory.

506. Ori.

     I was joking about chimeras (centaur/mermaids), the meaning is that the requirement to find a "natural" chimera is delusional.
     Why delusional? Because you are setting me a task that you actually know has very low chances.
     Asking to find a chimera to rule out evolution is like asking to find a complex object (like a chair or a watch) that was created naturally, to disprove the claim that only intelligent beings of a living type can create complex devices/objects.
     You make a computer (chimera) and then tell me that only if I find a computer that grows on a tree (a natural chimera) your theory is wrong.
     It is clear to you that this is a "slightly" excessive request.
     This too:
     Evolved altruistic behavior among non-relatives in non-social animals
     Do you need to find some asocial animal that will develop altruistic behavior towards an animal that is not associated with it (i.e. not of its kind/genus)?
     Whether I understood the intention correctly or not, the concept itself is exaggerated
     I mean it doesn't matter what kind of animal and what behavior you want to find in it in order to disprove evolution, this very request is an excessive request.
     And why does this even have to do with denying evolution?
     Until a few years ago (really few) no one believed that Bea would adopt any animal (I don't remember the name of this animal) but this one was filmed in Africa (if you insist I will search and find the article for you).
     And if tomorrow a tiger is found to be adopted by Philo? Is evolution really based on this? What is the connection?
     I'm really asking, what is the connection between the behavior of a certain animal and the correctness of evolution?

     "- The meaning here is that there are adaptations in one species that also confer an advantage on another species, the refutation would be to find an adaptation that confers an advantage exclusively on the other species."

     It is clear that if a certain trait benefits one species it will also be a benefit to the other species.
     If a bird had hands... if a crocodile had wings... if man had gills... or if man could fly... (yes I know they invented airplanes and submarines)
     What can be an advantage in one that does not benefit the other? What is expected of us? Find a carnivorous animal walking on 4 that has claws that are of no use to it? Find a certain Venom whose venom does not give him an advantage?
     Seriously, what do you want from us??

     Regarding your question about a way to disprove the intelligent designer theory...
     Although I have no interest in convincing you of creation one way or another..
     Obviously, there is a way to disprove the intelligent planner:
     Because we say "how many are your deeds, the intelligent planner, you have done them all with great wisdom".
     So it is said that if you find some trait in one species, which is very good for it, and you find the same trait in another species, but it is not useful for it, it means that no one planned the world and really everything is accidental...

     What do you think??? Now would you agree that this is a scientific theory?

     Again, I have no interest in convincing you of creation one way or another.
     I really find the conditions for disproving evolution to be failed/delusional/irrelevant.
     Understand, my problem is not the existence of evolution, but the conditions for refuting it, I don't think they are "fair"
     If I have not been properly understood so far, I will demonstrate my problem to you more lightly:
     I tell you about the theory "thermodynamics", and then I tell you that in order to disprove it, you are required to find some object (living/plant/inanimate/other) that rises and oscillates in the air without any interaction with the environment.
     A somewhat dubious condition, isn't it?
     This is exactly how I see the conditions for disproving evolution (the ones you presented anyway).

507. buddha,

     I probably wasn't clear enough in my words. I meant that most people do not include animals in the "moral circle" they draw around them. The value of a chimpanzee's life is worth nothing compared to the life of a severely mentally retarded person in the eyes of the law. Many people draw the circle between Homo sapiens and all other animals, not to mention all living beings capable of feeling suffering.

     Studies on the development of morality as a biological trait with the help of evolution are interesting, but in my opinion, their importance should not be overstated. How can they help in moral discussions about the treatment of animals, abortion, euthanasia, etc.? Moral principles such as the sanctity of life, and loving your neighbor as yourself, etc., were indeed developed by people who are products of evolution, but they are not products of evolution themselves, and of course questions about whose lives are considered sacred and who to generalize as your neighbor who is to be loved also do not pertain to evolution.

508. Ori,

     A small and important note.

     I saw that you wrote "for example, a discussion that will deal with morality and behavior between a person and his friend will hardly deal with animals"

     I think this is really not true. There are many studies on animal morality and more importantly, from the results of the studies it is clearly proven that morality is a biological property of a certain part of the robotic brain of the primates that developed in an evolutionary way and nothing more. In my opinion, this is one of the most important things that evolution teaches us. I wanted to quote here a study I read on the subject, but unfortunately I don't have the book at the moment, but if you google "chimpanzee morals" you will find a lot of material on the subject, such as the book "Good by nature":

     http://www.kinbooks.co.il/htmls/page_3379.aspx?c0=17516&bsp=13836

     http://www.mako.co.il/news-money/tech/Article-2812e905b83f531018.htm

     http://textologia.net/?p=12185

509. R.H.:

     To remind you, this whole discussion started when you wrote:

     "Even a person with severe mental retardation had values, which were usually given to him by his immediate environment. For example, such a person can have what we perceive as momentary whims, but in his eyes these are values. I admit that I cannot say anything about a person who is a "plant", and this requires further investigation. It may even throw off my perception.”

     Both with regard to a person with severe mental retardation and with regard to a person who is a plant, you cannot say that you can interact with them more naturally than with a chimpanzee. Plus I still don't understand why your definition of values ​​fits them. I do not understand how it can be said about a person with severe mental retardation, or for that matter about a chimpanzee, that they direct their actions towards a reality outside of nature.

     I brought the babies and reproductive cells to show that even healthy people begin to develop values ​​only at a certain stage. The fact that some have a higher chance of realizing their potential than others has nothing to do with the fact that at this moment not everyone is realizing it. And when I asked why you focus on humans, you said that with them you have the possibility of natural interaction, by the possibility I thought you meant without technical reasons. With a baby, on the other hand, you will not perform the same natural interaction that you cannot perform with a chimpanzee, not for technical reasons but because he has not yet developed the means of communication.

     It is important for me to explain that I did not intend to make the discussion unserious. Humans tend not to bring animals into such discussions. For example, a discussion that will deal with morality and behavior between a person and his friend will hardly deal with animals. When I see such a separation between all members of the species Homo sapiens and other species (in cases where the separation is not justified of course, such as the separation between a person with severe mental retardation and a chimpanzee) it hurts me, and therefore it is important for me to point out the problematic nature of this separation.

     Regarding the discussion about whether there are values, I'm also not sure what we're actually arguing about. If I'm not mistaken, you wrote to Buddha in one of the responses that a person cannot live without values, so maybe it's better that we focus on this claim because it's easier to test it. Can you give an example of a value that you think I am acting for that I cannot say is necessary for my existence or is directed towards natural reality? And do you still hold the position that every individual of the Homo sapiens species cannot live without values?

510. Maybe yes maybe not, but sure maybe,

     "B 1. They ask you to find something, B 2. You are asked to find something, b3. They ask you to find something, and in 4... right! You are asked to find something." - Yes, the denier is asked to find something that contradicts evolution, what exactly did you expect, that we would provide you with things that have already been found? What to do that in order to disprove evolution you have to go out into the field and do some work.

     A chimera, by definition, is a multicellular creature whose different somatic cells (not sex cells) have a different genetic load. It doesn't have to be a centaur or a mermaid, it can be any creature with different genetic charges in different cells of its body. For example, in the laboratory they created a chimera of a lamb and a goat:

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheep%E2%80%93goat_chimera

     "Will we see a species created in one moment? A. Isn't this a question of the formation of life (which does not belong to and does not add to or detract from the question of evolution)?- Moreover, how is it a question of the formation of life. Supporters of evolution create a separation between evolution and abiogenesis, that is, between the development of animals from that primary replicating molecule and the formation of the molecule. Proponents of intelligent design, on the other hand, simply believe that life was created as it is, without any significant development afterwards, so all they have in their eyes is the formation of life.

     "B. Is the whole world covered with microscopic cameras (so that it is possible to really follow who was created dead)?" - this is not related to the matter. The point is, if you were to watch a creature being created before your eyes in nature then it would be a disproof of evolution. I don't know which version of the formation of life you believe, but if you accept that living things were not created in a few days a few thousand years ago but were created in different periods and will continue to be created in the future, then it is theoretically possible to observe one of these creations.

     "A mechanism that will prevent mutations from accumulating? Why is there such a thing? And even if it is found... why not add it to the theory under the title "Rare Retarded Mutation Syndrome"?" - Mutations are the raw material of evolution. Therefore, a mechanism that prevents them from accumulating does not allow evolution.

     "Seriously...doesn't anyone here think that the conditions for disproving evolution are a bit delusional?" - And why do you think they are delusional? Don't you think the criteria for overturning the Earth's carts would be delusional?

     In any case, I bring for you and for all the complainers additional criteria from Jerry Coyne's lecture:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1m4mATYoig

     Fossils in the wrong place (eg mammals in the Devonian)

     General lack of genetic variation in species

     Adaptation in one species good only for a second species - the meaning here is that there are adaptations in one species that also give an advantage to another species, the rebuttal would be to find an adaptation that gives an advantage only to the other species.

     Adaptation that could not have evolved by a step by step process of ever increasing fitness

     Adaptations inimical for individuals but good for populations/species

     Evolved altruistic behavior among non-relatives in non-social animals

     Discordance between phylogenies based on morphology/fossils and on DNA

     Can you give me one way of refuting the hypothesis of intelligent design?

511. So much effort are invested by the global warming deniers for what? for doing nothing. think about it.

512. R.H. dear,

     If I don't answer a certain comment of yours it's because maybe I didn't read it or I didn't have anything to say.

     Regarding "productive" people, nobody cares what you think is "beautiful" or "ugly". Socially, those who work and pay taxes are better than those who need state support. The division of professions and remuneration is determined globally according to the needs of the free market.

     I'm afraid you don't understand what the term "stigma" means, which you use so freely.
     According to Wikipedia, "Stigma is a negative characterization of a person as different from others." I did not characterize any person in any way. I argue that certain behaviors are better than others. For example, if I claim that smoking is harmful to health, this is not to stigmatize fellow smokers, etc. There will always be someone who will claim that they know many people who smoked and lived healthily to the age of 100. Needless to say, this is true but not related.

     Regarding the fact that you "find it hard to believe" that I have ultra-Orthodox friends, I will remind you of what the Sages said about the suspect of kosher. At the time, many of my friends converted and I also spent several years studying Torah at the Netivot Olam yeshiva in Bnei Brak, in the Kollel in Kiryat Yaarim and even in Mea Shearim. Most of them have become ultra-Orthodox and I love them. I don't feel far from them and they don't seem alien to me at all. The hatred is only in your head and not in my reality.

     I do not agree with you that the ultra-orthodox are trying to accomplish an impossible task. My ultra-Orthodox friends simply live like this and study Torah all day because they believe that this is good for them and by doing this they fulfill their purpose.

     Regarding racial laws and gas chambers, I recommend you Yuval Noah Harari's latest book, A Brief History of Humanity, in which he explains in a fascinating way why Nazism, Communism and Humanism are actually religions for all intents and purposes. I guess you are brought up to believe that horrors happen when you take God out of the picture. That is not true at all.

513. Ori,
     The conditions for the refutation of evolution seem a bit sketchy to me..
     B 1. They ask you to find something, B 2. You are asked to find something, b3. They ask you to find something, and in 4... right! You are asked to find something.

     chimeras? What is science fiction or science here? Is this really how we disprove evolution? By chasing centaurs and mermaids? Do you know how dangerous these creatures are??
     Will we see a species created in an instant? A. Isn't this a question of the formation of life (which does not belong to and does not add to or subtract from the question of evolution)?
     B. Is the whole world covered with microscopic cameras (so you can really track who was created when)?
     A mechanism that will prevent mutations from accumulating? Why is there such a thing? And even if found... why not add it to the theory under the title "rare retarded mutation syndrome"?

     Seriously... no one here thinks the conditions for disproving evolution are a bit delusional?

514. Shmulik,
     (Sugon, I think it will interest you too)
     I think that deism can actually be contrasted against atheism, because what these two views have in common is the attempt to establish some kind of assertion about God/the primary source/the cause of reasons in a rational way (I must point out that both seem sterile to me). It is not for nothing that the deistic view arose in the 17th century - a time when, on the one hand, it was not worthwhile for anyone to claim that God does not exist, and on the other hand, this is the time when the ray of "reason" rose.
     It may also be that I was not exactly precise in my previous response: the opposite view to pantheism is not simply "theism" (because the religious view is of course very diverse), certainly not theism in the biblical style. Within the framework of religious thought, there are two approaches that are opposed to pantheism: the panentheistic approach, which advocates an immanent divinity that resides in this world as well, but not only in it (style of accepting the Ari), and the transcendental approach, which advocates a divinity that is completely outside of this world, about which we cannot say anything (style Maimonides). Pantheism is opposed to these two approaches because it defines the world, and only the world, as God.

     I really don't understand the argument about Einstein. Einstein defined himself as a believer in Spinoza's God explicitly, so why is there so much debate? Beyond that his religious concept, in my humble opinion, is boring and simplistic. Why do people keep coming back to argue about this or that quote of his?

     Ori,
     I am no longer entirely sure what our discussion was about, but I am sure it was not a theological discussion and I have no intention of making it so. I will just comment on your words a few things:
     Natural reality is nothing but the reality we know with our senses. We cannot say anything about any other reality, nor can we say that it exists. You are right that it turns the conjunction "natural reality" into one or the other duplicity, but bigger and better than me have used it and I see no reason to reject it. I don't think we discussed belief in God, even though I mentioned that in my eyes the line between it - when it is distilled from images and fulfillments - and disbelief, is thin if it exists at all. We discussed the decision that a person decides to worship God, and this is a decision that a person does not need to reason about as long as he does not claim that it is rational. To the extent that he claims so, he must really reason (even though in my eyes it is impossible and his reasoning would be false).
     You wrote: "In one way or another, many people believe that their god intervenes or has intervened in one way or another in the "natural reality" and this can indeed be said to have happened or not." Of course I agree with that, although I don't know if it is possible to say with certainty that a revelation has occurred or not. All that can be said is that there is no rational reason to think that it happened.

     I do not understand your words regarding the interaction at all. Every human zygote that exists on earth today will, naturally, become an adult with whom I can have a conversation. It is possible that this thing will not actually happen, but this is the natural order of things, which has already happened enough times for me to trust it and I can claim that there is a high probability of its realization. On the other hand, a technological or research development that would allow me to talk to a chimpanzee does not exist today, and even if it exists in an undeveloped version, it is not natural.
     The matter of naturalness versus artificiality is very important, because that is what I am discussing, and not robots with artificial intelligence. For me, these will close the door on the possibility of a serious discussion.
     I'm sorry, but your argument is strange to me.

     buddha,
     I don't understand your words: "As for your question, I don't know people who engage in non-productive crafts. Everyone who works makes a living and pays taxes. This is in contrast to those who study Torah and live at the expense of the state." moment.
     Productive crafts = self-support and paying taxes? To Tomi, I thought that productive crafts are crafts in which something is produced, or at the very least, something is contributed to society. For example: the hundreds and thousands of students who come out of college, hold a "Bachelor's Degree in Law", and want to do stupid legal work that any legal secretary can do, are not producers in my eyes.
     The same corrupt "tax consultant" (see here: http://www.maskorot.co.il/tags/?list=top50), who earns a salary of NIS 300 per month and does not contribute to society at all, is not a producer in my eyes. Maybe he is needed by society, but in my eyes he does not contribute to society at all, and he undoubtedly takes from it much more than he gives to it.
     And if you raise an eyebrow about me, then yes - my eyes are narrow on him. Not because he earns more than I do, but because there are ten families who could make a decent living from his salary.
     There are many more. If you want, I can make you a list of the professions that, in my opinion, there are too many people engaged in.
     These people are not a minority, but a significant part of society.
     On the other hand: welders, carpenters, nursing assistants, construction workers, farmers, street sweepers (as well as engineers, scientists, doctors, nurses, etc.) are producers in my eyes, we need more of them, and there is no doubt that they deserve much more respect than those people above.

     I know I went a bit long on this unrelated matter, but the use of the word "manufacturers" just infuriates me. And that tax consultant I mentioned above annoys me much more than the ultra-Orthodox, even though he pays taxes. I have no complaints against him because it is his right to earn his money this way, but in my eyes he is an ugly person, much more than the ignorant, brainwashed and poor Haredi who spends his days studying Torah.

     Your response is full of stigmas. For example, you make an unclear link between a low socioeconomic level and not studying evolution. Are there those who don't study evolution and go to work? If so, then the sentence you wrote is not true for some people. I mean, you made a generalization that hurt some people, even if a little. If so, then there is a stigma here.

     I didn't understand this sentence either: "Regarding the housing crisis that Shogun referred to, I do believe that it may improve indirectly if children learn evolution and not Judaism in first grade. (I explained why, the decrease in the birth rate and the increase in participation in the labor force. These are statistics that are accepted by everyone and not stigmas)."
     How are there statistics regarding such a thing if evolution is not taught in any first grade in the State of Israel?

     I find it very hard to believe that you have friends like that, and even if you didn't make a value judgment here, the hate still stinks of your entire response.
     The ultra-Orthodox are a convenient, accessible and easy target. Criticism of them is justified, but the hatred does not stem from the criticism, it is only helped by it. The hatred stems from the fact that the ultra-orthodox are strange to us and different from us, everything else only helps the hatred. And the further away you are from them and the more different you are from them, the easier it is for you to hate.
     I myself feel sorry for them. They are trying to achieve an impossible goal - to revive the world of yeshiva from before the Second Jewish Law. They dedicate, as a group, their whole lives to this thing. They refuse to understand that this is impossible and unrealistic. And my heart is set on them, despite the criticism (and see this post: http://ohris.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%91%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%A7-%D7%91/
     The blog does not belong to me, if anyone is wondering).

     And I must point out that it annoys me a little that you come back and argue with me after you leave my comment unanswered. There is something arrogant about it, even if it stems from simple laziness.

     And as for your question: an excellent acquaintance. Do you know the saying: "There is no God, there are racial laws, gas chambers, crematoriums, forced labor in gulags, purges without trial, collectivization, cult of personality and other shameful material"?

515. R.H.
     "The line of demarcation between "existing" and "not existing" is very, very thin, if there is any at all, since "existence" is also a kind of adjective. What can be said about God is that he is not found in natural reality" - I don't know exactly what you meant by natural reality, but I only know of one reality, so I simply call it reality. I have no reason to think that any god is part of this reality, so I don't believe in him. A person who believes has to reason about what that other reality is where the border between existing and non-existing is thin, and what he has to say about it and what is found in it. One way or another, many people believe that their god intervenes or has intervened in one way or another in "natural reality" and this can indeed be said to have happened or not.

     "Just as you cannot appeal a decision made by a person from emotional motives, so you cannot appeal a value decision, which is never completely rational." - I see no difference between a decision based on emotional motives and a value decision. Actually I don't really see a fundamental difference between one or the other decisions, because in the end they all come from our brains. In any case, I did not say that I am appealing one or another decision, also regarding faith, I just said that in my opinion God does not exist.

     "I'll be able to interact with a one-year-old when he's two or three." - The same can be said about an embryo and even about an egg and a sperm, in the future you will be able to interact with them. And of course the same can be said about chimpanzees, in the future, if they learn sign language you will be able to communicate with them, and in the future, new technology may enable communication with them. The word may not matter here, because it is true in all cases, even the baby may just reach the age of two or three.

     The division between humans and animals is arbitrary. And the meaning here is that the division is in people's heads and not in reality. Of course I don't mean that homo species is an arbitrary definition, but only that any absolute division between all its members and all members of other species is based solely on belonging to the species and nothing else.

516. R.H.

     There are no stigmas in my response. It was of course written at the same level as a shogun who, according to his own words, suffers from "bilvolution"

     Regarding your question, I don't know people who engage in non-productive crafts. Everyone who works makes a living and pays taxes. This is in contrast to those who study Torah and live at the expense of the state.

     Regarding the housing crisis that Shogun referred to, I do believe that it may improve indirectly if children learn evolution and not Judaism in first grade. (I explained why, the decrease in the birth rate and the increase in participation in the labor force. These are statistics that are accepted by everyone and not stigmas).

     Regarding the crime as above. In populations with a higher socioeconomic level, the crime rate is lower.

     Regarding "better" people, it of course depends on your definition of "good".

     There is no value judgment in my response to one side or the other. I do not judge the religious, a significant number of whom choose to live in poverty and are even proud of it. I have some friends like that. I just answered directly to what Shogun wrote.

     And in conclusion, do you know the saying: "There is no God, there are no terrorist attacks."?

517. Shugon
     The second you wrote the "theory of babbling" the ax came out of the bag. Although the sack was quite perforated before, it was not clear that it also smelled.
     Your disdain is despicable and hypocritical. After all, you, like all of us, go to doctors and use medicines whose logic and the science behind them, among other things, is evolution. Now, I understand that you will be dumbfounded and ask where evolution comes into play in the matter of medicines and is it really evolution, and I won't answer that for you, because of the sack, (although you will get an appropriate response on the subject of the quote war, just because I feel like it) but still:
     http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/evolution-in-medicine/
     Say, if your children want to study biology 5 units, will you object?
     By the way, you were angry (or whined) about me not summarizing my responses for the readers' convenience, as if I owed you something. Don't want, don't read.

     R. H.,
     You are right (although deism is also the opposite of Spinoza's God maybe "a little less") but shugon claimed that Einstein believed in a mysterious force/intelligent planner (which Einstein clearly said in his letters that he did not believe in this and warned us about things that are said in his name) and therefore I did not address the issue of theism. You're right about something else (which you didn't say explicitly, but I'm deliberately turning the spotlight on it again): the term "intelligent planner" insults intelligence. The concept was invented because of the first amendment to the constitution and it seems to me that nowadays there is a negligible minority of believers in an intelligent designer who is not God. All Discovery people are Christians who believe that Jesus is the son of God and only wish for the rapture. With us, xianghua admitted that it is God and Shugon explained to us that it is forbidden to write God or Jehovah, so I am sure that even for him the rational planner is the religious God in his own right (the one who created us five thousand years ago and got angry because Eve talked to a snake) and therefore, for him too, there really is no Deism but theism and when he tells us about Einstein, he is probably sure that it will convince us to admit that God exists.

     By the way, on the site I had the opportunity to argue quite a few times with people of the shugon type about this issue, which raises my suspicion that he is a reincarnation of "Rabbi Nachman Mazran". Who said there is no reincarnation (mock) of souls?

518. Ori,
     Sorry again for the late response.
     Regarding what you wrote about God (just as an example), I tend not to accept the dichotomy of "exists objectively - does not exist objectively" regarding him. The reason for this is that when you really "cleanse" God of all his titles - in the mystical Rambam style of "negating the titles", the line of demarcation between "existent" and "non-existent" is very, very thin, if there is any at all, since "existence" is also is a type of degree. What can be said about God is that he is not found in natural reality - "that he is not a body and will not be obtained from the body's achievements (that is not subject to human events) and has no similitude at all" (Again, this is a clearly unacceptable position. I prefer not to address acceptance at the moment, just to be consistent).

     You are right in asserting that the religious person generally accepts the "objective existence" of God, but what I am claiming is that the religious value decision does not require the popular concept of God, and since I do not accept the above dichotomy I cannot discuss this decision in terms of rational/irrational rational.
     More than that - the concepts "rational/irrational" do not play a role for me. It is known and clear to all of us that man is not only a rational being, but that he has more and less rational sides. Just as you cannot challenge a decision made by a person from emotional motives, so you cannot challenge a value decision, which is never completely rational.

     "In conclusion, is it possible to talk about a person who, out of rationality, directs his actions to something he knows does not exist? "
     No, it is not possible to talk about such a person. But this is only relevant for a person for whom "rationality" is a word of praise.
     And no, no man can say anything about what deviates from natural reality. This is precisely where the whole complication begins, because everyone wants to say something about what deviates from natural reality.

     And about your last question: I will be able to interact with a one-year-old baby when he is two or three years old. I can't actually interact with him right now, just like I can't interact with every possible person on the globe right now. However, I would be able to do this with any human under certain conditions, which I cannot say about chimpanzees, certainly not all chimpanzees.

     Shmulik,
     In my opinion, the opposite concept of pantheism is actually theism. This is because pantheism, or at least Spinozist pantheism, eradicates theism from its meaning and renders it meaningless. In a way, Spinozist pantheism is a much greater threat to religion than atheism, and I have no doubt that it is much, much more interesting than it.

     buddha,
     I rubbed my eyes reading your comment. These ugly stigmas do not suit you. Besides, you probably know how many secular people are engaged in "unproductive" jobs that are of no use to anyone. The difference is that these works are acceptable to you and studying the Torah is not. Why don't you say the things as they are instead of hanging on ignorant stigmas?

519. Shogun, you deserve a badge of honor for this year's improbable sentence "Why start the confusion at a stage when the children have not acquired the required scientific basics:". Evolution is the required scientific foundation.

520. Shugon

     Yes it will make us better and more enlightened people. Let's stop lying to our children that there is a God who created the world. If it also causes fewer people to be religious, it will also significantly improve the economy because a larger public will work more, in more productive jobs instead of studying Torah and will make fewer children who will live in poverty. If the Arabs do the same it might even bring peace.

521. Shmulik, you wrote:
     "In conclusion, evolution should be taught in schools"
     And for a moment I put Einstein aside and ask:
     And that is what will make us better people
     will lower the level of crime
     will solve the financial problems for young couples and even for the middle class
     What will evolution studies add to high school studies?
     After all, those who were interested in biology as part of their elementary / high school studies
     He went on and on in academic studies and there he studied the theory of confusion in detail, why start the confusions at a stage when the children have not acquired the required scientific basics:

522. Shugon,
     The real debate is about whether evolution should be taught in schools. I claim yes.
     Always in debates like this, someone will come up and throw out Einstein quotes, just like you did. In the professional language this is called stealing a discussion or being a troll.

     From end to beginning:
     The quotes I brought, one of them is about to be sold (or has already been sold) for a very high amount. They are his (because they are letters written in his own handwriting) and they clearly refer to the things said in his name. Einstein warns us not to believe the things that are said in his name. What are things said in his name? The quotes you brought.

     we will continue From the quotes you brought, which I have no idea, he was quoted correctly (after all, Einstein warns against the lies told in his name) he tells us that maybe (just maybe) he is a fantasist (I have already written in the past that I don't really understand what is interesting about being a fantasist, but maybe I didn't go deep enough the concept). What is clear is that it is a concept opposite in meaning, no less than Deism. When you write "fantasist, deist..." as if they are both close brothers, you are doing an injustice to the essential difference between the terms. It's like writing, "democracy, dictatorship..." One concept involves humanism and the other involves mass killing

     Regarding following a world view (as if I am the story here and not whether evolution should be taught), I said in advance, several times, that I do not attach importance to what he believed. Anyone who does attach importance commits a logical fallacy of appealing to authority and is the automatic loser when he pulls out this "ace". I am consistent with this, in this and other discussions and it is not at all difficult to follow my worldview.
     I insist on debating this point with you and other people because I enjoy seeing to what level people are willing to go to justify their worldview.

     I ask again what are you trying to achieve by starting the quote war on Einstein? Do you really think people will say: "By God, this is what Einstein believed, and we heard it from Shugon, no less than that!" We will change our position and crown Einstein our rabbi"
     Is this really what you think will happen? so no. We don't have a rabbi and we despise anyone who calls ed varkondiam.
     Also, what does this have to do with studying evolution? Do you really think that Einstein believed in a mysterious force (again, only because you choose to take quotes that are convenient for you, even though I showed you later quotes that completely contradict the ones you gave) that evolution should not be taught in schools? If you don't think so, why did you bring this quote? Why are you trying to hijack the discussion?

     In conclusion, evolution should be taught in schools

523. Shmulik and all the atheists,
     The argument started when you hinted that I was making up quotes from Einstein (it's all in your head so you claimed),
     I claimed he believed in a mysterious force and then I attached the quotes straight from the sources and you question the sources
     In this case we have reached a dead end, because you prefer to believe the quotes you bring rather than other quotes that contradict your worldview, but when you still want to flow with the quotes you claim that it is an appeal to authority and speak in two hats,
     So it's hard to get to the bottom of your mind, I suggest you choose one way and stay consistent and not change versions.
     And for that matter: dasit, fantasist and all these terms came to show that complexity points to a planner and those who claim otherwise
     He is the one who has to refute the claim.

524. Shugon
     If you want to write my name, you can omit the exclamation mark.
     It seems that you too have a dialogue of the deaf. I'll go back and say that I'm not really interested in what he believed, but I'm interested in the circumstances in which people bring Einstein as an example of a religious person/believing/believing in something and the like.
     First, I brought an exact quote from Einstein in which he asks not to believe people who quote his name. His last letters make me doubt any unknown quote that is given on his name.
     Second, in the quote you brought, Einstein hesitates to even define himself as a fantaist, a concept that is the opposite of a deist.
     Third, being a deist is about the easiest thing to be. It cannot be contradicted, you are not risking anything and therefore you are not actually saying anything interesting. Agnosticism, by the way, beats even Deism at the Shimmon level.
     Fourth, what are you trying to achieve by starting the Einstein quote war? Do you really think people will say: "By God, this is what Einstein believed, and we heard it from Shugon, no less than that!" We will change our position and crown Einstein our rabbi"
     Is this really what you think will happen? so no. We don't have a rabbi and we despise anyone who calls ed varkondiam.

525. R.H.

     "Values ​​do indeed meet mental needs (which for you are physical needs), but they are aimed at something that goes beyond natural reality. This is the difference between them and needs.
     If you perform a humanist/religious/fascist action (these are simply the easy examples, in my eyes there are other values), then the value in whose name you are acting deviates from natural reality, for God does not dwell in the world (unless you are a Kabbalist), as there is no such thing. The natural rights of man" - man is a biological being and has no natural rights, and just as the nation does not exist except in the consciousness of the individuals who belong to it - a nation defined from an ethnic point of view and certainly a nation defined from a civil or cultural point of view."

     - In the eyes of man, his values ​​deviate from the natural invention, but my position is that there is nothing that deviates from the natural reality. God or the natural rights of man are concepts that man invented, concepts that exist only in the minds of the people who believe in them, and the people themselves are part of the natural reality.

     I'm also not sure what you mean by natural reality, since for a religious person God can be more real than anything else. God is indeed found outside of nature, but he is still part of objective reality, and by that I mean that the religious person does not believe that God is entirely a figment of his imagination. And if he does believe that God is only a figment of his imagination, and nevertheless performs religious actions for one reason or another, then it can no longer be said that he directs his actions to something outside of natural reality.

     In conclusion, is it possible to talk about a person who, out of rationality, directs his actions to something he knows does not exist?

     Regarding the animals, I interpreted what you said in a different way, so we will leave the matter there. I just wanted to comment that since there is an overlap between certain humans and certain animals in terms of consciousness, it is not clear to me what natural interaction can be made with all humans (apart from plants) and not with animals. What natural interaction can you perform with a one-year-old baby (assuming you define him as a human) and not with an adult chimpanzee?

526. Ori,
     Sorry for my late response.
     You wrote "It is not clear to me why the focus is on the result of the desire or ambition. I understand that the desire to eat or sleep is necessary for our existence, whereas other desires and their fulfillment can not only not benefit existence but even make it difficult, but are the desires based on different things? ".
     I didn't understand your words.
     I defined our "needs" as actions or deeds whose existence is necessary or necessary for our existence, or which are an extension of this necessity (for example: a person goes to study at a university, because he wants to make a living, because he wants to eat and exist. He could exist even without studying at a university, but these studies may improve the quality of his life).
     I defined our values ​​as actions or actions whose existence is not necessary or necessary for our existence, and sometimes even difficult for him, as you already understood. That is, the values ​​are the goals we direct our actions towards, and they deviate from the natural reality. Apparently this is a very, very illogical thing, certainly if our point of departure is that there is only natural reality, and that all our desires arise from physico-chemical mechanisms. But that doesn't matter to me at all.
     It is possible that the desires that lead a person to certain valuable actions arise from physico-chemical mechanisms. OK. That's not what interests me. What interests me is that the result is an exception to the natural reality! That is, even if a person makes value decisions due to a certain mental structure, or out of a strong mental need, which is satisfied by these values, the result still deviates from natural reality, because from the point of view of natural reality, we are nothing but biological creatures - "survival machines", so to speak of Buddha. And yet, many people perform religious, humanistic (and not necessarily moral - conscientious) actions, etc. - value actions, which do not arise from the urge to exist.

     You wrote: "If, let's say, humans were made up of two components, body and soul, then I would understand your division in the following way: needs meet the demands of the body and values ​​meet the demands of the soul. But since there is no such separation, and all we have is simply a body, then as far as I'm concerned, every requirement of it is a need." I'm not sure I buy your materialistic view, but it doesn't matter. Values ​​do meet mental needs (which for you are physical needs), but they are aimed at something that goes beyond natural reality. This is the difference between them and needs.
     If you perform a humanist/religious/fascist action (these are simply the easy examples, in my eyes there are other values), then the value in whose name you are acting deviates from natural reality, for God does not dwell in the world (unless you are a Kabbalist), as there is no such thing. The natural rights of man" - man is a biological being and has no natural rights, and just as the nation does not exist except in the consciousness of the individuals who belong to it - a nation defined ethnically and certainly a nation defined civilly or culturally.
     In a certain sense, the source of these values ​​is also the starting point of the recipient, while their realization is the final goal of that recipient. In my opinion, there is a very complex and interesting dialectical relationship here, but this is not the place to discuss it.

     Regarding my words about the mentally retarded and "plants", you were wrong. I am quoting from my previous response: "I do not deal with beings with consciousness, but with humans and only humans." My intention was clear: I do indeed, with all the absurdity involved, refer only to the organisms belonging to the species "Homo species" as human beings. Chimpanzees may have self-awareness, even developed consciousness. OK. I do not deny this, and as I said, the idea that chimpanzees and other animals also have values ​​sounds interesting to me, intriguing and for some reason also funny ("a cow keeps Shabbat" for those who understand the context), but that is not what I am dealing with. I only deal with human beings, who are biologically defined as such. Of course, I don't need a scientific test to know who a person is, but their definition is still biological.
     There are two reasons for this:
     1. I belong to the biological species "Homo sapiens" and therefore it is naturally more interesting to me.
     2. I cannot create any significant natural interaction with a chimpanzee or a dolphin, but I can create one with any person on the globe, if we have a common language (besides "plants"). Since I can't create such an interaction with a BAH, I have no ability to know or confirm their consciousness.
     That's why I naturally define only the "homo-spines" as human beings as far as I'm concerned, without anything to do with their consciousness.

527. I prefer the commandments Thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not kill, over public relations that the writers of the Tanakh in the days of Josiah, who united the traditions of two rival nations - Judah and Israel, inserted into it to encourage belief in the one God they invented.

528. Avi,
     I suggest not to take the faith of deism lightly,
     Deism was popularized by Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire The founding fathers of the United States, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, were well-known deists. Thomas Paine published "The Age of Reason", a treatise that added much to the popularity of Deism in Europe and America during his time.
     The pronoun EloXim is in total a pronoun for the name that was against the commandment: "Thou shalt not take the name of God in vain"

529. Shogun, surely this is a dialogue of the deaf because Xingua came here to bring us back to repentance and not to study science. He brings up arguments that have already been hidden, and forces us to look for these refutations instead of moving forward.
     He initially claimed that it was a vague intelligent planner, and invented all kinds of things like a clock with DNA. With all due respect, it has already been proven that this is not a scientific theory, in particular that the planner he was referring to is the religious god.
     You too with the gods (first time I see this mutation) do not add respect to religion when you hide behind nonsense such as deism.
     So if it is about those X's (with a mutation in the X chromosome) it has no place on a scientific website.

530. Shmulik!
     You haven't given up yet on the deaf dialogue with xianghua it seems like you guys are spinning your tails and getting nowhere.
     I just wanted to draw your attention to the concept of "deism" that you didn't give it the respect it deserved.
     Deism according to Wikipedia:
     http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%93%D7%90%D7%99%D7%96%D7%9D
     "Deism is an understanding that the existence of a metaphysical force from which physics derives, this force is often referred to as God. Deism, as distinguished from theism, is devoid of religion, that is, a deist is a person who interprets the existence of God from reality, but does not belong to any religion."
     Indeed, there is not only black and white, as you wrote to me that belief in God is aimed at a religious God only and nothing else. (Regarding Einstein's quotes)
     There is also a belief in God without religion - deism, and it is a belief like any other belief known to you

531. xianghua,
     It's strange that you decided not to respond but only to the light allegations. I treat you with all due respect and I admit that I became frustrated that every difficult question I asked you, I received an answer in the form of a question. This does not absolve you (for the sake of your personal honesty) to give a direct answer to the subject.

     I repeat my words again that if there is a feeling of déjà vu it is because you avoid admitting that your claim that God is a scientific theory was wrong and hence that intelligent design is not a scientific theory and hence the Discovery Institute are shameless charlatans who tried to introduce this anti-science into the schools.
     I am writing again with the expectation that you will give a clear answer and not an answer as a question. You must have a world view before writing my answer.

     1. The principle of refutation: You enlisted Popper and his principle of refutation on your side, and you still use it as a standard for scientific theory, but as soon as it becomes difficult for you, because you know there is no way to disprove God, you give it up! It's not serious. I will not give up on this point, because it represents more than anything on the agenda and is the attempt to pretend to be science.
     A priori you cannot claim that God is a scientific theory as you cannot prove or disprove his own existence. If he suddenly appears, fine, it will indeed prove his existence, but this does not make the claim that he exists, in advance, a scientific claim, and there is no logical problem with that. If you think evolution also falls into this trap, it will be difficult for me, in my limited power, to convince you otherwise since various people in this forum have sent you to the refutation test. The very work that there is a refutation test for evolution means that it is scientific and you yourself claim according to this test that it has been disproved because you send us all kinds of findings (and other people answer you on these links). In any case, this is not a package deal where I give up the science of evolution and you give up the science of the theory of God. This is not the Knesset here.
     God is not a scientific theory and I refuted the logic in which you "proved" God. See section 2

     2. As I recall, you wrote in the past that God is your intelligent planner. And hence a sub-discussion developed for him:

     "I'm really surprised that you continue in this line, but it will be interesting to see you try to prove the existence of God." - I have no problem. Here is my proof. Proof by way of negation. You are invited to a logical rebuttal:

     a) We know that a reproductive clock containing DNA requires planning due to its complexity
     b) Man is more complex than such a theoretical clock

     A + B = Man requires planning

     My answer:
     Your theory is automatically disproved. Section A has not been proven in any way by you, although in fact there is no such thing as a clock with DNA, meaning you are basing a theory on an object that does not exist. What kind of argument is this? By the way, section b was also not proven by you and the duty of proof and explanation of why it is more complex is on you. I am not willing to give up on you on any subject.

     If I still come to you, you are probably talking about an argument called "Paley's Clock". I will send you to read the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy#Criticism But I know nothing will change your mind.

     Here, disproved.

     3. Do you already agree with the claim that weakening one theory does not strengthen another theory, surely the competing "theory" is not scientific?

     4. Do you understand that the burden of proof is on him regarding claim and claim? Do you realize that if you claim something is a sandal footprint, you have to prove it?
     5. I searched and searched for the research that prohibits proteins. Post the link again. In any case, I find it hard to believe that the authors of the study found a basic law of nature, such as the law of conservation of energy that prohibits bacteria from changing

     6. You did not disprove evolution because things do evolve. You see it under the microscope all the time. For example, bacteria adapt to themselves immunity from antibiotics. Are you claiming this is not evolution? In any case, I am a layman on the topic of evolution and I saw that many people have already answered you about your "refutations". At this point I want to clarify again that I am not married to any theory (unlike you). I really wouldn't mind if they found a more accurate explanation for our existence here.
     I don't understand why it is difficult for you to provide the link and in any case, a statistical barrier is not a barrier. It just means that in the opinion of the authors of the article (and one article is almost never enough to establish anything) what they tested is unlikely to happen and that is not what I asked. All in all, I asked if there is a barrier for a bacterium to change into something else, and I don't care what it will change.

532. xianghua,

     So you admit that the intelligent planner you believe in has glitches sometimes?

533. xianghua,

     So you decided to continue the discussion?

     "But I have shown you that there is no principle in the theory of evolution that drives these situations. If, for example, we discover a creature composed of two distant creatures, we can simply claim that it is convergent evolution, or in some way such a creature developed. There is no preventive principle." – This is not how convergent evolution works. I will give one last example of a chimera and close the topic. A centaur is a creature that is part horse and part human, if you look at a cell that makes up its human part you will see human DNA, and if you look at a cell of its horse's body you will see horse DNA. Convergent evolution cannot explain it, nor can hybridization. Additional chimeras are all those "transitional creatures" that the creationists wave at and ask why they were not found like a duck with a crocodile's head or a cow whose rear is a fish. Ironically, such an example would harm evolution.

     "In front of you is a breeding clock that is on another planet. Are you really going to come and claim that we have no idea if he requires a planner?" - I think I have already said everything that needed to be said about it. I will summarize briefly that a regular watch is an inanimate object, whose structure includes a screen and on which information is displayed in a way that is clear to humans, and of course this information is useful to humans. A watch like this requires planning.

     A clock-like animal is not a clock, just as an animal shaped like a dry leaf, or a branch, or a stone, is neither of those things. If you find a living creature on another planet that reminds you of a clock, but it is not a clock because a clock by definition is a device built by humans for the purpose of reading the time, then yes, I will argue that this creature does not require a planner.

     "Definitely. Because not much can be known about the planner himself, apart from the fact that he is intelligent. And even very much." - The question is whether you apply this conclusion. I mean, do you really not believe in a certain intelligent designer? In any case, intelligent design requires a planner, and if the planner is God then that means that your theory requires some kind of entity with desires that is not made of matter and is outside of space and time (or something like that) and this is something that is simply unacceptable, regardless of whether evolution is true or No. And if it is not conceivable that there is a planner then there can be no planning.

534. Buddha, how come there are malfunctions in space shuttles? Is it an intelligent planner? Against this you could argue that from a particularly intelligent designer you would not expect diseases or genetic defects. But then we again slide into theology. If the question is already asked, how is it that there are millions of people without any faults at all, that is, the ability to create a perfect thing exists with the planner. But about that, another time.

535. Avi,

     Sorry for repeating myself a bit, but following on from the previous comment, there is something that bothers me a bit.

     Yossi and Moshe are Siamese twins born to a Jewish mother.

     They have two heads and three arms but all other organs are shared.

     Moshe is a believing Jew but Yossi is an atheist.

     Yossi is not ready to fast on Yom Kippur and he usually puts delicious food into his and Moshe's shared stomach.

     Is there a limit to human stupidity?

     I would be happy if you would publish the comment even though it is unpleasant to read because I believe it has some value in illuminating the subject.

536. xianghua,

     What about the Siamese twins? Are they a complex structure? How did they grow 3 hands and two heads? A smart elk planner.

537. It's indeed good that we didn't touch, I have no desire to duplicate the Discovery Institute website here.

538. just briefly,

     "I have provided you with criteria, so just try to disprove the evolution that I accept according to them." - But I showed you that there is no principle in the theory of evolution that drives these situations. If, for example, we discover a creature composed of two distant creatures, we can simply claim that it is convergent evolution, or in some way such a creature developed. There is no preventive principle.

     "Therefore the fact that we currently do not see an explanation for a certain phenomenon does not mean that we should jump on non-scientific explanations that cannot be disproved and verified." - Here is a breeding clock that is on another planet. Are you really going to come and claim that we have no idea if he requires a planner?

     "So what you're saying is that questions about the intelligent designer fall into the realm of theology, but the theory of intelligent design is scientific?" - Absolutely. Because not much can be known about the planner himself, apart from the fact that he is intelligent. and even very

     I would like to make it clear that throughout the whole thread I have only touched on a small part of the problems in evolution. We have not yet touched on the probabilistic problem of the appearance of new proteins, in studies that disprove central claims in it, in the field of abiogenesis, which is fascinating in itself, about minimal complexity and more.

539. Xianghua,

     ” This is exactly the hybridization I was talking about. Some of the dna bases are identical to creation A and some to creation B. What's more, identical genes have been found in distant species." - Chimera and between hybrids are different things, see Chimera entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)#Chimeras_in_research
     The example you gave earlier is a hybrid and does not fit this definition.

     ” As mentioned, even such a case will not be disproved. They will always be able to claim that in the past it wasn't like that.", "But then you can claim that there are some that have passed." – I think you are confusing two different things. It is one thing to define criteria for disproving a theory, and another to claim that every person in the world will be convinced if the criteria are met. I do not claim the second thing. You asked for rebuttal criteria and I provided them. If there are biologists who will say in advance that such a criterion will not be disproved then they will have to provide other criteria, and if they cannot provide then the evolution they support is not scientific. As mentioned, I have provided you with criteria, so just try to refute the evolution that I accept according to them.

     ” But you have not yet presented evidence that evolution is possible. And hence the analogy is valid." - First of all, the entire anology is still not valid. People who did not know how ancient caves were formed could not say that because it has not been proven that caves can be formed by natural processes, it can be concluded that all caves were created by man. The same goes for evolution. Even if you disprove it, it does not automatically mean that the intelligent design is correct. As I said before, our perception and experience of the world is very limited, therefore the fact that we currently do not see an explanation for a certain phenomenon does not mean that we should jump on non-scientific explanations that cannot be refuted and verified.

     Regarding evidence for evolution, we both know that you have already encountered enough evidence and that I have nothing new for you. I can only recommend Coyne's book "why evolution is true?" But I guess you've already encountered the arguments there.

     "I refer you again to the book forbidden archeology." – Is this the book from which you brought the examples of the metal balls created by natural processes and the skull which is apparently a fraud? I'll ask you again, pick one example from this book that you think a quick internet search would be hard to disprove.

     ” Even a watch containing one hand can be useful. Can a clock with one hand be created by itself?” - The question is to benefit whom? Anyway, let's say that somewhere in the universe there is an alien with something like a needle on its back, so what?

     ” Nor will I do so because I do not enter the field of theology. Although I can. It's just not interesting to me." - So what you are saying is that questions about the intelligent designer fall into the realm of theology, but the theory of intelligent design is scientific?

540. I will only touch on claims that have not yet been answered. Because as far as I'm concerned, I've pretty much exhausted the discussion in general.

     Ori,

     "To find a creature whose various cells have the genetic load of different evolutionarily distant species," - this is exactly the hybridization I was talking about. Some of the dna bases are identical to creation A and some to creation B. What's more, identical genes have been found in distant species.

     "In short, if living creatures cannot change and evolve then there will be no evolution, therefore if you find a mechanism that prevents creatures from evolving and changing then it will contradict evolution." They will always be able to argue that in the past it was not so. By the way, the fossil dance also shows that the shark remains a shark.

     "If we see a new animal created in nature, we will know that it did not evolve, but was created as it is, and that is what the creationists say happened, isn't it? "- but then you can claim that existing ones did pass.

     "It's not like we're surrounded by millions of mysterious watches that it's not clear who built them. This is the case with animals. We are surrounded by genomes that we don't have the opportunity to see being created. The fact that it is possible to create a genome in a laboratory means nothing. Just like the fact that humans can drill into a mountain and create a cave does not mean that all caves are man-made." - True. But you still haven't presented evidence that evolution is possible. Hence the analogy is valid.

     ” But we have found hundreds of evidence of fossils that lived in times they are not supposed to be found. In other words, there is scientific evidence that humans could in principle live alongside trilobites." - Has a human fossil or indirect evidence such as tools from such ancient times been found? "- Yes. I refer you again to the book forbidden archeology.

     "And if it's just a hand, then what's a clock in it?" "- even a watch containing one hand can be useful. Can a watch with one hand be created by itself?

     "You don't answer questions about the planner again." - And I won't do it either because I don't enter the field of theology. Although I can. It's just not interesting to me.

     Shmulik,

     "If he suddenly appears, fine. It will indeed prove its existence, but it does not make the claim that it exists, in advance, a scientific claim." - So evolution cannot be disproved either. so?

     Regarding the clock, the question is asked whether a theoretical multiplying clock placed in front of your eyes is evidence of planning. what is your answer

     ” I searched and searched for the research that prohibits proteins. Post the link again. In any case, I find it hard to believe that the authors of the study found a basic law of nature, such as the law of conservation of energy that prohibits bacteria from changing" - not a law of nature but a statistical barrier. Just like evolutionists believe. For example: Why do you think evolutionary scientists don't believe that a system like photosynthesis evolved all at once?

     I think my next response will also be the last. to heath…

541. for everyone,

     As if we needed another example of why evolution must be taught in school, here's what a US congressman, who sits on the Congressional Science, Space and Technology Committee, thinks. He is also a doctor:

     http://news.yahoo.com/congressman-calls-evolution-lie-pit-hell-175514039.html

     Xianghua,
     If there is a feeling of déjà vu it is because you avoid admitting that your claim that God is a scientific theory was wrong and hence that intelligent design is not a scientific theory and hence that the Discovery Institute are shameless charlatans who tried to introduce this anti-science into the schools.
     I am writing again with the expectation that you will give a clear answer that does not rely on my expected response or not. You must have a world view before writing my answer.

     1. The principle of refutation: You enlisted Popper and his principle of refutation on your side, and you still use it as a standard for scientific theory, but as soon as it becomes difficult for you, because you know there is no way to disprove God, you give it up! It's not serious. I will not give up on this point, because it represents more than anything on the agenda and is the attempt to pretend to be science.
     You asked a puzzling question about a telepathic unicorn, and you got an answer. In general, the answer is that a priori you cannot claim that God is a scientific theory since you cannot prove or disprove his own existence. If he suddenly appears, fine. This will indeed prove its existence, but it does not make the claim that it exists, in advance, a scientific claim. There is no logical problem with that.
     In a framed essay I want to say that I find it pathetic to try to prove a belief. If you believe in God, what are you looking for to prove Him? Why does it matter to you?

     2. As I recall, you wrote in the past that God is your intelligent planner. And hence a sub-discussion developed for him:

     "I'm really surprised that you continue in this line, but it will be interesting to see you try to prove the existence of God." - I have no problem. Here is my proof. Proof by way of negation. You are invited to a logical rebuttal:

     a) We know that a reproductive clock containing DNA requires planning due to its complexity
     b) Man is more complex than such a theoretical clock

     A + B = Man requires planning

     My answer:
     Your theory is automatically disproved. Section A has not been proven in any way by you, although in fact there is no such thing as a clock with DNA, meaning you are basing a theory on an object that does not exist. What kind of argument is this? By the way, section b was also not proven by you and the duty of proof and explanation of why it is more complex is on you. I am not willing to give up on you on any subject.

     If I still come to you, you are probably talking about an argument called "Paley's Clock". I will send you to read the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy#Criticism But I know nothing will change your mind.

     Here, disproved.

     3. Do you already agree with the claim that weakening one theory does not strengthen another theory, surely the competing "theory" is not scientific?

     4. Do you understand that the burden of proof is on him regarding claim and claim? Do you realize that if you claim something is a sandal footprint, you have to prove it?
     5. I searched and searched for the research that prohibits proteins. Post the link again. In any case, I find it hard to believe that the authors of the study found a basic law of nature, such as the law of conservation of energy that prohibits bacteria from changing

     6. You did not disprove evolution because things do evolve. You see it under the microscope all the time. For example, bacteria adapt to themselves immunity from antibiotics. Are you claiming this is not evolution? In any case, I am a layman on the topic of evolution and I saw that many people have already answered you about your "refutations". At this point I want to clarify again that I am not married to any theory (unlike you). I really wouldn't mind if they found a more accurate explanation for our existence here.

542. Xianghua,

     B. From Wikipedia: A chimera is a multicellular organism whose different somatic cells have a different genetic load. An example would be a person who has undergone an organ transplant. Other examples are mythological creatures such as mermaids or centaurs, which is basically what the writer meant. To find a creature whose various cells have the genetic load of different evolutionarily distant species, which of course is found in nature and not created in a laboratory. A hybrid, on the other hand, is simply a cross between two different species. For example dogs, wolves and jackals can reproduce and produce fertile offspring. These offspring are hybrids but they will not have cells that some belong to wolves and some to dogs.

     third. You didn't understand what I meant. I meant for you to explain why changes can't accumulate. In other words you will provide an explanation for some barrier that prevents living things from changing beyond a certain point.
     "Did you forget?" Many species have remained the same/similar over time." - Maybe over time but not always.
     In short, if living beings cannot change and evolve then there will be no evolution, therefore if you find a mechanism that prevents creatures from evolving and changing then it will contradict evolution.

     d. "That's exactly what I meant. Even if you see a living cell created in a blow. They will always be able to claim that it is a fact that it happened and hence that it is possible." - If we see a new animal created in nature, we will know that it did not evolve, but was created as it is, and this is what the creationists say happened, isn't it?

     Regarding the clock argument. His goal is to draw an analogy between a clock and a living creature, and thus claim that just as the clock was created by a planner, so is the living creature. I argue that the analogy is not valid, because it is not the complexity of the watch that leads us to the conclusion that it was created by a designer, but our experience. We have watched watches being built, so when we see a watch we know that this watch was built by a watchmaker. It's not like we're surrounded by millions of mysterious clocks that it's not clear who built them. This is the case with animals. We are surrounded by genomes that we don't have the opportunity to see being created. The fact that it is possible to create a genome in a laboratory means nothing. Just like the fact that humans can drill into a mountain and create a cave does not mean that all caves are man-made.

     ” -If you look at cars, for example, you will see that each company has its own characteristics. Which in principle is not really found in nature. But this is a slightly more philosophical question." - But the company itself consists of more than one person. I am not talking here about gods who acted independently, but about gods who joined together and jointly planned the living creatures.

     ” But we have found hundreds of evidence of fossils that lived in times they are not supposed to be found. In other words, there is scientific evidence that humans could in principle live alongside trilobites." - Has a human fossil or indirect evidence such as tools from such ancient times been found?

     "Show me such traces created by such a process and maybe I will be convinced." – How will I show you? It's a slow process. I really don't understand why we keep discussing this example. People constantly see patterns in chaos. We see clouds that remind us of animals and faces in pieces of bread, is it so implausible that some natural process created something that looks like a footprint to us?

     ” That is, just by the numbers you will claim that the watch requires planning? Here is a scenario even without the help of a planner: adding digits to the clock could be used by humans, and hence the addition of each digit would be determined by natural selection. That is, we have a scenario for the formation of a clock in a natural process, without intelligence. And if you insist, then what will happen if you only find a rotating hand, without numbers?" - The numbers are an example of a characteristic that is clearly created by humans. If the watch has a wrist strap then this is another example. And of course the fact that the watch is built so that an outside observer can see it. I do not believe that there is any biologist who would agree that digits can be created by natural selection. Regarding the clock, what is its purpose? And if it's just a hand then what's the clock in it?

     Why didn't you ask the same question about sonar for example. It is a human invention that is also found in certain animals, it is useful for them, therefore I accept that it was created by natural selection. And the same for what internal clock we put in will help nocturnal animals that live underground to know when to come out. A normal watch on the other hand, or a normal sonar, that has a screen that is there so that humans can receive information from them, and this information is presented in a way that is clear to humans, they are by definition a human invention.

     You are not answering questions about the planner again. I really can't understand why. At least give your reason why what I'm asking is irrelevant but just ignore what I write? How can you have a discussion like this?

     All I want to know is do you have the intellectual integrity to admit that from the theory of intelligent design it does not follow that the designer is single, omnipotent, omniscient, good and moral who created man in his image. This may be a possibility, but an equally likely possibility is that the designers are two gods, one with enough ability and the other with enough knowledge to jointly create life. They have no moral sense, and man is just another one of many creatures they created and in their eyes he has no special importance. Personally, I think the second option is even more reasonable than the first (besides the fact that there are two planners) simply because it assumes the minimum.

     If you, who are trying to convince by the virtue of intelligent design, cannot accept all the conclusions that derive from it, and believe in a certain creator even though you have no justification for it, then how can you expect others to be convinced? How can you demand them to be rational and consistent when you yourself don't act like that?

543. Uri, Xianghua,
     There is nothing problematic with claim A. When we talk about a static fossil record, we mean static from the beginning to the present day. Therefore, there is no contradiction in the fact that there are long periods in which there are not many evolutionary changes in order to adapt to the environment. You can read about the theory of the fragmented equilibrium and the refutation of the creationist arguments about it here: http://athologica.com/?p=1618#more-1618.
     (From here I already turn only to Xianghua) The hold on fragmented equilibrium as contradicting evolution is a loose and wrong hold. I would expect that even though our beliefs are different, you would have the minimal honesty to admit your mistakes and not divert the discussion as long as it is not convenient for you and write false things where you have no other answer. But this is probably too much viewing. If I were you, I would have stopped participating in this discussion a long time ago, sitting in the corner with the light off and being ashamed of myself.

544. Hi Ori,

     A. I agree with you, this claim is indeed problematic. But "fragmented equilibrium" is not accepted by everyone, for example Dawkins." - Dawkins is not a paleontologist. So the fact that he disagrees with two of the greatest experts in paleontology is not serious. Either way, it shows that it is indeed impossible to offer a rebuttal test that evolutionists would agree on.

     "B. The claim was not about creating hybrids but about chimeras." - And what exactly is the difference?

     "third. First of all, I think the intention was to bring an example of a mechanism that would not allow the accumulation of mutations," - the same thing. It could be argued that the creature evolved somehow, and we still haven't discovered the mechanism for this.

     "It is not clear to me why a mechanism that prevents the formation of mutations is positive for the organism in the distant environment, then the species will not be able to develop and adapt itself to a new environment." - Have you forgotten? Many species have remained the same/similar over time. There are species that have not changed for hundreds of millions of years. Ovulation has no problem.

     "D. The intention was not to create an organism in a laboratory. The intention was to observe the formation of an organism in nature." - that's exactly what I meant. Even if you see a living cell created in a blow. They will always be able to claim that it is a fact that it happened and hence that it is possible.

     "The intention was that all the clocks we know were created by humans, all of them, so when we see a clock we know it was created by a human." - All the genomes we know also require intelligence for their creation. We have never seen genomes created in nature.

     ” I did not understand how this shows a single planner. Why couldn't some planners sit together and design a common genetic code?" - If you look at cars for example, you will see that each company has its own characteristics. Which in principle is not really found in nature. But this is a slightly more philosophical question.

     ” I mean the only separation you are making here is the belief that in the past man did not walk alongside trilobites. Note that you know of no natural process that produces this.” - This is not just about faith. We do not have any conclusive evidence that man lived at that time." - But we found hundreds of evidence of fossils that lived in times when they should not be found. That is, there is scientific evidence that man could in principle live alongside trilobites.

     All we have is something like an aqaba. Shmulik already wrote that this is Depression in the rock, so here is a natural explanation." - Show me such traces that are created by such a process and maybe I will be convinced.

     "But still, I think the main problem is that because of the characteristics of the watch, you will know that it was designed by humans. For example, the numbers that are written on it are signs that humans invented for the purpose of expressing numbers in writing." - that is, only by the numbers will you claim that the clock requires planning? Here is a scenario even without the help of a designer: adding digits to the clock could be used by humans, and hence the addition of each digit would be determined by natural selection. That is, we have a scenario for the formation of a clock in a natural process, without intelligence. And if you insist, then what will happen if you only find a rotating hand, without numbers?

545. R.H.

     You wrote, "I admit that there is a certain problem here. It is always possible to say that this desire for knowledge stems from a person's inner need, which is so great that he devotes a considerable part of his life to it, but that is exactly why I defined the concept of "need" in a different way from its accepted definition. After all, it is also possible to say that a person observes a mitzvah, or behaves morally out of a deep mental need."

     - This is exactly my point, that it will always be possible to say that the desire for knowledge or the desire to behave morally are in total needs. It is not clear to me why the focus is on the result of the desire or ambition. I understand that the desire to eat or sleep is necessary for our existence, whereas other desires and their fulfillment can not only not benefit existence but even make it difficult, but are the desires based on different things? I'm not asking what people will answer when asked why they ate versus why they observe mitzvot. I understand that their answers will be different, but that does not mean that the choice is based on different things. Humans have many needs, and there is no necessity for the needs to be necessary for their existence, so this separation seems arbitrary to me.

     If we suppose that humans were composed of two components, body and soul, then I would understand your division in the following way: needs meet the demands of the body and values ​​meet the demands of the soul. But since there is no such separation, and all we have is simply a body, then as far as I'm concerned, every requirement of it is a need.

     Regarding people with severe mental retardation and animals. In my opinion, you must treat animals simply because there is no sharp separation between them and us. Look for example at the mirror test, this is a test where you get to know the subject with a mirror, let's say for a week, and watch his reactions. In the case of chimpanzees, for example, at first they behave as if it were another chimpanzee, after a while their behavior changes and they begin to recognize themselves. One indication of this is that they will check in the mirror parts of their body that they cannot check without a mirror. In any case, the test itself is to put a dot of color on the chimpanzee, let's say, without her knowing about it, and then after seeing her reflection in the mirror to see if she will realize that there is a stain on her. Chimpanzees and orangutans passed the test. As far as I know, so do elephants, dolphins and some relative of the crow. The interesting part is that people with severe mental retardation, as well as babies up to one and a half years old, do not pass the test. ZA, that at least this test shows that the chimpanzee has a better ability of self-recognition, which indicates to researchers about self-awareness, than a person with severe mental retardation. Therefore, if people with severe mental retardation have values ​​then so do chimpanzees.

     "And so I also have a very difficult problem in the case of "Tzemach", because I see him as a real person" - here lies the problem. What do you mean by a person? If it is meant that he belongs to the species Homo sapiens then you are of course right. But I don't think it's relevant. If, on the other hand, you mean a person in the sense of a creature that is aware of itself and is able to plan for the future and see itself as an entity separate from the environment and time then it is less a person than a chimpanzee.

     To read about the appearance test in apes:

     http://colinallen.dnsalias.org/Secure/TCA/gallup-final.pdf

546. Xianghua,

     A. I agree with you, this claim is indeed problematic. But "fragmented equilibrium" is not accepted by everyone, for example Dawkins.

     B. The claim was not about creating hybrids but about chimeras.

     third. First of all, I think the intention was to bring an example of a mechanism that would not allow the accumulation of mutations, in general. This is similar to what Shmulik asked you about the barrier that will prevent changes from accumulating. And in any case, it is not clear to me why a mechanism that prevents the formation of mutations is positive for the organism in the distant medium, because then the species will not be able to develop and adapt to a new environment.

     d. The intention was not to create an organism in a laboratory. The intention was to observe the formation of an organism in nature. I mean, your claim is that someone created the organisms more or less the way they are, so if we see it happening before our eyes it would be a disproof of evolution.

     ” We can also see a man creating genomes (Craig Venter). So according to the above criterion the genomes in nature were created by a designer." - The intention was that all the clocks we know were created by humans, all of them, so when we see a clock we know it was created by a human. In other words we have everyday experience with clocks and other inventions, we have no such experience with genomes, because we have not seen the genomes of living things being created.

     ” I don't know if it is possible to know this for sure, but the scientific evidence actually points to a single designer. For example, a shared genetic code, a similar degree of efficiency of the enzymes in different organisms, many shared systems and more." – I didn't understand how it shows a single planner. Why couldn't several designers sit together and design a common genetic code?

     ” I mean the only separation you are making here is the belief that in the past man did not walk alongside trilobites. Note that you know of no natural process that produces this.” - This is not just about faith. We do not have any conclusive evidence that the man lived at that time. All we have is something like an aqaba. Shmulik already wrote that it is Depression in the rock, so here is a natural explanation. You asked if it is possible to know for sure that it is not a person and I agree with you that it is not, but because we have no evidence that people lived in that time it is simpler to assume that it is a natural process.

     " Right. That's why I talked about a reproductive clock that contains DNA. What would be your answer in this case?” – What is a watch with DNA? Do you mean a clock that spawns and competes with other clocks for resources? In other words are you talking about a hypothetical clock-like animal? An animal whose back has hands and numbers written on it? It's a bit hard for me to think seriously about such an example, but nevertheless, I think the main problem is that because of the characteristics of the watch, you will know that it was designed by humans. For example, the numbers written on it are signs that humans invented for the purpose of expressing numbers in writing.

     You still haven't answered me what you mean by God. If you don't want to say whether it's the Jewish God or not then fine, I'm not that interested. What I want to know is what are the features of the planner. I mean, as I understand it, you think that the planner is singular, and I assume that he is also omniscient and omnipotent, and perhaps also a moral and good god, and these are qualities that have nothing to do with intelligent planning. We can easily imagine five gods who created life, none of them omnipotent and omniscient, but in total possessing enough knowledge and ability to create the living creatures. Maybe even one of them is the one who knows and the other is the one who can. Maybe life here is just an unsuccessful experiment, or a prototype, or just something the gods made out of boredom. In other words, usually creationists don't just believe in some ordinary intelligent planner but in something much more specific, and this in my opinion indicates a lack of objectivity.

547. Indeed, natural selection selects existing mechanisms and does not create them, but you are probably not aware that completely different mechanisms are found in other mechanisms, in slight changes in the genes that led to major changes in the phenotype - that is, in what you see in the creature, that is, in practice, this is the creation of a new mechanism.
     But what to do, when the pans have nothing to say they repeat the empty slogans of the Discovery Institute.

548. Ori,
     So that's how it is - basically the concept of the aspiration to knowledge, to "knowledge" as a human need, this is exactly the concept of Yeshayahu Leibovitz, who I already said is a teacher and rabbi in many fields (even though my path is not his). In this way, he also resolves the apparent contradiction between religion and science (science fulfills a human need, as opposed to religion which is a value). I strongly disagree with him on the matter, and my best example is himself, who, apart from perhaps observing mitzvot, devoted his entire life to expanding his knowledge and intellect. This is also the case with philosophers, scientists and many, many very smart people throughout the ages, who really "aspired to the mind", as Aristotle put it. Could they have existed as humans even if they had not devoted so much time of their lives to expanding their intellect? Certainly yes, and therefore I think that this ambition can be defined as a value.

     I admit that there is a certain problem here. It is always possible to say that this desire for knowledge stems from a person's inner need, which is so great that he devotes a considerable part of his life to it, but that is exactly why I defined the concept of "need" in a different way from its accepted definition. After all, one can also say that a person fulfills a commandment, or behaves morally out of a deep mental need (and it is interesting to compare this to Kant's sense of duty).
     ACP, since I use the terminology of "values ​​and needs" I think that intellectual ambition can be defined as a value. If you want, you can define it as a desire that for some people has become a real value (for Einstein as for the genius from Vilna). It may not be that intellectual ambition is a value for all people on earth, but without a doubt there is a yearning or aspiration that can be realized as a central value in their lives.
     I will give an example here that most of the commenters will not like to hear: some time ago I met a convert (or Mechabat, in Goelit Hebrew). Of course, he used all the tricks and tricks of the penitents on me, which made a rather poor impression on me - out-of-body experiences, a strange variation of the tautological argument, etc., etc. What I did learn from this meeting is that if there are people who do "repent", because of these schticks, it is because they also have this desire for knowledge. It may lead to a very different place than yours and mine, but it is still the same aspiration (which the converts are trying to answer, in a very wrong way in my opinion).

     Regarding what I said about the existence of values ​​even in people with severe mental retardation - it seems to me that one of the main differences between us and such a person is the matter of voluntary traceability. That is, while our own desires are relatively consistent, the desire of a mentally retarded person tends to change from time to time, many times for no reason that we understand. This is what I called "whims". I tend to think that such people see their whims as the expression of their desires, as I perceive our values ​​as expressions of our desires. That's what I meant.
     I admit that I do not know enough such people to testify, and therefore I may not be accurate in what I say. I would of course be happy if they corrected me on this.

     Regarding the "plant" and the animals, my answer is one: I do not deal with beings with consciousness, but with humans and only humans. The whole topic I presented relates only to humans and not to animals, so I also have a very difficult problem in the case of "plant", because I see it as a real person. By the way, I didn't rule out the interesting idea that even conscious animals have values, but I just didn't address it. It might be possible of course, but right now I'm just not into it.

549. Ori,

     "Do you agree that the examples will contradict evolution and can you do it?" - they won't. Let's go claim by claim:

     A) The first claim is a static fossil record. Not only that the above claim cannot contradict evolution. But the fossil findings even confirm this claim. See the entry "The Theory of the Fragmented Equilibrium", which holds that creatures have hardly changed at all over millions of years. Evolutionary scientists solve this by claiming that simply not enough fossils were found, or that the aforementioned jumps occurred because of mutations on the visiting genes, etc.

     b) The second claim is finding a hybrid creature from two different creatures. Again, such creatures have indeed been found. I gave an excellent example at the beginning of this thread, which was explained by the claim that in the distant past there was a kind of hybridization between them.

     c) The third claim is also unfounded. For, if we find an organism in which mutations do not occur, we can claim that its error correction mechanisms have reached a perfect level of accuracy by natural selection, and that it is clear that this was not the case in the past.

     d) The fourth claim is an organism that is created in its entirety in front of our eyes. This is also nonsense because if we see such a thing, the scientists will claim that it is a fact that it happened, and hence that it is possible.

     "Regarding the charge of the watch. We know that watches are created by planners, simply because we can see a watchmaker building a watch, and not necessarily because of the complexity of the watch." - We can also see a person creating genomes (Craig Venter). So according to the above criterion the genomes in nature were created by a designer.

     "So it is clear that a number of people planned it and built it, doesn't it follow from this that life created several planners?" - I don't know if this can be known for sure, but the scientific evidence actually points to a single planner. For example, a common genetic code, a similar degree of efficiency of the enzymes in different organisms, many common systems and more.

     "If I go to the beach near my house and see footprints, the simplest explanation would be that they are of course human, because I know that humans walk around there all the time." - That is, the only separation you make here is the belief that in the past man did not walk alongside trilobites. Note that you know of no natural process that creates this.

     "What are the problems with the argument? If you say that there are other factors to be taken into account besides the height, such as the building materials or the pyramidal structure as opposed to the cylindrical one means that the same applies to the clock and the living creature, and that there are other factors besides complexity such as the culture and the competition for resources." - True. That's why I talked about a reproductive clock that contains DNA. What would be your answer in this case?

     Shmulik,

     It seems to me that we are starting to repeat ourselves for nothing and it's a shame.

     "For my part, I am ready to accept any refutation of "natural selection"." - You are mixing natural selection with evolution. I do not disagree with natural selection. But natural selection does not create complex mechanisms, it only chooses them. In addition, see above the rebuttals I gave to Uri about the evolution refutation proposals. The refutation principle does not apply to evolution itself.

     "There is no barrier whatsoever that prevents a bacterium or any other life production from changing. You agreed with me on this point. Indeed, a weak consent that seems to have been extracted from you by torture, but a consent nonetheless. You didn't find any good argument for this question of mine "- I actually brought a study that contradicts the claim that new proteins can develop gradually. You did not see a reference to what was said there. I have no problem poking around a bit on the aforementioned interesting topic of protein development if you feel like it.

     "Your theory is automatically disproven. Section A has not been proven in any way to be by you" - that is, in terms of a breeding clock placed in front of your eyes (let's say we found one of these on another planet) does it not require planning?

550. Shmulik,

     I must have missed that part. In any case, God can mean many different things, none of them scientific, but I'm still interested in knowing what exactly is meant.

551. Ori,
     xianghua already admitted that the intelligent designer is God. For some reason, he still claims that God is a scientific theory

552. xianghua,
     The burden of proof is entirely on you. You decided it was a sandal and therefore the burden of proof is on you and I don't understand why such a simple claim becomes so complicated for you. I don't understand the rolling of the eyes, you really don't understand why every claim you make, the burden of proof is on you? You decided it was a sandal, prove it.
     It's not a sandal footprint, it's a depression in the rock, and if you bother to read about the sandal claim, you'll find that it was disproved a long time ago and no one loses sleep in the garden. The fact that you continue to insist on "this finding" means a lot to me. In any case, even if this claim were a problem for natural selection, it would not in the least strengthen intelligent design. Nothing can weaken or strengthen the intelligent design and lest we find ourselves in déjà vu, I will add unless God appears.

     I don't bother sending you to the links about the sandal, because it doesn't matter. Sew a bag. You gave up the principle of refutation when it became difficult for you, you did not internalize the fact that every claim you make, you have to prove, you did not understand that the weakening of the theory of evolution does not strengthen any other theory and you did not respond to my refutation of "your proof of the existence of God", which makes you Unfortunately, for a preacher and such, there is probably nothing to talk about. Why do I keep responding? Because there are others reading this discussion and I am not willing to give in to someone who claims that intelligent design is a scientific theory.

     For my part, I am ready to accept any refutation of "natural selection". It won't bother me and I'll even be moved if they disprove it. I am not married to her, unlike you and your intelligent planner. Natural selection, as of today, is the best natural explanation we have. If there is, at some point, another explanation, wonderful. Just as the theory of relativity replaced Newton's theory, it too, probably to the dismay of some old physics professors, will be replaced in the future by a more accurate theory.

     It is necessary to add, as I have already done in the past, the clarification that the refutation of natural selection is not the refutation of evolution which, as mentioned, is a fact. things evolve and we see it under the microscope every day. There is no barrier whatsoever that prevents a bacterium or any other life production from changing. You agreed with me on this point. Indeed, a weak consent that seems to have been extracted from you by torture, but a consent nonetheless. You did not find any good argument for this question of mine except: "Maybe they will discover such a barrier". Come on.

     Regarding your proof of the existence of God, I did not receive any response from you, so I will write again:

     Reporter:
     "I'm really surprised that you continue in this line, but it will be interesting to see you try to prove the existence of God." - I have no problem. Here is my proof. Proof by way of negation. You are invited to a logical rebuttal:

     a) We know that a reproductive clock containing DNA requires planning due to its complexity
     b) Man is more complex than such a theoretical clock

     A + B = Man requires planning

     My answer:
     Your theory is automatically disproved. Section A has not been proven in any way by you, although in fact there is no such thing as a clock with DNA, meaning you are basing a theory on an object that does not exist. What kind of argument is this? If I still flow with you, you're probably talking about an argument called "Paley's Clock". I will send you to read the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy#Criticism But I know nothing will change your mind.

     Since A is not true, your conclusion is not correct and in any case, there is no law of a mechanical object (which does not exist, to which you added, somewhat strangely, DNA) as a law of organic production that developed by chance and hence, that God is not yet a scientific theory and neither is intelligent design.
     I expect you to either admit it or try again to formulate the existence of God as a disprovable scientific theory. These are things people have tried in the past thousands of years, but who knows, maybe you will succeed. By the way, nothing will happen if you admit that intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

553. R.H.

     I was interested in one thing you said.

     First of all, in general, regarding the separation between needs and values. Why is the search for knowledge not a necessity? It is true that it is not necessary for existence, but this is not necessarily a choice. I personally feel satisfaction when I learn something new, and that's why I study. Can it be called value?

     "You wrote: Even a person with severe mental retardation had values, which were usually given to him by his immediate environment. For example, such a person can have what we perceive as momentary whims, but in his eyes these are values. I admit that I cannot say anything about a person who is a "plant", and this requires further investigation. It may even throw off my perception.”

     Now you have me completely confused. Why does a person with severe mental retardation have values ​​in the sense you wrote? And why talk at all about people who are "plants"? I will ask the obvious question and that is where animals fit into this whole story. It is clear to you that a chimpanzee is endowed with more self-awareness than a person with severe mental retardation and certainly a person who is a "plant".

554. Xianghua,

     Refuting evolution:

     http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html

     Do you agree that the examples would contradict evolution and can you do it?

     Regarding the charge of the watch. We know that watches are created by designers, simply because we can see a watchmaker building a watch, and not necessarily because of the complexity of the watch.

     And this is without considering the fact that clocks do not multiply and do not compete with other clocks for limited resources.
     I will ask you what others have already asked, what exactly do you mean by planner? Is God? If so then why not some gods? If we return to the analogy of inventions, and look at an example airplane, then it is clear that several people designed it and built it, does it not follow that life was created by several planners? I keep asking about this planner because for me it is a critical point in the whole theory of intelligent design. In order for it to be reasonable, it has to be reasonable that there is a planner, and if your planner is an all-powerful and all-knowing god, then it just doesn't seem reasonable to me, even if evolution is disproved. If on the other hand your planner is an alien then I would ask in what process the alien was created.

     Regarding the traces. Again, it just looks like a footprint. Just like the metal balls you showed look like something man made. The fact that the footprints could have been created by humans does not prove that everything resembling footprints was created by humans. And when the "traces" were found at a time when the existence of humans was not known, the question arises, is it not more likely to assume that a natural process created them? If I go to the beach near my house and see footprints the simplest explanation would be that they are of course human, because I know humans walk around there all the time.

     The problem here is that you are constantly trying to turn cause and effect. to infer the existence of a clock on humans and the existence of footprints on humans, but the point is that we know they lead to humans because of our daily experience with them. This experience does not apply to other places in the universe or to periods when humans are not known to have existed.

     Let me give one last example. Some people claim that certain ancient structures were built with the help of advanced alien technology. They will be able to offer the following argument:

     A. It is known that a skyscraper that is 100 meters high was built with the help of advanced technology.
     B. The pyramid of Giza is higher (138~).

     A+B: The pyramid of Giza was built by advanced technology, probably alien.

     What are the problems with the argument? If you say that there are other factors to be considered besides the height, such as the building materials or the pyramidal structure as opposed to the cylindrical one means that the same is valid for the clock and the living creature, and that there are other factors besides complexity such as the culture and the competition for resources. If you point out that we know that a modern skyscraper was built by modern technology simply because we can observe such a structure being built here as well, we can say the same about the clock and the living creature.

555. Hi my father, everything in nature is natural. So God is absolutely natural. In Hebrew the term "supernatural" has no meaning.

556. Shugon,
     I must comment: "God"? What is the next step, "Alohim"?

     What's the problem with "the Lord", "God" (I prefer God, but so be it) or with the Haszalistic and good "The Most High"?

     Why do we have to make everything weird?

557. Xingua, the one who makes a supernatural claim is the one who needs to prove it, not the one who brings evidence from nature.

558. Ori,

     "I don't understand what the problem is here. Certainly if a fossil of a 600 million year old man is found then scientists will show great skepticism and come up with explanations that go up in scale with evolution." - So what did we get out of it. Again - no finding will disprove the theory.

     "In such a case, assuming that man is indeed 600 million years old, wouldn't it be possible to disprove the explanations they come up with? Can a fossil infiltrate from every layer to every layer, or only from neighboring layers?" - If the fossil can infiltrate into a neighboring layer, there is no reason why they cannot claim that fossils can also infiltrate into neighboring layers. And in fact, in the link you gave, you can see that too.

     "The emphasis here is on the simplest explanation. I cannot estimate how many out-of-place fossils need to be found to disprove evolution, but somewhere there is a line that, before crossing it, it is more likely to assume that one of the explanations you put forward is correct and not that the whole theory of evolution is wrong." - And where is that line exactly?

     "I'm not an expert, so I can't judge these findings and where this line is" she said. The problem is that even the experts have no idea. For them, evolution is right no matter what.

     "Looking everywhere in the universe is not a way to disprove anything. First of all because currently it is impossible," - very true. Therefore, the refutation criterion is also insufficient. Another criterion must be added, which is the practical criterion. In other words, you should propose an experiment that can be performed now, and not in the future. Do you know such a rebuttal test for evolution?

     "If we go back to evolution for a moment, then for me the question is probabilistic. There is always the possibility that a designer was behind evolution, or that a designer created life so that it would appear as if there was evolution, or that by chance evidence contradicting evolution was not found. The question is, is it reasonable? Because we don't know of any planner. Not about God or aliens or people who came back from the future or anything else, and since these contents lead us into circular arguments, it just doesn't seem reasonable to me." - Not accurate in my opinion. I gave a serious claim that the world requires planning (the multiplying clock claim). You are welcome to refute or argue why it is not sufficient for your taste.

     Shmulik,

     If I see footprints that look like sandal footprints, am I the one who has to prove my point, or the one who claims that such footprints are capable of being formed by an unknown natural process?

559. Shugon,
     Yes I responded, read above.
     Obviously that's your assumption and at least you admit that God is not a scientific theory, but that's not my assumption and it's not the assumption either, much to xianghua's amazement. For him God is a scientific fact. When it is easy for him and "as if" works in his favor, he is allowed to wave Popper's principle of refutation and when the situation becomes difficult for him, one can simply get rid of it and not be required to the principle of refutation.
     My assumption of course is that there is no need for God and the universe works wonderfully without him and I do not, like you, add a layer of mystery. As I already wrote, the Matrix solution is identical to the God solution in almost every sense except that it also explains the horrors. The matrix is ​​therefore better than the assumption of God.

560. Shogun If there is no proof for God, there is no proof for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Let's all start believing in her. What is two thousand years difference between the two inventions compared to eternity?

561. Shmulik,
     There is no obligation to prove God (XNUMX because it is forbidden to mention the name of God explicitly)
     Because it is not measured by scientific tools of refutation, peer view, metaanalysis, etc.
     The basic premise is that the Creator created both the scientist and the science, so it should not be measured by the tools that He Himself created.
     If you don't accept the limitations of the human mind, you won't also accept a kind of divine mind that is above the mind of man.
     Beyond that, you did not respond to my response to the Einstein quotes you sent

562. R.H. Rafai.M,
     More than your dismissive comment indicates xianghua, it indicates your inability (or unwillingness) to fully understand this sentence.

563. Aristotle probably didn't know Hingoe..

564. Ethology,
     Everything you said is true, except my father used the words "religion" and "lies" in the same sentence, and his problem was not with the lies of the religion, but with the fact that these lies make the religion seem reasonable.
     But maybe you're right when you resent that I'm building barbed wire on that poor sentence of my father's, without even asking him. So I now turn the question to my father, and I hope he will answer me: Do you see the struggle for the intelligent planning approach as a struggle for the truth only, or also as a struggle between atheism and religion, and between the atheists and the religious?
     From my acquaintance with my father, I know very well what his answer will be, and note: I know very well that my father also defines the struggle between the religious and the atheists as a struggle for truth and lies (because that is how it is for him), because I know very well that in his eyes religion is a complete lie. However, my first reaction to his words came from the premise that the struggle between atheists and religious people is a struggle of values. You and my father may think differently, but that's another debate, which I'll be happy to lead (if you only want).

     buddha,
     First, a few words about my whole concept regarding values: like almost all topics in the world (as you may have already noticed) also in this topic, of values, needs and science, I was deeply influenced by Leibovitz. At the same time, I did not accept all of his words, or even a large part of them. Since I did not accept all of his words, I have so far refrained from using his terms in an orderly manner in the matter, which would mistakenly indicate a wrong influence. However, since I see that the discussion requires it, I will do so.

     A few words should be said about our actions in our lives in general: all our actions in life are goal oriented. The great majority of them we perform so that it serves another purpose, that it serves another purpose, etc., etc.... until the final goal. The ultimate goal can be a value or a need. As a need I define everything that a person needs in order to exist. For example, I recently graduated from high school. I invested as much as I could in these studies, and I tried to bring my full abilities to the fore. why did i do that Among other things, because I planned to be admitted to the university. Why? to find a lucrative job. Why? To buy food and supplies necessary for my existence. Why? to exist point.
     All my investment was ultimately part of an attempt to meet a certain need - to eat and drink. And why do I decide that I want to meet my need for food and drink? Because I want to exist. Of course, I can find a job that doesn't require an academic degree, but I want a job with what people call "respect". It is still a need, but there is actually an extension of my need for existence.

     What is value? Value is any action I do while striving for a certain goal, which is not mere existence. Pay attention - our needs are all aimed at ensuring our existence, or to make our existence better. The values ​​are the goals for which I perform various actions. These goals are not obligated by virtue of my desire to ensure my existence, and sometimes they even interfere with it. That's exactly why I claim that they require effort. For example: a person wants the happiness of his children. Does it guarantee its existence? Maybe indirectly, but usually he doesn't want their happiness from utilitarian motives, but because he loves them. Because he loves them, he sees their happiness as a value (actually, loving them and wanting their happiness is the same thing for him), which guides him in his life. This value makes him want to give them a reasonable financial basis, let's say.

     Now according to you:
     1. A person cannot be without values, because he lives in an environment where all human beings are also guided by values. Values ​​are different, but they all have values. Even a person with severe mental retardation had values, which were usually given to him by his immediate environment. For example, such a person can have what we perceive as momentary whims, but in his eyes these are values. I admit that I cannot say anything about a person who is a "plant", and this requires further investigation. It may even throw off my perception.
     Every person who is healthy in mind and spirit, who lives in our society, performs actions that are not necessarily related to his very existence. An example that I have given here several times is the debate that is going on right here. This debate is not an existential debate, because each of the parties will take place even if he stops the discussion and does not write another comment, yet he chooses to write, or is programmed to write, as you say.

     2. The value you see in the news e.g. You wrote something that indicates this in one of the comments, but I don't have the strength to go through the whole discussion. However, your responses indicate that you are an educated person, that for some reason, whatever, you decided that you want to study, whether it is biology or mathematics or computer science. Even if you claim that this comes from an impulse programmed into you, you cannot deny that this requires some effort from you. And by all means, I don't believe that you are that much of a genius and that everything you learned came to you without any trace of effort or effort.

     3. I didn't understand anything. I, for one, believe that all human beings definitely have at least one common value. see below.

     4. You may have no objection to the very idea of ​​value, but there is no doubt in my mind that you did not wake up one morning and define yourself as a person without values ​​(I assume, of course, that you grew up in an environment where there are values). The change in this definition itself requires effort, especially when people with values ​​live around you. I don't know you, but look at your life and say if there is no value aspect in it, in the very broad sense I gave to this concept.

     5. The example you gave is related to needs, which I talked about above. I define effort in a very broad sense, and in my eyes it can be mental, intellectual or physical. That's why I don't believe you that there is no effort in your life, because the life of every person in modern times (and in general) requires effort, even if not great. Let me tell you about a very important value that accompanies my life: I am a big believer in self-awareness. In other words, I see self-awareness as valuable. You could also say that I value honesty and fairness. Therefore, when I hear you (or rather, read you) say that you are a person without values ​​and that there is no effort in your life, I immediately wake up to action in the name of the value I advocate - the value of self-awareness. That's why I'm writing this long comment. That's why I also wrote those overflowing comments more than a week ago.

     Regarding Buddhism - again self-awareness and fairness. You know very well that you are not just using the terminology of Buddhism, certainly not as a language. All that you had to say you could say without Buddhism, unless you accept some of the ideas that arose in the fevered minds of Indian sages so and so years ago. Why don't you allow yourself to admit it?
     I do not speak the language of Buddhism, so I ask you to stop speaking to me in it. She just makes it hard for me to understand your words.

     Shmulik,
     I will be very brief in my words, because my response is excessively long. Just saying that in my eyes, rationality and placing the person at the center, as you wrote, are a complete contrast.
     Also, from wandering the wiki I found out that Aviezer is apparently a type of creation. From a short skit in his book, "Bereshit Bara" I actually got a different impression, but whatever. When I wrote my words about my (long-time) biology teacher, I meant that she completely accepts Darwinian evolution, and claims that the order of creation is compatible with this approach, by and large. I was sure that she took her approach from Eviazer, but I was probably wrong and for that I am sorry. It goes without saying that in my eyes this approach, the "interpretive approach", does not catch on, and you can take a look at some of my previous comments on the matter.

     And now for the challenge: Since none of the science surfers responded to my challenge, I decided to reveal the quote that I so wanted Buddha to bring to the question: ""Why do we need to find some kind of 'truth' like this?"". The answer is a quote from one, Aristotle, who in the beginning of his 'Metaphysics' wrote "all human beings naturally aspire to knowledge". Buddha, for your reference - Section 3.

565. X.
     Exactly what I wrote, there is no flying unicorn law as God's law. While I can scan every corner of the universe (let alone for the moment it is torn away from us at faster than light speed) and look for the unicorn (perhaps in nine princes of amber) I can't do that with God. By the way, if you claim that such a unicorn exists, I will probably agree that it is a scientific theory, but the burden of proof is on you, just as the burden of proof is on you regarding the sandal, and I do not have to prove that it is not a sandal.
     God is not a scientific theory, there is no problem with the principle of refutation. Popper can sleep soundly and I therefore still expect you to admit that intelligent design, that you have admitted that the designer is God, is not a scientific theory.

566. xianghua

     I don't know what the problem is here. Certainly, if a 600 million year old human fossil is found then scientists will show great skepticism and come up with explanations that go up in scale with evolution. In such a case, assuming that man is indeed 600 million years old, wouldn't it be possible to disprove the explanations they come up with? Can a fossil filter from each layer to each layer, or only from neighboring layers?

     Regarding the fossils, I understand that there is a reference. What I meant to say is that when I was told that a mammal skeleton was found that was supposed to be found in the late X period but was found in the early X period it means nothing to me. I cannot appreciate how much this finding undermines evolution. The writer of the list may be right or he may be exaggerating the importance of the findings. And perhaps most of the fossils have a simpler explanation for their discovery in the wrong layer.

     The emphasis here is on the simplest explanation. I can't estimate how many out-of-place fossils need to be found to disprove evolution, but somewhere there is a line that before you cross it it's more likely that one of the explanations you put forward is correct rather than the whole theory of evolution being wrong. But after crossing the line, when the contradictory evidence accumulates then it becomes more likely that there is a problem with the theory of evolution. I'm not an expert so I can't judge these findings and where that line is.

     Searching everywhere in the universe is not a way to disprove anything. First of all, because at the moment it is impossible, the fact that maybe someday in the future we can scan the entire universe in search of unicorns does not mean that today their existence can be called a scientific theory. In any case, you can make it difficult and say that the unicorn is invisible, or that it doesn't want to be revealed, what would you say then? What I'm trying to say is that if a person comes to me and tells me that there is an invisible telepathic unicorn, I can ask him, "How do you know?". As soon as there is no refutation test for the theory, i.e. his claim did not stand up to refutation attempts, the claimant has no way of knowing that his theory is true, i.e. it is a figment of his imagination.

     There are innumerable theories and arguments that can come up in a person's mind. We want to find a way to filter these arguments. That is to find out which of them have a connection to objective reality and which of them are only in the person's head. For this we try to refute the arguments. If we have succeeded in refuting an argument, then we know for sure that it is not true, and if we have not succeeded, and a certain argument meets more and more refutation tests, then the chances increase that that argument does indeed describe reality, or is at least an approximate model of reality. If a certain argument cannot be refuted, then it is true, we will not know for sure that it is not true, but we will have no basis to assume that the argument is somehow related to reality. There are countless such arguments. Let's look at the unicorn, and add elves, Bigfoot, fire-breathing dragons, centaurs and countless other creatures that can come to mind. Would you agree that the vast majority of them do not exist? If the answer is positive then you will have to agree that the chance that one of them exists tends to zero.

     If we go back to evolution for a moment, then for me the question is probabilistic. There is always the possibility that a designer was behind evolution, or that a designer created life so that it would appear as if there was evolution, or that by chance evidence contradicting evolution was not found. The question is, is it reasonable? Because we don't know of any planner. Not about God or aliens or people who came back from the future or anything else, and since this stuff gets us into circular arguments, it just doesn't seem plausible to me. Do you have any argument, scientific or philosophical for the existence of a creator that is not related to biology? If you would prove to me that there is a creator or at least show me that it is probable then I would be willing to accept that we may indeed have been created by a planner. But without that, when all we have is planning without any simple planner, it is likely to assume that it is altogether similar to planning, and is actually created by natural processes.

567. "Intelligent planning" is the politically correct name of God, and anyone who does not understand this is probably mentally challenged" - Michael Handelzeltz https://www.hayadan.org.il/non-intelligent-design-290905/

568. Uri, let's agree that there is a problem here. And the question is how to solve it. The supporters of evolution have no problem claiming that this is some unknown natural process. Despite the fact that they cannot provide evidence of such a process.

     "If, on the other hand, you find a fossil of a person from 600 million years ago, then it is clear that such an explanation will not work." - Why not? Here are some possible scenarios according to the theory of evolution:

     a) This is a forgery
     b) This is infiltration of a fossil into the wrong layer by the movement of tectonic plates (aka the Lazarus effect)
     c) It is about some kind of contamination of the sample
     d) It is a parallel/convergent evolution from another tree

     Here are some scenarios where the theory can easily evade the refutation test.

     "In any case, I'm sure that if there were indeed 200 fossils that deny evolution, then scientists would not simply ignore them, isn't it more likely that the author of the list is wrong?" - this is about 200 different sources with references. And not only from this list but also from the book forbidden archeology. I also gave some examples in which Kermo himself quotes the words of the experts.

     "About the unicorn. I didn't understand what you mean about the unicorn being scientific. You need to make a claim. If you say "a telepathic flying unicorn exists" then this is an unscientific claim because it cannot be disproved." - Why not? The refutation test is simple - you have to look for it everywhere in the universe. If we didn't find it, then it doesn't exist. Hence the theory was disproved. Which brings us now to a new problem in the definition of a scientific theory.

     Buddha, Suri, but the question is of a theological nature and is not related to the question of whether there is a planner or not. Planning theory has nothing to say about the intentions of the planner and the nature of his actions. Only regarding the question of its existence/non-existence.

569. Skeptic, they are not on the scientific level, these are all arguments made by the Discovery Institute, which have already been disproved a long time ago and you just have to find the argument and the answer to it. The Discovery Institute and its clones are only meant for one thing - to provide an apparently scientific explanation for their religion (just to be safe, they do this for a generic religion because in the US there is a separation between religion and the state and it is forbidden to explicitly say that it is a religion).
     Since all his arguments are Discovery Institute arguments, it is not fair to say that these are scientific arguments and there is also no point in answering individually because even if he is proven wrong, he repeats it in response to a new post.

570. xianghua,
     God is not a scientific theory because he does not meet the principle of refutation, a principle you yourself brought up. The fact that you no longer agree with the principle of rebuttal that you yourself brought frustrates me. I have no way to argue with you because even if we agree on some principle, when it no longer suits you, you will get rid of it. How can you behave like this? You don't even blink when you get rid of the principle.
     Friends, please inform Popper that we don't need him anymore (he passed away but don't worry, we will send a message to me through God)

     Now let me make it clear that there is no connection between a flying, telepathic unicorn and God. A unicorn is not improbable (there are people who are born with a horn that must be surgically removed), there is no problem with a flying unicorn. Who said it had to be the size of an elephant? There could be a small, flying horse-like creature and regarding telepathy, now computers can read people's minds so maybe people too will be able to be sensitive to the electric fields that the brain produces. Besides, what is your question, where is it from? You defined the unicorn and I responded. Now you added that he was telepathic, well, that's fine, here, I commented.

     A priori, and that is the key word, a priori, the claim that God exists is not scientific since I cannot disprove this claim. There is nothing I can do to disprove this claim. If it suddenly appears, then it will prove its existence but until then, it is not a scientific theory and there is no problem or contradiction with it. God is not a scientific theory and when you claim it is, you are the automatic loser of the argument and for my part I am disappointed as I thought I was arguing with someone who would be willing to change his mind.

     Reporter:
     "I'm really surprised that you continue in this line, but it will be interesting to see you try to prove the existence of God." - I have no problem. Here is my proof. Proof by way of negation. You are invited to a logical rebuttal:

     a) We know that a reproductive clock containing DNA requires planning due to its complexity
     b) Man is more complex than such a theoretical clock

     A + B = Man requires planning

     Your theory is automatically disproved. Section A has not been proven in any way whatsoever and in fact there is no such thing as a clock with DNA, that is, you are basing a theory on an object that does not exist and yet, if I go with you, if I am not mistaken you are probably talking about an argument called "Paley's clock". I will send you to read the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy#Criticism But I know nothing will change your mind.

     Since A is not true, the conclusion is not true, and in any case, there is no law of a mechanical object (which does not exist, to which you added, somewhat strangely, DNA) as a law of organic production that developed by chance.

     Regarding the block, you wrote again that there might be a block. Nice maybe. Prove Gotha, prove and certainly that natural selection is based on probabilities. Not only but also about probabilities. I have no idea where you got the argument that evolutionary scientists don't get really big jumps I have no idea. This is simply not true. The concept of a big jump, transition between species, etc. are claims of evolution deniers and in any case, the duty of defining what a big jump is is on you, because you brought this concept.

     Regarding my dice experiment, you again misunderstood the difference a priori and after the fact. A priori the chance is almost zero but here, the number obtained with the almost zero chance of appearing, did appear.

     Regarding the matrix, the point there is that we are all a simulation of intelligent planners, but the essence of the matrix is ​​completely different from God, certainly the religious one. And regarding the claim that there is no evidence, it is completely ridiculous. According to my consistent rules, this is certainly not a scientific claim, but for you, the principle of refutation is no longer valid (or maybe only valid for my claims?) and therefore I will say: everything you see around you is evidence that we are a simulation. God is supposed to be perfect, therefore atrocities, blunders, death of children at birth are completely illogical, but with the creators of the simulation it is required. Wars are the most fun. And the fact that supporters of evolution have never claimed this really doesn't bother me (and it's also not true. By the way, I obviously didn't invent the simulation idea, you've heard about the movie, and several physicists have already suggested examining the universe under this assumption)

     Regarding the illusory sandal argument, 1. You are confused again since the burden of proof that it is a sandal is on you, because you claim that it is a sandal. 2. This case was completely debunked and turned out to be a fake. 3. Who even said it was a sandal? It is a depression in the rock, there is no problem that it will be created naturally and it reminds me of the big bear in the sky: they tell me, look in the sky, there is a star system called the big bear. I look and I don't see anything and then they tell me, if you draw lines (white, they are always white) then you will see. Nice, it still doesn't look like a bear.

     Shugon
     ,
     Atheist bubble, what? Again, I don't care what Einstein thinks about God, about a mysterious force and only those whose appeal to authority speaks to them, like to quote Einstein. Only now you bring the quotes you refer to! So I have no idea what the quotes are that you brought, did Max Jammer quote him correctly but you claimed that: "I did not claim that Einstein was religious but that he believed in a higher power / an intelligent planner" which is simply not true. Einstein, in your quote, wonders if he is even a pantheist (Spinoza's God) a concept that is exactly the opposite of an intelligent planner and for the thousandth time, an intelligent planner is God, that's the religious one. This concept was invented by the Discovery Institute that they are believing Christians and enough with the impurity. On the other hand, the quotes I brought, one of them is going to be sold for 3 million dollars (or has it already been sold?) so it is much more accurate and correct and it completely cancels the quotes you brought since he describes that quotes brought in his name are false (maybe he even means Max's ) and an intelligent planner is a personal god. Stupidity in style: No, an intelligent planner is that in total Deism will not work here. Yes and handsome

571. Spring.

     I see avoiding scientific discussion anyone who tries to forcefully drag XINGUA into a theological debate.

     For the purpose of discussing his scientific arguments (serious or not) - it doesn't matter at all if XINGUA is religious, or if he is a vegetarian, or if he is a butterfly hunter in his free time, or if he is gay, or if he is a secret member of a neo-Nazi party.

     Please concentrate only on XINGUA's arguments to their body, if they are on the scientific level.

572. XINGUA Don't dodge. No one is asking you for arguments about theology, unless you take off your fake secular mask and the fakeness is very easy to see, and thank you for being a dosser and for being here to exhaust the readers until they mistakenly think that evolution is wrong.
     Telling the truth never hurt anyone.

573. xianghua,

     Regarding the prints of the shoes from Utah:
     http://ncse.com/cej/2/4/tripping-over-trilobite-study-meister-tracks

     We will agree that something more unequivocal than that is needed. Unless you prove that it is highly unlikely that the "shoe prints" were created by natural processes.

     Regarding the fossils. I do not agree that the argument of evolution is that a misplaced fossil will disprove it. The original claim was that what would disprove evolution was rabbits in the Precambrian period. Of course this is just an example but the point is that not every fossil found out of place will disprove evolution. If, for example, a fossil of a certain species is found that is earlier than the oldest fossil found so far, then this will not necessarily disprove evolution, but will show that the species was here earlier than we thought. If, on the other hand, you find a fossil of a person from 600 million years ago, then it is clear that such an explanation will not succeed.
     The point is, each case individually, and I don't have the knowledge to judge the list you gave. You should refer her to a specialist and see what his reaction is. Anyway I'm sure if there were indeed 200 fossils that disprove evolution then scientists wouldn't just ignore them, isn't it more likely that the author of the list is wrong?

     About the unicorn. I didn't understand what you mean about the unicorn being scientific. You need to make a claim. If you say "there is a telepathic flying unicorn" then it is an unscientific claim because it cannot be disproved. If, on the other hand, you say "I caught/photographed a unicorn" then it will be possible to disprove the claim, by examining the photograph/unicorn.

574. xianghua,

     Unfortunately, I find your arguments on the subject of the Fanny experiment nonsensical (especially the last arguments you put forward). The entire scientific establishment in the world probably thinks like me. Let the many readers of this thread judge.

     Regarding the Siamese twins, I think you are trying to avoid the topic in a disrespectful way. Suddenly the discussion becomes theological? What is theological about Siamese twins? I did not mention God at all and I have nothing to do with him. You clearly claimed in your previous comments that you believe in intelligent design like your friends from the respected Discovery Institute (God is not mentioned there either as far as I remember). For my part, the intelligent planner could be an alien who planted the first bacteria on Earth.

     If you are unable to answer the question, then this has the effect of refuting, at least for you, the idea of ​​intelligent planning. Maybe we've reached the stage where you should start considering it... I have a few good friends that it worked great for.

575. Uri, I'm not talking about specific fossils right now but about the fact that there are hundreds of them. Still, let's take the following very familiar example. The supporters of evolution claim that these are not really fossil footprints but some natural process caused them to look like. Can anyone prove the following claim?:

     http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences28.html

     Second, here are nearly 200 misplaced fossils, backed up with references. It is impossible to claim that they are all fakes:

     http://creationwiki.org/Anomalously_occurring_fossils

     Before you continue, remember an important detail - the argument of evolution experts is that if a fossil is found out of place, the theory will be disproved.

     I don't understand your claim about the unicorn. If we find a unicorn capable of telepathic ability, then it is scientific.

     Boda, I'm sorry but I've explained more than enough why their assumption can easily be wrong. I think we are just wasting our time on the above issue. If you have another claim, you are welcome to bring it.

     Regarding the question you asked, since I'm not a fan of discussing theology, I'll leave it to the theologians here.

576. xianghua,

     You wrote - they assume that the chance that two similar sequences will evolve independently is very low, and forget that this is only true assuming that evolution is true. But if it is not true, their whole argument falls anyway. That is, they assume what is requested - that evolution is correct from the beginning.

     What "sequences" are you talking about?

     Researcher A created a tree from 11 objects that have 34 million possibilities to create it say 50 years ago using method A.

     Researcher B came after 50 years and created 5 more trees based on gene analysis according to method B.

     All 6 trees came out the same!

     Suppose evolution is wrong. Researcher A's tree is meaningless, there is no tree at all because all creatures were created from nothing even at that time.

     Researcher B's trees are also falsified. How did the same result come out? The chance of this is one in 34 million!

     Now I have a cooler question for those who believe in an intelligent planner.

     Siamese twins
     ------

     1. The intelligent designer purposely pre-planned man so that occasionally they would be born by chance.

     2. The intelligent planner intervenes in every creation of an embryo in real time and determines whether the baby will be Siamese twins.

     3. The intelligent planner made a slight mistake in his planning (in an error correction system) so every now and then it happens to protect his heart.

     xianghua Which answer do you think is correct?

577. I wanted to clarify something about the unicorn.
     The claim that there is a telepathic flying unicorn in the world is not scientific because it cannot be disproved.
     If, on the other hand, a person saw a unicorn and let's say took a photo of it, then the claim "I have a photo of a unicorn" is indeed scientific, because it will be possible to refute it, for example to show that what was taken is not a unicorn or that the photo is fake.

578. xianghua

     I was looking for information regarding some of the examples you gave of 'forbidden archaeology'.

     Regarding the supposedly Pliocene skull. It is written in the link:

     This discovery caused a huge sensation in America and many believed it was a hoax.

     If many believe that this is a scam then why bring this example at all? Even Creation Ministries International wrote in an article dealing with pro-creation arguments that should not be used that it is apparently a scam. See link:
     http://web.archive.org/web/20080121164057/http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp

     Note, not only does the skull appear there, but it appears under the title:
     Which arguments should definitely not be used?

     Then I looked for information about the metal ball found in South Africa, which I assume the writer meant to say that man made it 2.8 billion years ago. Regarding this see:
     http://ncse.com/rncse/28/1/mysterious-spheres-ottosdal-south-africa

     Do I need to keep checking the samples? I would appreciate it if you would simply give the most important example that you think will be impossible to disprove.

579. buddha,

     "What is your specific claim regarding the Fanny experiment that explains how and why the researchers placed the desired item there? "- they assume that the chance that two similar sequences will evolve independently is very low, and forget that this is only true assuming that evolution is true. But if it is not true, their whole argument falls anyway. That is, they assume what is requested - that evolution is correct from the beginning.

     Shmulik,

     "Certainly if we see a flying unicorn it will prove its existence, but what is so special about it?" - This means that if the principle of refutation is the one that determines the very scientific nature of the theory, then the theory of the flying unicorn meets the definition of a scientific theory. This is because the above theory can be disproved.

     "There were giant flying creatures in the past and our hypothetical unicorn (a rhinoceros has 2 horns) has nothing" - where are you from? And if the flying unicorn is telepathic? Maybe he is able to move objects with the power of thought? Everything is possible.

     "I'm really surprised that you continue in this line, but it will be interesting to see you try to prove the existence of God." - I have no problem. Here is my proof. Proof by way of negation. You are invited to a logical rebuttal:

     a) We know that a reproductive clock containing DNA requires planning due to its complexity
     b) Man is more complex than such a theoretical clock

     A + B = Man requires planning

     "Regarding the brake, what you wrote is not a brake. A layman like me will agree with you, perhaps, that such jumps are unlikely, but there is no law of nature that prohibits them from occurring." - First of all, it is not certain. Maybe there is a limit to the number of possible mutations per genome per generation? And even if not, all evolution is based on the probabilistic argument anyway. In other words, evolutionary scientists don't get too big jumps either. So for them too, too big jumps mean the refutation of evolution.

     "If I take 100 dice and roll them, I'll get a number that has zero chance of happening, but here, I still got the 100-digit number. "- Definately not. Every number you get has a probability of 1. In evolution, on the other hand, not every sequence comes into consideration. Most of the possible sequences are complete junk. So in order to apply any kind of evolution it is necessary to find a *useful sequence*, i.e. a specific sequence.

     "Finally, there aren't just 2 theories. There are at least 4 theories of which only 1 is scientific (as I already wrote): 1. Evolution, 2. God, 3. The Matrix (go disprove it) 4. "- Does the Matrix possibility include a planner? Because if so it is again a plan versus a natural factor. What's more, there is no evidence for the Matrix, so it shouldn't be taken seriously. In any case, evolutionists have never offered another possibility anyway.

580. R.H.
     I am not familiar with Natan Aviezer's approach and thank you for directing me there and you are welcome to tell about the differences between the intelligent planner and his approach. If I understood, he assumes that man was created by God directly and that man did not evolve from a common ancestor with us and monkeys, while the people of intelligent design only claim that the foundations of evolution were laid by a designer. Is that the difference?

     Regarding the reason why I am responding, I have already written that I am not trying to destroy his religious belief but only his attempt to prove his belief, from science. I am also trying to understand why it is so important to some people, to have a scientific basis for belief. What prevents a believer from simply believing that God created everything as if there was evolution? Why do we still see arguments such as "God is a scientific theory"? Why, after xianghua recruited Popper and thus the principle of refutation to his side, does he abandon him and the principle the second it becomes difficult? Why then does he pose a dumb question along the lines of: If a unicorn appears…? It is clear that if God appears, we will all fall on our knees and bow down (and hope that he is not Allah) but to the same extent it is clear that, a priori, the existence of God cannot be proven. Why at this point does xianghua not inform us that he does not accept intelligent design as a scientific theory? It never makes sense to me.

     Undoubtedly, there is a value struggle here and I try to represent rationality with my meager powers and hope that it will also be passed on to the Eternals of Israel, among other things, by studying the theory of evolution, one of the most tremendous human enterprises that stand at the foundation of rationality and placing man at the center.

581. R.H.

     Reporter:

     "...A person cannot be without values. Even if a person opposes the very idea of ​​value, and tries as much as he can to manage his life without it - then this is also an effort and hence there is value here..."

     I just can't believe you wrote that. It makes no sense and from our brief acquaintance you seem to me to be a reasonable person.

     1. Why can't a person be worthless? A person can exist without hands, legs, eyes. He can suffer from severe mental retardation and/or mental illness and still exist.

     2. Give an example of a value or two that you think I cannot live without and I will explain to you simply how I do it.

     3. If two people have no value in common, it means that person A exists without all the values ​​of person B. Are you claiming that person B cannot in any way live like A? Why? Will he run out of oxygen and die?

     4. I am not "against the idea of ​​the very value". I just don't use it. Just as I am not opposed to the camel as a means of transportation. The above two things do not require any effort from me.

     5. Regarding the effort, impulses can cause us effort. For example if I have to chase a zebra to hunt it because I am hungry then there is an effort here. In my real life there is almost no trace of effort. It's very hard for me to remember the last time I exerted myself other than a sports-related effort that stems from an urge to exercise the body or something like that. Maybe tell me what efforts related to values ​​accompany your life?

     Regarding Buddhism and science, I do not synthesize between them but use the Buddhist terminology for convenience as I use the long-invented Hebrew language. Like the Eskimos have 40 different words to describe different types of ice.

582. Shmulik!!
     You really live in an atheistic bubble by constantly referring me to Einstein's quotes regarding his view of religion and the stories of the Bible, after all I did not claim that Einstein believed in the Bible or a personal God, so why refer to the same quotes again?
     Regarding your claim that the matter of the mysterious power that Einstein talked about is only in my head (what happened to be a hallucination)
     So I slurred hard and brought two quotes straight from the introductions as quoted at Princeton University by the press:

     Here he is talking about a higher intellectual power:
     "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the unlimited superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of ​​God.”

     (The following is from Einstein and Religion by Max Jammer, Princeton University Press)

     Here he talks about a mysterious power:
     "I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It doesn't know how. It does not understand the languages ​​in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being towards God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.”
     These two quotes do not contradict the quotes you gave regarding his relationship to a personal God with reward and punishment because of language
     It has nothing to do with religion at all, so what is said later does not invalidate these quotes
     So accuse me of delusions before you've checked the intros
     Not beautiful and not handsome!!

583. R.H.,
     My father also didn't say if he preferred roasted peanuts or cashews as crackers and not to mention the fact that he didn't mention which of Hitchcock's movies he liked best. What it means? is nothing. Your interpretation is not based on anything he said and you cannot rely on what he *didn't* say in any situation, especially given the context of his words (your response before his response). If you want to know his opinion on a topic he *didn't* talk about, ask him. There is no reason to resort to interpretations that do not derive from the scriptures. It is possible that he will confirm that his struggle is valuable and it is possible that he will not, but that is why we can ask.

584. buddha,
     I do not claim that you do not exist, but I claim that you are a person with values ​​- even if you claim that you lack values. I claim that your claim that you are a person without values ​​is paradoxical, because a person cannot be without values. Even if a person opposes the very idea of ​​value, and tries as much as he can to manage his life without it - then this is also an effort and hence there is value here. I simply cannot think of a person who has no effort in his life, in the very broad sense of the word.
     As far as you are concerned, we are programmed to take certain actions, and this is an approach that is undoubtedly acceptable. This may be why the use of the word "choice" is wrong for you. What I don't understand is how determinism is supposed to affect our actions. You gave the example of hunger, but I didn't understand anything about it - the feeling of hunger, even when it comes from a real lack of food, and also when it comes because of certain foods we eat, is the result of a chain of chemical reactions. Hunger does not exist just like that, but is the result of mechanisms that lead to the feeling of hunger. Therefore I do not understand why in one case there is an illusion and in the other case not. I do not understand the meaning of that illusion at all: there are times when the body needs food, and there are times when the body does not need it, but feels as if it does. These are simply two different processes that lead to the same result. Everything is seemingly an "illusion" and we must be well aware of our actions (and what we eat, let's say) in order to perform the actions desired for us. And in general - if we are programmed robots we will eat no matter what. So how is the knowledge that there is an illusion relevant to our actions?
     In general, according to you, the term "illusion" is supposed to be dangerous, because it may make someone else think that there is someone else who is deceiving them, and you deny this concept.
     Regarding the impulses - according to your definition, all our actions are driven by impulses, because we are, after all, robots. But not all our actions express values. For example - a person has a certain value, yet he eats, drinks and sleeps out of impulses, and these are not related to his value (even though his value can be expressed in them - like kosher laws).

     In short, I have a very hard time understanding the issue you raise. I would comment on another part of your claims, but I think you don't want to. I'm also sorry that you didn't express your view on Buddhism and what is the meaning of the mental synthesis you do between it and scientific ideas - that is, why do you even mention outdated ideas that were created thousands of years ago in the minds of the ignorant and ignorant 🙂

     Ethology,
     That's exactly the point. My father doesn't say anything about his approach to lies and hence I concluded that the struggle here is not a struggle of truth and lies, but a struggle of values ​​(because in my view the struggle between the atheists and the religious is a struggle of values).
     I think I went on too long and got into trouble.

     Shmulik,
     Forgive me for being late.
     First I must point out that you are really not a tireless troublemaker in my eyes, and I actually really appreciate your detailed responses, which clearly come from an authentic place. You wrote: "I'm not trying to undermine his religious belief but rather his attempt to strengthen his religious belief through science." I may be sinning against you by "penetrating" into your thoughts, but it seems to me that your determined fight against xianghua is not just a fight of truth and lies. I mean, what reason do you have to try so hard just to undermine his attempt to "get stronger" through science? Why do you care so much? It is possible that it really comes from an attempt to "purify" the science, and if so then forgive me. In any case, for most atheists who struggle with the intelligent design approach, it is quite clear that there is something more.
     After all, none of them will accept Natan Aviezer's approach to Torah interpretation as logical, and a minority of them may accept it as superior to the rational planning approach (I assume that you are clear about the difference between the rational planning approach and Natan Aviezer's approach). That's why I tend to say that there is usually a value struggle here, which stems from an attempt to shatter religious belief and show that it is not compatible with science/common sense. And again, forgive me if my words are not true about you.

     Since Buddha did not answer my question, I will open it to everyone. Let's guess which quote I was referring to as an answer to the question: "Why do we need to find some kind of 'truth' like this?". (Of course, there is no right or wrong here, there are many logical answers) Among those who solve correctly, (virtual) prizes will be drawn, not particularly worth it 😉

585. xianghua,
     You are wrong in every one of your claims (I need to check the link you gave)
     No I disagree about God. Of course, if we see a flying unicorn it will prove its existence, but what is so special about it? There were giant flying creatures in the past and there is nothing super natural about our hypothetical unicorn (a rhinoceros has 2 horns). God, on the other hand, because he is super natural is not equivalent to a unicorn and therefore is not a scientific theory and you are the one who brought Popper as an explanation for why he is not a scientific theory. Proof of a scientific theory is the second layer that refers to the strength of the theory. By the way, in physics there is no way to prove any theory, at least not now. At most there are stronger or less strong hypotheses.

     If you think God is a scientific theory, I think you're the only one who thinks so. Are there other people on this forum who agree with xianghua's claim that God is a provable scientific theory?
     Since there is nothing I can do to disprove God, feel free to try to prove him as much as you like, I am powerless on this point. I'm really surprised that you continue in this line but it will be interesting to see you try to prove the existence of God.

     Regarding the brake, what you wrote is not a brake. A layman like me will agree with you, perhaps, that such jumps are unlikely, but there is no law of nature that prohibits them from occurring. If I take 100 dice and roll them, I'll get a number that has zero chance of happening, but lo and behold, I still got the 100-digit number. You insist on not admitting that there is no such brake and at most it seems unlikely to you.

     Regarding the theories, by no means true. A weakness of one theory does not strengthen another theory. My horse race example is not a bad description for theories. Each theory must pass the refutation test and prediction tests independently. You probably know that there are 2 theories that describe the microscopic world: quantum mechanics and the theory of hidden (non-local) variables. According to what I have read, there is nothing to produce an experiment that would differentiate between them (perhaps because of the way the theory of hidden variables was developed). Does the fact that there are 2 such theories weaken the predictions of quantum mechanics?
     According to you, if there was only one theory, that would be a huge clue to its correctness. This is of course not true.
     Finally, there are not only 2 theories there are at least 4 theories of which only 1 is scientific (as I already wrote): 1. Evolution, 2. God, 3. Matrix (go disprove it) 4. Something I didn't think of.

     I again call on people in the forum to respond: does the weakness of one theory strengthen another theory, especially one that is not scientific?

     I will check the link you provided. Thanks

586. R.H.,
     I will be very brief: your interpretation of my father's words does not derive from his words in any way. The fact that my father is afraid that people will repent because they have been exposed to the lies of sophisticated people does not say anything about his attitude to lies, nor does it mean that he is not afraid of the lies themselves, nor does it mean that he is afraid of them. He just didn't talk about his approach to lies.

587. xianghua,

     You wrote that the researchers "assume what is requested" and immediately moved on to another topic.

     What is your specific claim regarding the Fanny experiment that explains how and why the researchers placed the desired item there?

     Do you believe in the good faith of the researchers?
     I already wrote to you before that if you assume that the researchers are lying there is no point in continuing the discussion because at least I don't have the tools to reproduce the experiment at home...

     If, on the other hand, you assume that the researchers made a bona fide mistake in this experiment, then I would appreciate a specific explanation.
     The researchers simply processed the statistics and arrived at the same tree.

     Unfortunately, if we now move on to discuss another experiment by another researcher I don't know, there will be no end to it.

588. R.H.

     short explanation:

     Suppose there really is such a thing as an 'illusion of the mind' (by the way, what is confusing what? If we are really robots, what kind of illusion is there? Who is it presented to?), how is this relevant to the decisions and choices we make?

     Answer: This is very relevant! If you have a certain illusion and act according to it, that is one situation, and if, on the other hand, you are aware that it is an illusion, that is another situation. There are endless examples. For example, when I was on a diet, I was taught that the hunger I often feel is the result of thirst or the result of a drop in insulin after digesting a candy that has a high glycemic value. This is why there are many foods that will actually make you hungry! Therefore, those who want to lose weight should avoid them or alternatively pay attention to the "fake" feeling of hunger after eating them.

     R.H. : "Values ​​really don't exist in reality! Have you ever seen a value? Have you heard a value? Did you smell it? Values ​​are what people choose to act for, or are programmed to act for. This does not detract from their importance as shapers of our lives."

     Buddha: "Humans act according to their programming and some of the software they usually call "values".

     R.H. : I perceive something (religion or the rule of justice in the world.... something and its opposite) as value. Another person perceives something else as value. So what if these things don't really exist? Can we live in a society where no one has values? of course not.

     Buddha: Actually such a society would be much "better". If we free ourselves from a wrong concept, no disaster will happen. When people realized that the earth is round it didn't make them fall off it... When people do things you call "good" or "desirable" it stems from impulses and not values. People avoid doing "bad" things because they do not feel an urge to do so or because they have an urge to avoid the action out of fear of its results or out of their internal programming and conditioning.

     R.H. : Moreover - no person can live his life without any effort or effort. There is no such thing. Hence every person has values ​​in his life (because that's how I defined the concept of 'value' as I recall). So what if it's an illusion? How can this affect our actions at all?

     Buddha: A life without effort is the most desirable life according to the Tao. You need to understand what the word effort means, but it's already too long here... I'm a person without values. On what basis do you claim that I cannot exist? What proof would you like of my existence? Unless you define my every impulse as "value" then your definition of "value" is out of place and you'd better use the word "impulse" instead...

     R.H. - The link you brought about the moral brain is interesting (and I think I've already seen it once). I agree that it is very likely that morality/conscience originates in the brain, but that does not make morality an illusion. Morality has always been an abstract concept, not concrete. That doesn't make it any less necessary or relevant. So are value choices; We may be programmed to choose them, but that doesn't say anything about what we should do, or how
     We should act.

     Buddha: I'm glad you liked the link. What we call "morality" is actually the activity of a certain area of ​​the brain. I agree that morality itself is not an illusion (there is a long discussion in Buddhism whose claim is that reality is not an illusion but has an illusory nature). If you are programmed to choose a certain choice, the words "choice" and "choose" lose their meaning. Either you choose or you operate from programming. Indeed, this leads to the conclusion that there is no free choice.

     I hope now everything is clearer and if not I suggest we leave it for now.

589. First, thank you for the compliments :). and to the point,

     Lonely, that's what the researchers claim, and I'm telling you they're assuming what's being asked for. I am aware of a similar claim on comparisons of Cytoxome sequences from different C mitsuiram. For example: the cytochrome c of the chimpanzee and that of the human differ only in one amino acid. A study by Hubert Yuki (an esteemed physicist who underwent a semi-conversion to biophysics somewhere in the 70s and his theoretical studies are often cited by evolutionists) showed that out of about 100^20 possible sequences for the above protein, about 93^10 are of cytochrome c. And hence the researchers claim, the chances of two similar sequences developing at the same time are zero. But it is a grave mistake on their part for several reasons. Which also disproves Dawkins' claim. Dawkins simply claims that if you go through each and every gene in a group of creatures, then you can chart the path of evolution. Which, as mentioned, is in many cases impossible, as I have already shown.

     Regarding the telepathy experiment. Assuming I had no other explanation, you would certainly think so. But it's not quite like the current case.

     "If there was intelligent planning, then the first tree was obviously wrong because the creatures did not evolve from each other and then there is no reason for the genetic differences to produce the original tree." - Give an example of two creatures in which the researchers predicted.

     Shmulik,

     The criteria for a scientific theory are not only the ability to be refuted but also the ability to prove. That is, if I can prove that there is a flying unicorn, such a claim would certainly be scientific. Do you agree with that?

     "You didn't answer me about the brake that prohibits bacteria from changing into something else" - the reason for this is that there are no gradual steps between a bacteria and a cat, let's say. This requires new proteins. The study I linked to earlier explains why. In short - each protein has a minimum length required for its minimum function. An average protein consists of 300 ha. Some evolutionists claim that about a third of the total volume is required for such a function. Which leaves us with jumps of approximately 100 ha for the development of a new function. Are these the leaps that evolutionary thinkers dreamed of?

     "Weakness of evolution is in no way a strengthening of any other theory" - unless there are only two options.

     ” Regarding finding a rabbit during the evolution period, I was hoping for a link that is not youtube but an article. Sorry to make life difficult but I don't have much to do with a lecture on the subject. Can you provide links to an article that can be read online?" - Yes, here are some examples:

     http://bibliotecapleyades.lege.net/ciencia/ciencia_forbiddenarcheology04.htm

     "Almost all systems in nature are like this - absolutely not true and even though I'm not a biologist and I happen to have biologists in the group respond, I don't see how you can prove it." - see above my words about minimal complexity.

590. Shugon,
     Again, it's not that I care what he believed, but it's important to you, so things should be clear: I don't understand what "it's clear" means. Who is it clear to? It's not just that it's not clear, it's even denied by Einstein in the two letters that the link published
     In his letter which is for sale on ebay and in the second letter he eliminates any connection to a mysterious force that moves things and I have nothing but to copy again his words which do not need interpretation. They speak for themselves

     For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them

     and-
     na March 24, 1954 letter, he is quoted as writing, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world as far as our science can reveal it

     I mean, if there is anything in me that can be called religious it is the admiration for the structure of the world (no mysterious force) as long as our science reveals it (again, no mysterious force, it's all in your head)

591. Shmulik, you have not reached the end of my opinion, refer to the response of
     Buddha said to me, after all, it is clear that Einstein aimed at force
     Mysterious that drives all cosmic processes, he is
     Of course I wasn't talking about a personal God and I didn't claim that.
     buddha,
     According to you, the force only acted on the cosmic structure and not
     On man, it is clear that Einstein as a physicist would not throw away
     his findings also on humans, but if he was a researcher
     the person would come to the conclusion that the processes in the human body
     No less complex and orderly than the cosmic processes he studied.
     In any case, there is only one ultimate power because otherwise the other power
     He was overcome and he was the one.

592. buddha,
     I really don't understand something about your approach.
     Suppose there really is such a thing as an 'illusion of the mind' (by the way, what is confusing what? If we are really robots, what kind of illusion is there? Who is it presented to?), how is this relevant to the decisions and choices we make?
     Values ​​really do not exist in reality! Have you ever seen a value? Have you heard a value? Did you smell it? Values ​​are what people choose to act for, or are programmed to act for. This does not detract from their importance as shapers of our lives.
     I perceive something (religion or the rule of justice in the world.... something and its opposite :)) as a value. Another person perceives something else as value. So what if these things don't really exist? Can we live in a society where no one has values? of course not. Moreover - no person can live his life without any effort or effort. There is no such thing. Hence every person has values ​​in his life (because that's how I defined the concept of 'value' as I recall). So what if it's an illusion? How can this affect our actions at all?

     The link you brought about the moral brain is interesting (and I think I've seen it before). I agree that it is very likely that morality/conscience originates in the brain, but that does not make morality an illusion. Morality has always been an abstract concept, not concrete. That doesn't make it any less necessary or relevant. So are value choices; We may be programmed to choose them, but that doesn't say anything about what we should do, or how we should act.
     I'm sorry, but I really can't understand what this attitude is really trying to say.

593. R.H.

     In my opinion, what you call "value" is an illusion of the mind. Values ​​do not exist in reality because we are all robots. This connects well with the discussion about evolution since one of the ways to discover and prove it is based on evolution.
     If researching the "truth" is a value for you, then maybe you should research the topic and then in my opinion you may unexpectedly discover that "values" don't really exist... which will make you realize that you went out to research something because of your programming. But don't take it too seriously…

     There is material about it online if you feel like reading. I did a Google search for the text "The Moral Mind" because it is the chapter dealing with the subject in Jonah Lehrer's book, "How We Decide", and I found several interesting links such as this link for example:

     http://cafe.themarker.com/post/170692

594. Shogun,
     I don't know what it matters, but because of you it matters, here it is again, from the letter, a year before his death, which effectively cancels any statement that other people waved in his name:
     "For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them," as translated from German by Joan Stambaugh

     In addition, I do not know where you got the quote you wrote, after all, Einstein did not know Hebrew (as far as I know). Here's another quote, two months later.

     In a March 24, 1954 letter, he is quoted as writing, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world as far as our science can reveal it.

     That is, if you can call me religious, then it is the unlimited admiration for the order of the world, as science can reveal it.

     And in addition, because the article talks about studying evolution (or not studying it in Israel) I say again that it is mandatory to teach evolution to Israeli students

595. Ethology,
     Very simply: my father claimed "I'm actually afraid of the sophisticates who will give the impression through their lies that religion is a logical thing." Let's make it simple - my father is not afraid of the lies themselves, but of what the sophisticated will do with the lies - make religion seem logical. If my father was indeed only afraid of the lies, then this struggle could really be defined as a struggle 'for the truth' - because my father does not tolerate lies and only wants the truth. But my father is not afraid of the lies themselves, but of their consequences and at this point he also introduces religion.
     I already started to write you a long comment about what a value is, and what a value struggle is and I deleted everything, because I realized that I was already deviating a little too much from the topic. The basic premise of my previous response was that the struggle between the atheists and the religious is a value struggle, and not just a struggle for 'scientific truth'. If it was a fight for the 'scientific truth' only, there would be no need to bring religion into the matter. I assume that this assumption is foreign to you since you define religion as a lie and not as a value, so there is still a struggle for the truth here, as far as you are concerned. In any case, my premise was different, so I came to the conclusion that there is a value struggle here. If you want, I will gladly expand on the matter.

596. As I understood what Einstein said, he meant an intelligent force that created everything including the big bang, physics, chemistry and evolution which is a product of chemistry and physics. It has nothing to do with an intelligent designer who planned life itself and it is irrelevant to atheism because it anyway denies the existence of God as he is described in all religions. The knowledge agreed upon by everyone including the creationists in the field of biology is enough to disprove the Tanach (have you ever seen a talking snake?).
     In my opinion, the origin of the struggle with evolution is completely different. The intelligent religious people will immediately argue that the Tanach should not be interpreted literally and that God is an all-embracing spiritual being, etc. As long as evolution remains a theory then there is no problem with it. As soon as people realize that they are robots that evolved from robotic bacteria, the road to understanding the structure of the brain and the simple fact that there is nothing "spiritual" in man is short.

597. Shlomi, Shmulik
     You sent the same link, only Shmulik sent the LINK to the site in English and Shlomi to the site in Hebrew,
     In any case, this was not the intention, I did not claim that Einstein was religious, but that he believed in a higher power / an intelligent planner.
     In the LINK you sent, he mainly talks about religion and the Bible, and that's not what I wanted.
     But I am referring to his quotes in the New York Times, which I specifically went looking for, below: "This deep conviction in the presence of a higher intelligent power, manifesting itself in an incomprehensible universe, is my concept of God..."

     By this I mean a higher intelligent power and of course not a personal God
     Beyond that, I argued that the atheist, especially Shmulik, fought ferociously against xianghua and they unrolled scrolls instead of summarizing the discussion for the convenience of the readers

598. Shogun,
     What a dark side, what Einstein, we started with it again. Not that I care what he thought about a creator, but you probably do, so read:
     http://news.yahoo.com/auction-einstein-god-letter-opens-anonymous-3-million-022049592.html

     R.H
     Am I just a tireless troublemaker?
     What I recognize in the discussion with xianghua is the possibility of understanding the argument of the supporters of intelligent design. What I don't understand is the logical fallacies that suddenly pop up with him and I get frustrated at how my simple points don't get through especially from someone like xianghua who seems to know the material. And so I will try again to clarify the bugs in his claims. I am not trying to undermine his religious belief but rather his attempt to strengthen his religious belief from science.

     xianghua, I came back to you
     After I pressed you a lot, you wrote the following sentence: "I didn't understand. Is your planner God or not? - Let's assume for the sake of simplification that it is. - This. This is where it starts and ends. God who is the intelligent designer is not and cannot be a scientific theory and this makes the theories of the intelligent designer unscientific. I can't understand how this simple point is not understood by you? There is no way to disprove God from here, especially since you quoted Popper, you have to admit that intelligent design is not a scientific theory and that is exactly what the court ruled and therefore it should not be taught in science classes.

     Since that's all I need, I'll keep the post relatively short and just briefly address a few points:
     1. Multiverse - read: https://www.hayadan.org.il/parallel-universes-130812/ . In addition, in all the lectures of Professor Lawrence Krauss (on youtube) he describes models in which an eternal multiverse exists (of course there is no proof of its existence)
     2. You didn't answer me about the brake that prohibits bacteria from changing into something else, but you just wrote "a good question". If you answered, please rewrite your answer and I would appreciate it not being in the form of a question. You are of course welcome to ask me later what you want, but it seems to me that an answer, which is not in the form of a question, would be the most clear. By the way, for the biologists in the group, has the change that xianghua is asking for never really been observed?
     3. A weakness of evolution is in no way a reinforcement of any other theory (certainly not of a scientific theory) and you who recruited Popper to your side should know this better than anyone. Every theory has to stand up to the test of refutation. Think of it like a horse race: one horse getting weaker doesn't speed up any other horses. God of course does not meet this test and here is another thing that God cannot do.
     4. Since the intelligent designer is God, it makes no sense to ask when he created everything, whether at one time or at other times. It could equally be argued that God created us all the second you read the post with the full memory of your life. There is no merit to your argument over this one.
     5. Regarding finding a rabbit during the evolution period, I was hoping for a link that is not youtube but an article. Sorry to make life difficult but I don't have much to do with a lecture on the subject. Can you provide links to the article that can be read online?
     5. Irreducible Complexity has never been observed in the world of the modern world - absolutely not. Almost all systems in nature are like that - absolutely not true and even though I'm not a biologist and I happen to have biologists in the group commenting, I don't see how you can prove it. Here again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

     "Professor Behe ​​admitted in "Reply to My Critics" that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address "the task facing natural selection." and that "Professor Behe ​​wrote that he hoped to "repair this defect in future work..." (Page 73)
     "As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by "irreducible complexity" renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution. (3:40 (Miller)). In fact, the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means.” (Page 74)
     "By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe ​​attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument. Notably, the NAS has rejected Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity..." (Page 75)
     "As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID [Intelligent Design], by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems. (2:15-16 (Miller)). Importantly, however, the fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make the argument for ID testable. (2:15 (Miller); 5:39 (Pennock)). Professor Behe ​​has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe's assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.” (Page 76)
     "...on cross-examination, Professor Behe ​​was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." (23:19 (Behe)).” (Page 78)
     "We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design. (2:15, 2:35-40 (Miller); 28:63-66 (Fuller)). We will now consider the purportedly "positive argument" for design encompassed in the phrase used numerous times by Professors Behe ​​and Minnich throughout their expert testimony, which is the "purposeful arrangement of parts." Professor Behe ​​summarized the argument as follows: We infer design when we see parts that appear to be arranged for a purpose. The strength of the inference is quantitative; the more parts that are arranged, the more intricately they interact, the stronger is our confidence in design. The appearance of design in aspects of biology is overwhelming. Since nothing other than an intelligent cause has been demonstrated to be able to yield such a strong appearance of design, Darwinian claims notwithstanding, the conclusion that the design seen in life is real design is rationally justified. (18:90-91, 18:109-10 (Behe); 37:50 (Minnich)). As previously indicated, this argument is merely a restatement of the Reverend William Paley's argument applied at the cell level. Minnich, Behe, and Paley reach the same conclusion, that complex organisms must have been designed using the same reasoning, except that Professors Behe ​​and Minnich refuse to identify the designer, whereas Paley inferred from the presence of design that it was God. (1:6-7 (Miller); 38:44, 57 (Minnich)). Expert testimony revealed that this inductive argument is not scientific and as admitted by Professor Behe, can never be ruled out. (2:40 (Miller); 22:101 (Behe); 3:99

     I was hoping to make it short, and I failed. Suri

599. R.H.,
     Your logic is foreign to me. How do my father's words demonstrate anything from what you wrote?

600. Avi,
     Your words nicely demonstrated my words above: the struggle you are waging here, and on the site in general, is not a struggle for the 'truth' but a value struggle disguised as a struggle for the 'truth'. And there is no trace of criticism here, really, this is simply the reality and maybe it's time to admit it. In any case, the word "disguise" does not come to mean that you are soaking, of course, but comes to mean that the value struggle here is indeed present, but hidden. By the way, there is nothing to be ashamed of in my opinion.
     It is interesting that you thank Rish Gali for this fear, because there will be many who will step on him as the finder of great loot.
     In any case, I think you know very well that the sophisticated break your stigma on the religious, and they are actually much more difficult to deal with. Sophisticated lies are indeed lies, but they are sophisticated aren't they?

     Buddha!
     You didn't really answer the most important question for me, but rather dismissed it, as part of the concept you raised.
     If so, then at least give a guess to the answer I would give. The question, to remind you, is "Why do we need to find some kind of 'truth' like this?" Hint: the answer can be a quote.

601. buddha,
     First, I wasn't hurt. I found it appropriate to address things because it seemed as if what I said earlier about the ego stemmed from a private emotion of mine, and not hers - what I said stems from my view that a person must fight against the ego and thus also against corruption (it is possible that it also stems from a private emotion, etc.... and there is no end to the discussion, so leave).

     Regarding determinism - you may very well be right. We may not be thinking beings with free will, but sophisticated robots. This question is a philosophical question that in my eyes is unsolvable, even if in your eyes it is. The question is what does this mean about us as humans? Does this require us to act in any way? Of course not.
     Nothing can be said about this determinism and therefore, if you'll excuse me, it's terribly boring. It is possible and very conceivable that you did not choose to enter Idan and manage ongoing threads with me and xianghua, but rather that a chain of chemical reactions in your brain caused this. The problem is that you can't say that's why you don't do anything, since you joined Iden and managed threads - that's the "lazy paradox", and I guess you already know these things.

     What I don't understand is the link you make between this determinism and the ego. You wrote - "Well there's no point in fighting him and you should try to watch him only without letting him run a person's life." What is meant by "watching it"? I agree that a person should not act according to his ego - according to the dictates dictated by society external to him, but act from within himself, to be authentic. This is a very significant element in my personal life as well (let's leave for a moment the question of what these dictates are and is it even possible to exist completely without them). I also agree that one should not interfere with another person's ego. The problem is what I said above - the ego tends to lead to corruption and human suffering, etc. Now, I am not an expert on Buddhism, but it seems to me that Buddhism also strives to remove human suffering from the world, even if in a slightly different way. I don't trust other people who won't act according to their ego, and I fear corruption. That's why I consider it my duty to fight them, as long as they really behave according to him and reach a state of corruption. Forgive me if I'm misrepresenting what you're saying, I'm just trying to get to the root of it.

     Regarding your last paragraph - it seems to me that we disagree on the definition of the term 'value'. I define the concept of value as something for which I am willing to sacrifice something, to perform certain actions. In other words, I strive to fulfill the value I advocate, in my life. It seems to me that you already understood my intention - you cannot be worthless if you make any effort. Hence, each person has a certain value in his life, for which he makes a certain effort - whether it is tikkun olam, the integrity of the family, or the avoidance of other values ​​(a paradoxical value in itself).
     Here I really have a hard time with your words - does the fact that you perceive yourself as a robot prevent you from performing certain actions, such as debating the study of evolution in science? Of course not (again, the "lazy paradox"...)
     Therefore I fail to understand what is the difference between me and you on this point; I define myself as working to eradicate corruption in the world, and you claim that you don't define yourself. The problem is that more than your weight defines yourself, your actions define you and the value you fight for. Therefore, the very fact that you perform actions at all, necessarily defines you as having certain values. That is, if you argue scientifically about the study of evolution, it is very possible that you are doing it because of the sequence of chemical reactions in your brain, but the very argument defines you as someone for whom the study of evolution is important.
     Apart from that and in light of your responses here, it is evident that you are not really indifferent to the corruption that exists in the world. If you argue about the study of evolution, then this action defines you as someone who wants to study evolution, even if this desire is not free but forced upon you.
     In other words, which I think you will also agree with: one has to accept the existence of the ego on the one hand and not fight it, and on the other hand it is impossible to ignore it.

     By the way, a question I have to ask: in one of the responses you claimed that you do not believe in Buddhism or any other religion. That's why I have a hard time understanding why you use ideas borrowed from him. That is, you may be taking certain ideas from him that you like or make sense to you. I just can't always figure out how it relates to the subject.

602. R.H.

     In my opinion -

     Regarding the "truth" we do not "need" to discover the truth. We are robots in a deterministic environment and therefore we write comments in a thread. If you will, we respond to internal stimuli that make us do this. Even when we see a movie in the cinema, we sometimes have the urge to shout and warn the hero not to start the car that's full because we guess it will explode...

     Regarding the "ego", I'm sorry if you were hurt and that was not my intention at all. When I say "ego" I mean "ego" in the Buddhist sense. Ego is a perception of all the feedbacks that a person receives from the environment and through them creates his false self and identifies with it. Ego is not a good or bad thing and all people have an ego of exactly the same size. According to the Buddhist view, a person should not bother at all about the ego of others and about his own ego - well, there is no point in fighting it and you should try to observe it only without letting it rule a person's life.

     What I actually meant to tell you I will write again in other, clearer words:
     You are a decent person with values ​​and therefore you strive to improve society on a certain level. I, on the other hand, try very hard to be value-free and have no conscious interest in fixing anything in the world. I don't define myself as a "decent" person but as a robot, so I see things differently than you. It really doesn't matter.

603. I'm actually afraid of the sophisticates who will make an impression with their lies that religion is a logical thing.

604. Avi,
     If all the mahbetim are like xianghua, then even they are better than bar mitzvah boys who bring out pearls like:

     "You think that God contradicts science, and that there would be a huge explosion and the world was created with animals and plants is logical? If you give me good proof of this then I will think 2 things in one either that there really is no God, 2 or that it really happened but God created this explosion And God arranged everything!!!
     Do you really believe that man came from monkeys??? If so, then where is the tail?"*

     Would it kill you to give some appreciation? It's hard with you!

     *Credit to “LONLY”, FXP Atheism Forum

605. xianghua,

     34 million possibilities soon this is the number of possibilities to arrange 11 objects in a tree. What is unclear here?

     You do not respond at all to the matter regarding the subject. In one of the previous comments I described a very simple puzzle. If you could please post the answer here (which you think is correct) we can advance the discussion.

     I will explain again briefly. If the scientists built an approximate tree many years before the genetic test and part of the reasoning for building the tree was evidence in the different organisms of the development of one organism from another, etc. and then at a later date several independent genetic tests of different genes all resulted in the same tree, this greatly strengthens the initial claim that was Evolution and that it happened as a result of "mistakes" in gene duplication.
     If there was an intelligent design then the first tree was obviously wrong because the creatures did not evolve from each other and then there is no reason for the genetics to produce the original tree. Since, in fact, the whole idea of ​​the tree is absurd, there is also no reason for the trees built from several different gardens to be identical. This both greatly strengthens the theory of evolution and also greatly weakens (to say the least) the idea of ​​intelligent design.
     The only way that such evidence could exist in the case of intelligent design is if the designer wanted to create the false impression that there was evolution and then he would have also produced the anatomical clues to a certain development between the organisms and also planted the evidence in each garden separately so that all the trees built from the gardens would statistically be identical to the original tree . That's what Dawkins says in the video you posted.

606. Shugon
     I have not been able to understand until today: science sees consciousness as being related to the neuronal function of the brain. In any case, the only consciousness we know, arises from the human mind or otherwise. What is God actually? Is for us an extrapolation of consciousness that we know to be infinite only without a mind? Consciousness that comes from..what? Do we even have the tools to talk about 'divine consciousness', when as far as I know we don't fully understand what consciousness is? (If Einstein was alive, and I had the opportunity...)

607. Shogun, fooling around with Einstein again, you'll probably never learn. https://www.hayadan.org.il/askeinstein-010900/
     Xingua's words are simply a jumble of nonsense that he copies and pastes from the websites of converts, the fact that they are repeated a million times does not make them true.

     The existence of an intelligent designer contradicts everything we know in science for the last 150 years. Evolution has gone through all the hundreds of millions of experiments that tested it, so there is no fear of believing, there is simply no need to invent something that does not exist. You are the one who is afraid to face the truth.

608. Hey Shogun,
     I think you did not correctly interpret the matter of "fear" of the possibility of the Creator's existence. The atheist argument is that there is no need for an intelligent designer to explain the processes we see in nature, such as evolution. And since it is not needed, the simpler explanation can be satisfied (don't get confused, the explanation that does not require the existence of supernatural beings is the simpler one). It's called Occam's Razor and it's a common rule of thumb when looking for an explanation for phenomena.
     Think you're trying to figure out how a magician cuts his assistant in half and then puts her back whole. It can be explained by supernatural means, but once you understand the method used by the magician, it would be improbable to claim that it might have been done in a supernatural way after all. It is quite clear that the simple, natural explanation is the one chosen from the two.
     I suggest you also read about this is what Einstein really thought about God and not just go after a quote or two taken out of context. Not that it matters what a single person thought, but trust me, you'll be surprised:
     http://news.walla.co.il/?w=/15/2572081

609. Hi, I'm new here...
     But I was also impressed by his words xianghua and at the same time I was permeated by the fear of atheists of the possibility of the existence of a creator, as if it instantly turns them into idiots..
     Will admitting the existence of an intelligent planner/creator from their worldview oblige the other side to go black?
     It probably didn't catch on with Einstein..

610. xianghua,
     I must say I was impressed, both by you and by the commotion you created.
     Of all the sides of the intelligent planning approach that I have come across, it seems to me that you are without a doubt the decisive one among them. The vast majority of them would not bother to refer their opponents to articles and studies (also questionable to some extent...). Most of them would dismiss the matter with a sentence like: "Look at the flower." What do you think, that he was created just like that? What are you fucked up??"
     But with you it's clear that it's different. It is evident that since you are intelligent, you feel the need to back up your position with studies and findings. So even if these findings do not convince me, I find it appropriate to appreciate you for bringing them.

     Apart from that, another question: if you define your position as supporting the intelligent planning approach, what do you mean? Do you accept evolution as a fait accompli, but conclude from it that there is an invisible hand directing our development? Or do you not accept the whole of evolution as a fait accompli?
     Regarding the article Deskinan - do you agree that it is appropriate to teach evolution in schools (in an increased manner)? Do you think there is a lesson to be learned from the intelligent planning approach?

     And in general, this whole intense discussion made me wonder: what is so outrageous about the intelligent planning approach that caused Shmolik to write a longer response than all my responses (which is undoubtedly an impressive record...)? Why do atheists find it appropriate to fight so passionately for their position? I am convinced that there is more to this than the attempt to teach the intelligent planning approach (well I'm tired of it - from now on 'Takat'XNUMX') in schools. And no, that's not the truth, do yourself a favor. If your struggle was a pure struggle to be honest, something here should be much simpler. There is some kind of value struggle here that is disguised as a struggle 'for the truth', from the point of view of both sides. I am not claiming that there are no wrong and right here - there is, any person who puts aside apologetics for a moment and looks at the matter with a little common sense will understand that evolution does not require recognizing any scriptures. But the motives of this struggle are not only the 'truth', but also certain values ​​with which I do not identify. That's why I can't identify with the atheists, sorry.
     It seems to me that this is nicely reflected in the fact that you (you commenters) repeatedly ask xianghua about his religious views. It's really confusing! The consequences that arise from his religious position and concern your struggle with him for 'the truth', they are what you are struggling for! That is, his religious position should not be relevant to you, as those who struggle for the truth, when you argue with him about the intelligent design. Because what interests you, as 'warriors of the truth' (without sarcasm), is his perception regarding evolution. Nevertheless, you come back and ask him whether he is religious or traditional, and this indicates about a thousand times that there is a value struggle here.

     One last thing, Buddha (and sorry for the late reply),
     You said that the 'truth' we have is the scientific convention as of this moment, and it is possible that in the future it will change. Accurate, in my opinion. But (caution, a demagogic and annoying question on the way) why do we need to find some kind of 'truth' like this?
     I am very interested to hear your answer to this question, precisely because I am not sure that you will give it the same great answer that has motivated science and promoted it in the past hundreds of years, and before them.

     Something else, with your permission: you wrote "Besides, it seems to me that you are somewhat troubled by issues such as ego, respect and the pursuit of greed. It's natural considering the background you come from and warms the heart to read." First of all, no background and no shoes.
     I am bothered by ego because ego leads to corruption! In all the institutions that exist and have ever existed, people with an overdeveloped ego, which naturally leads to corruption, ruled and rule. This corruption is the mother of all sins, and is responsible for most of the suffering of most people on earth (not only the religious establishment, but also and especially the political establishment, with its various branches). That's why I consider it my duty, as a simple person, to oppose corruption and also oppose the ego that gives birth to it. This is an obligation that every decent person should see before his eyes, whether he supports the value or idea that the establishment promotes, or whether he rejects them. Of course it's an endless struggle and blah blah blah, too much existentialism... let's stop it here.
     What I am saying is that ego disgusts me, if only because of the fact that it will cause human suffering. It has nothing to do with the background I come from, which I can't find any way to define as full of ego (what's more, you don't know him at all, of course). On the contrary, in my eyes he was and still is very low in ego.

611. buddha,

     Let's simplify things a bit. I don't understand your claim regarding 34 million possibilities and how exactly they reached the above conclusion. If you can expand I can relate.

     " How should I not know that man is closer to a rat than he is to a dog? Or is the rat closer to the horse than the kangaroo? (It is indeed so). This proves that the paleontological considerations were essential in the creation of the initial tree even before the genetic test." - And who told you that there is a correlation between paleontology and phylogeny? Again, give a specific example in nature so I can relate. What exactly about the hemoglobin sequence comparisons you gave is "no chance"?

     My faith is not really relevant right now. And I wouldn't define myself as religious anyway.

     Shmulik,

     " I did not understand. Is your planner God or not? - Let's assume for the sake of simplification that it is.

     "You didn't explain what the natural brake is that prevents a bacterium from eventually turning into something else." - I explained several times and my claim has yet to be answered. And precisely the above question is the most critical of almost all of them. The argument of evolution is that a complex system can evolve gradually given the pressure of natural selection + a mechanism for accumulating changes. That is, according to evolutionary logic, it is possible to get from a car to an airplane gradually, given that both reproduce. Do you disagree with that? explain why.

     "By the way, as the court also determined on the issue of irreducible complexity, your claim that we will not observe the transition you wish to see is at best the weakest point of evolution and in no way a reinforcement for the intelligent planner." - Of course it is. Given that we have 2 options: gradual or all at once, any weakening of a certain option will be the strengthening of the other.

     "So because the institute's scientists proposed this false refutation test, that makes it scientific?" - what exactly is false here? If they proposed a test to disprove the theory, what do you want from them? Please stand up and refute their claim and shut them up. By the way, according to the criterion that the proposal of creationism is more scientific than intelligent design. Because according to creationism life was created as is.

     "A. Give links to the examples of "the rabbit in the age of the dinosaurs" because a few examples are enough to establish the problem. "- Here are some examples from the author of the book himself, which of course were ignored by the evolutionary side:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgmwEkakouE

     "In any case, these examples will perhaps weaken natural selection but not evolution." - Did you see what happened here? Now evolution has no problem with misplaced fossils either. That is, no finding will disprove it. So how do you think scientifically?

     "I still don't understand the question of the transformers but I already answered you that even given inanimate objects, in the multiverse (if it exists) sometime and somewhere a car will turn into a plane because there is no law of nature that prevents it and therefore given enough time, it will happen." - So now you believe that a car will turn To the plane even without a planner? And is the multiverse theory at all scientific? As we know, there is no evidence for those parallel universes.

     "If they were all created at the same time, as you also hypothesized, are you actually claiming that in such a case, man, the dinosaur and the first unicellular creature were created at the same time? Was there a person about a billion years ago?" - I really don't know. In my opinion, unequivocal confirmation is needed. And in my estimation there is none today. But I won't go into that because it might require a whole thread.

     "Irreducible Complexity has never been observed in the world" - absolutely not. Almost all systems in nature are like this.

     Ethology,

     "In a very simplistic way, the researchers found within areas that maintain a lot of similarity between different species areas called HAR where the rate of change was faster than the background in which they were found *in the human lineage*. That is, they discovered evidence that the HAR regions did undergo *accelerated* evolution in the human lineage and the evidence is not the tree, but the context in which the HARs were found: genetically conserved regions. "- Well? So first they examine and find that there is a section here that has undergone acceleration, and then they claim that there was acceleration here. What exactly are we predicting here?

     "This is not a good example of how statistical analysis of a genome is affected by "different creatures have different population sizes, different mutation rates, different generational lifespans, and of course also different natural selection pressures". I am open to the possibility that there is an influence "- as mentioned, this can be justified on the grounds that environmental pressures caused an acceleration in the level of intelligence.

     "You eliminated the possibility that there was horizontal gene transfer in the tunics in Synaven's study by saying that "the researcher himself talks about the fact that there is no transfer in the aforementioned fortifications". Where did he say that? I didn't come across it either in his research. Please quote him or retract this statement." - You are right. This was a statement by the author of the article I linked to (it doesn't really matter because in those creatures there is no gene transfer anyway). The following quotes should suffice:

     http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/a_primer_on_the_tree_of_life_p_1020151.html

     But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Baptiste

     Even among higher organisms, “[t]he problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories,” leading Syvanen to say, regarding the relationships of these higher groups, “We've just annihilated the tree of life.” This directly contradicts Hillis' claim that there is "overwhelming agreement correspondence as you go from protein to protein, DNA sequence to DNA sequence."

     "Phylogenetic incongruities [conflicts] can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves

     "Found results you won't like [3]. By comparing the genomes of different species she located more than 7000 insertions of mobile elements and found that they show patterns consistent with neutral, non-adaptive evolution. This is evidence of a lack of function on a genomic scale. "- Some things:

     A) 7000 is an extremely negligible number compared to the size of the genome.
     b) Patterns of a neutral molecular clock are not proof that the above segments are indeed neutral. It is a fact that there are protein sequences that are very different from each other despite their identical function.

     ” A strange conclusion, to say the least. The fact that a minority of biologists believe in God does not mean that they agree with the "theory of "intelligent design" - true. I did not claim otherwise. I simply claimed that they are not deceiving. And this is significant because evolution at the principle level offers a natural explanation.

     "- You did not give the studies that contradict the claim that evolution creates things easily by using the existing raw materials."- Take one:

     http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1

     It should be noted that this is a peer-reviewed article.

     – You have not given any article or book by Jonathan Wells. Instead you gave an article in "Yaden" about the ENCODE project which I have already read and we both discussed the implications of its findings. To remind you, you referred me to Wells to substantiate the claim that the "theory" of intelligent design somehow contributed to science. You must substantiate it or withdraw the claim." - Wells already suggested at the time that many of the garbage segments are not garbage at all. Although this is not a sensational discovery. But the news here is that it is probably the majority of the genome, and maybe even the whole.

     As for the other claims, I think it's better not to go into them, because I can start a whole thread on each of them.

     "To sum up the discussion so far, you are confusing concepts (mutation rate and nucleotide substitution rate)" - absolutely not. By the way, I assume you are aware of Kimura's neutralist theory of evolution.

612. Listen, my answer followed a question I presented to him and his answer was "good question, can a car turn into an airplane". I admit that I don't understand his analogy between the possibility of bacteria/single cells changing over time and a car that will turn into an airplane (after all, these are inanimate objects), so I did my best to answer while generalizing the principle called: Totalitarian principle
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarian_principle

     In a multiverse with its infinity, universes and infinity of stars and time, is it possible to prove that a plane will not turn into a car?
     In any case, my answer, as fanciful as it may be (or as wrong as it may be) says nothing about bacteria or single cells that can change over time and generations. There is no law of nature, no law of conservation and no prohibition that we know of that prevents such a change.

613. "5. I still don't understand the question of the transformers but I already answered you that even given inanimate objects, in the multiverse (if it exists) sometime and somewhere a car will turn into a plane because there is no law of nature that prevents it and therefore given enough time, it will happen."

     Shmulik, on the Transformers side (I haven't seen it unfortunately..) I have to say that I can't understand how you came to this strange conclusion..

614. xianghua,
     (Forgiveness is with you)
     1.5 Regarding the assessment that the planner created everything at different times - does it mean that for every fossil we found, at the species level, the Creator appeared and waved a wand and created, according to the appropriate dating, the relevant species? I have no idea how often new creatures are created but are you saying that every time one is created, the planner's wand has been waved? Is this the claim?
     If they were all created at the same time, as you also hypothesized, are you actually claiming that in such a case, man, the dinosaur and the first single cell were created at the same time? Was there a person about a billion years ago?

     Additionally, I don't understand why our designer doesn't allow one species to evolve from another. I understand that this is your claim about the institute, but once they released the intelligent planner into the world, I am also allowed to use it and have no ownership of its abilities, such as its thoughts or motives, and I claim that there is no proof that it created such a brake and I do not understand what scares you about this possibility.

615. xianghua,
     You wrote about HAR1, as an example of the effect on statistical analysis of genomes: "The example of har1. There is a greater difference between a chimpanzee and a human than a chicken. The researchers justify this by claiming that there was a sharp increase in intelligence. The problem is that this is an ad hoc explanation. That is, an explanation in retrospect."
     And you also wrote about HAR1: "It was "observed" only in retrospect. That is, after it has been tested and compared to other sequences. That is, first the arrow is shot, and then the target is marked."

     First, you made a salad out of this research. The investigators didn't want anything and they didn't shoot an arrow and then mark the target. From the introduction of the study [1]:
     "The hallmark of evolutionary shift of function is sudden change in a region of the genome that previously has been highly conserved owing to negative selection. […] Here we scan these ancestrally conserved genomic regions to find those that show a significantly accelerated rate of substitution in the human lineage since divergence from our common ancestor with the chimpanzee. Many of the human accelerated regions (HARs) found in this scan are associated with genes known to be involved in transcriptional regulation and neurodevelopment. HAR1, the most dramatically changed element, is part of a novel RNA gene expressed during human cortical development.”
     There is no ad hoc explanation here. In a very simplistic way, the researchers found within areas that maintain a lot of similarity between different species areas called HAR where the rate of change was faster than the background in which they were found *in the human lineage*. That is, they discovered evidence that the HAR regions did undergo *accelerated* evolution in the human lineage and the evidence is not the tree, but the context in which the HARs were found: genetically conserved regions. Only then did they find a connection between HARs and between transcriptional control and brain development. Have you even read this study?

     Second, HAR1 is located in an evolutionarily conserved region in the genome, and is considered to be a region where the rate of nucleotide exchange was accelerated during its evolution. A large nucleotide exchange rate says *nothing* about the mutation rate in HAR1. The rate of nucleotide substitution in HAR1 during its evolution and the rate of mutation in this gene are two completely different things and one does not imply anything about the other. This is not a good example of how statistical analysis of a genome is affected by "different creatures have different population sizes, different mutation rates, different generational lifespans, and of course also different natural selection pressures". I'm open to the possibility that there is an effect (and even if there is, you'd have to show it's negative, otherwise it's unclear why you mentioned it originally), but you haven't confirmed it so far.

     You eliminated the possibility that there was horizontal gene transfer in the tunics in Synaven's study by saying that "the researcher himself talks about the fact that there is no transfer in the aforementioned fortifications". Where did he say that? I didn't come across it either in his research. Please quote him or retract that statement.

     Regarding your words about junk DNA: "Not accurate. The researchers only looked at certain types of cells. They didn't test them all. Which brings them to the following impressive conclusion..." This is not a conclusion, but a reasonable speculation and nothing more, and is even presented as such. If I have time in the coming week, I might write a post explaining my problem with the ENCODE folks' conclusions. Until then, take the trouble to qualify your messages accordingly and not inflate speculations into conclusions.

     "I have something new for you. It turns out that retroviruses and transposons also have a function." You actually have nothing new for me. I went to the research on which the article you gave [2] is based. He's talking about one subset of a virally compressed subset of DNA and has found any evidence for its function. You jump too high and generalize from that. The only genomic analysis (of a whole genome) that I know of of mobile genetic elements (viral DNA, transposons, etc.) found results that you will not like [3]. By comparing the genomes of different species she located more than 7000 insertions of mobile elements and found that they show patterns consistent with neutral, non-adaptive evolution. This is evidence of a lack of function on a genomic scale. In conclusion, you still have to explain the existence of these mobile elements in the genome from the perspective of the "theory" of intelligent design.

     "And he claims that only a minority of biologists do not believe in God, that is, in a planner. Which leaves us with an overwhelming majority that neither denies its existence nor supports its existence. Despite the theory of evolution". A strange conclusion, to say the least. The fact that a minority of biologists believe in God does not mean that they agree with the "theory" of intelligent design or even with any element of it. Theistic evolution? An impersonal god? Is evolution a science for atheists only? The number of options that do not include the "theory" of intelligent planning is large. This survey provides no evidence for the claim you make from it.

     Things you didn't answer:
     - You did not give the studies that contradict the claim that evolution creates things easily by using the existing raw materials.
     – You have not given any article or book by Jonathan Wells. Instead you gave an article in "Yaden" about the ENCODE project which I have already read and we both discussed the implications of its findings. To remind you, you referred me to Wells to substantiate the claim that the "theory" of intelligent design somehow contributed to science. You must substantiate this or withdraw the claim.
     - You didn't clarify how what you said before contradicts my words about the appendix and you didn't explain what you didn't understand about homology.

     To summarize the discussion so far, you're confusing concepts (mutation rate and nucleotide substitution rate), you're citing sources that don't say what you want ([2]; the Washington Post poll), you're inflating your sources (the Birney quote you gave) and you're not showing that you understood the studies related to the subject you are discussing (the description you gave of the study [1]). I don't have free time in the next few days. Have fun here with the rest of the guys in the meantime. I will try to come back later.

     [1] Pollard, KS, Salama, SR, Lambert, N., Lambot, M.-A., Coppens, S., Pedersen, JS, Katzman, S., et al. (2006). An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans. Nature, 443(7108), 167–172.
     [2] IK, J., & F., MJ (2002). A Biologically Active Family of Human Endogenous Retroviruses Evolved from an Ancient Inactive Lineage. Genome Letters.
     [3] Stewart, C., Kural, D., Strömberg, MP, Walker, JA, Konkel, MK, Stütz, AM, Urban, AE, et al. (2011). A Comprehensive Map of Mobile Element Insertion Polymorphisms in Humans. PLoS Genet, 7(8), e1002236.

616. xianghua,
     It makes sense to answer that question you are asked. What you think you have already answered is not necessarily agreed with me and ignoring it is impolite. If I'm overlooking something, please let me know. Also, I don't understand where you got the impression that evidence doesn't matter to me. They are absolutely important and absolutely support the claim that natural selection exists and certainly that evolution exists. As mentioned, this is a fact and not a theory. things evolve. There is no way to deny it.

     1. I didn't understand. Is your planner God or not? If not, how was your problem solved? Your problem in that case is only made worse because now, if God didn't create the designer, evolution has to work much, much harder.
     The assumption is that except for God, who gets a get out of jail card and except for certain models of the multiverse, everything had a beginning. If the designer is not God, he necessarily had a beginning and a creator. When I write that the planner is not God, I mean that in addition the planner is altogether another production that lives its life while being subject to the laws of physics, something that God is exempt from. If you think otherwise and still claim that the designer is not God, please tell me.
     In my opinion, you must have a completely clear answer to the topic since you seem to have thought about it in depth.

     By the way, let there be no doubt for a moment, for the people of the Discovery Institute, God is the planner. This is completely clear and the court took pains to make it clear in its ruling. The people of the institute do not have an intelligent planner and in addition there is no God. William Craig, who published 4 or 5 articles there, is a believing Christian and is an example of one of the academics who work there. So as mentioned, with the people of the Institute there is only God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Do you accept this claim about the people of the Discovery Institute?
     If so, please clearly define who the planner is, God or not.

     2. You didn't explain what the natural brake is that prevents a bacterium from eventually turning into something else. Is a "good question" a good enough answer for you? Evolution offers an explanation that is completely supported by evidence. I'm not an Ablotzion, but if one of them showed you that such a transition would be observed, would it change your worldview? What does it matter that the transition you described was not observed? It seems as if you have created a new line of defense for yourself, after all previous lines of defense have collapsed, since before the experiment you would certainly have said that we will never see a transition from unicellular to multicellular and use such an argument to reinforce a different worldview. Still, a feature that was not present in the first generation of unicellular evolved when yeast became multicellular. By the way, have you checked all the yeast genes that were created after all those generations? By the way, as the court also ruled on the issue of irreducible complexity, your claim that the transition you want to see will not be observed is at best the weak point of evolution and in no way a reinforcement for the intelligent planner.

     3. Your next argument is ad vercondiam - an appeal to authority and this automatically eliminates your argument. Here is what you wrote:
     "This will not disprove the theory of intelligent planning because it can always be argued that, at the base, there is an intelligent planner." - It is true that one can argue. The planning scientists recognize this and therefore proposed the above-mentioned rebuttal test. Hence it is scientific. By the way, the above refutation test is also compatible with the theory of evolution. And hence, if you accept it, both are scientific.

     So because the institute scientists proposed this false disproof test that makes it scientific? What is it here, are they God? It just proves that they are charlatans and I am ashamed for them. I copy my challenge again
     You wrote about my requirement to demonstrate the ability to refute intelligent design: "Present a scenario for the development of a complex system, thereby disproving the central claim in intelligent design."
     This will not disprove the theory of intelligent planning because it can always be argued that at the base, there is an intelligent planner and there is no way to disprove this. That's exactly the problem and that's exactly the reason why the court threw them off all the stairs. My challenge still stands: you must show how the Intelligent Designer theory can be contradicted. Our contention is that evolution, which offers just such an explanation, renders the need for God redundant but by no means disproves it. Nothing disproves God and that is why it is not scientific.

     4. Do a favor: in the following two topics try to provide the links instead of sending me to the book (it's very difficult to get a book these days without going broke).
     A. Give links to the examples of "the rabbit in the age of the dinosaurs" because a few examples are enough to establish the problem. In any case, these examples will perhaps weaken natural selection but not evolution. As mentioned, the fact that things change is a fact. The explanation for the fact may be weakened but not the fact.
     B. Please tell me what the people of the institute claim and don't send me to the general website. Tell me or provide specific links. I have read and reviewed and they are not opposed to science, for the reasons I detailed before, but to the mechanisms behind the facts that science has revealed, but you are the authority on the subject, so please, provide something more specific. Link to specific claims and not to ask me to read on the site. Who has time to do research when someone has already done such research.

     5. I still don't understand the question of the transformers but I already answered you that even given inanimate objects, in the multiverse (if it exists) sometime and somewhere a car will turn into a plane because there is no law of nature that prevents it and therefore given enough time, it will happen.

     6. This does mean something, it means that given a lack of information, you will believe the scientific establishment because you know that the people of the institute are charlatans (and specifically are waiting for the rapture and the end of the world, as every Christian waits and hopes will happen) and in any case, there is a dichotomy with you that does not exist with me And in the critical issues you will return to the warm bosom of the "good old" science and in the other issues that - "what does it matter what we write", you allow yourself to take a ride on arguments that do not hold water that they are drugs. You recognize this and therefore you choose to take the medicine of science and not of the Institute. I sleep well at night (until the kids wake me up)

     In conclusion,
     An intelligent designer who is God is not a scientific theory, the refutation test of the institute's people is a scandal and an intelligent designer who is not God in general takes the problem one step back and does not answer anything.
     Irreducible Complexity has never been observed in the living world and in their expert opinion, he was confused about the issue and admitted that he was wrong.
     The institute lied that it claimed there was a sharp disagreement about evolution when there was no sharp disagreement. By the way, you asked why it matters, I don't know, but it made a difference to the people of the institute who tried to create a false representation of a sharp controversy in order to instill their non-science, as established and as I showed, into the schools and this is not the behavior of an innocent institute to which the truth is supposed to be a candle.
     There is no brake and barrier to your changes, there is nothing that blocks bacteria given enough time and environmental pressures to change and at most you are in response to presenting an incomprehensible question to which I have already answered.
     My challenge still stands - suggest a way to disprove intelligent design
     Post here some links about the rabbit and the dinosaurs. Let's let our little community test these claims. Who knows, maybe you're right.
     Please tell here what exactly they claim, who is the planner (God or not) when did the planner intervene, at what stage, and do they and you accept the claim that the universe was created about 13.7 billion years ago

     cheers

617. xianghua,

     Your last answer definitely made me think again about the meaning of a fanny experiment. I must point out that you seem to be well versed in the subject matter. If you have some kind of religious agenda behind your reasoning, that's fine by me.

     Well, I'm not an evolution expert (actually I'm a layman in the field) and indeed at first your answer seems to be legitimate on a certain level:

     "As I thought. What they do is simply predict a similar genome by phenotypic similarity. You don't need to be an expert for that. It is clear that a rat's genome, for example, will be closer to a mouse's than to a bird's. Do you need statistical analysis for this? In addition, the research I provided shows that this is not always the case. For example: a Tasmanian wolf is much more like a wolfhound than a miniature poodle. Although from a phylogenetic point of view it is located further down the scale."

     According to you, if the creatures were created by an intelligent designer, he used similar genes to create similar creatures. Therefore if we build a tree of the genes we will also get the similarity tree between the phenotypes.

     Well, after a short check I found several problems with your answer:

     1. The original tree that the researchers built (both in Fani's experiment and in more comprehensive similar experiments that were done later) was not only based on similarity between phenotypes but also on hypotheses regarding the developmental path of the different species (ie paleontological considerations). If the creatures were created by an intelligent planner, the paleontological considerations in the construction of the first tree would have had no meaning. Why did the DNA create the first tree then? Remind you the first tree is the correct answer out of 34 million possibilities? If a layman like me, for example, tries to create the tree by himself based on his knowledge of the animal world, there is no chance that I will reach the right tree... how should I not know that man is closer to a rat than he is closer to a dog? Or is the rat closer to the horse than the kangaroo? (It is indeed so). This proves that the paleontological considerations were essential in the creation of the initial tree even before the genetic test.

     2. The researchers built 5 different trees. Each tree was based on a different garden. Hemoglobin A and B, fibrinopeptide B which is related to blood clotting, etc. All 5 independent tests reached the same result. Why would an intelligent designer bother to change the color of the blood or clots in the different mammals in a way that matches the original tree? And will he do it in each garden separately? This is what Dawkins already referred to in the video you posted... it's really unlikely.

     As a programmer who has used many code libraries in his life it is easy to assume that if an intelligent designer were to design the beasts using some development environment we would find many shared pieces of code etc. The changes in the code, however, indicate that it has changed laterally along the timeline consistent with the evolutionary tree and this makes the option of an intelligent designer unlikely.
     Note that if your approach is religious, then it is not at all clear why you should bother with all the shrup of the genes and all the planning problems (this is another issue that completely refutes rational planning, for example the recurring larynx sadness in the Giraffe) but that is another issue. I brought this up just to reinforce the fact that you claimed:
     "It is clear that the genome of a rat, for example, will be closer to the genome of a mouse than that of a bird." Why is this obvious? I am sure that Almighty God can create all the animals (and all the millions of insects and bacteria) in a millisecond without needing libraries of genes and compilers. Once you assume that he used genes, then the way in which the changes between different creatures are expressed in them pretty much rules out intelligent design.

     The example of the tree also speaks to me especially because of my background. In several cases I had to develop different algorithms and I had no way of knowing if they worked or not. What I did in these cases was to always run a number of independent tests, for example the truth of a statistical algorithm with a "Monte Carlo" test on a large number of data or in another case to apply a given algorithm and at the same time develop a mathematical formula independently by a mathematician and compare the results. The chance of making a mistake if you work with such a method is zero.

     Besides, we would appreciate it if you told us what you believe? In God? of the Jews or someone else? Or aliens? And when do you think all these creatures were created? And what "traditional" means is something I have never been able to understand. I have friends who have repented and I even studied with them in a yeshiva and they observe light to severe mitzvot and I have agonistic and atheist friends. These are all thinking people. The rest didn't really think about the issue and that's perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned, but I don't think it's your case...

     I also wanted to point out that I am impressed by the way you respond to the achievements of all the writers in one thread against all of them.

618. xianghua
     As a bystander, would it be advisable to avoid sentences like:

     "Again, some order"
     "Guys, cow cow"
     "Some interesting problems were thrown in here"
     "What I have already answered, I see no point in answering again"

     It is condescending, and without any justification other than diverting attention from the content..

619. Well, I'll try to keep it short. To that end, I see no point in answering what I have already answered.

     Shmulik,

     In my opinion, the intelligent designer created creatures at different times. Although it's certainly possible that I'm wrong and they were all created at the same time. The designer himself does not obligate the creator, as long as it is not proven that he had a beginning. Man knows that there was some beginning. That's all the difference.

     "It matters that the dispute is not acute because it makes it easier, at least for me, to accept the majority opinion regarding the existence of evolution, which in this case is absolute and supported by countless evidences." - So suddenly the evidences are the ones that are important to you? That's exactly what I'm claiming.

     "By the way, I don't care what the scientists will do if evolution is disproved just like I don't care what the scientists did when Newton's theory was replaced by Einstein's more advanced theory. "- Did it affect the work of the scientists in the field?

     "Read there also about the example you gave. "- I read from a number of sources. My argument is valid, there is no transition between ttss and flagellum. Feel free to prove me otherwise with the car and plane analogy.

     "This will not disprove the theory of intelligent planning because it can always be argued that, at the base, there is an intelligent planner." - It is true that one can argue. The planning scientists recognize this and therefore proposed the above-mentioned rebuttal test. Hence it is scientific. By the way, the above refutation test is also compatible with the theory of evolution. And hence, if you accept it, both are scientific.

     ". As already said: if you find a rabbit in the dinosaur attack, it will create a huge headache for the supporters of natural selection. One like this has never been found" - a mistake on your part. *hundreds* of these have been found (see the book forbidden archelology). This does not bother evolution scientists, who claim that it is possible for a fossil to infiltrate into the wrong layer.

     "I don't understand your question about moving from a car to an airplane. These are not living beings and therefore are not expected to undergo such changes "- true. That's why I'm talking about multiplying and changing objects. Given these features, do you think it is possible to get from a car to an airplane?

     ” I saw a series about creatures that do something like that when I was little, Transformers. I didn't go to the movies. They seemed particularly bad to me." - I especially liked the original series :)

     "But they do claim that what we see happened, including evolution, but they claim that something else is guiding evolution." - This is simply not true. You are invited to see for yourself on their official website.

     "Thank you for answering question 2. That says it all. In important matters, you will run to the warm embrace of science and that it is not binding (but only shapes your whole personality), you will believe in the institute." - not true. Only in cases where I have no idea and where there is no dispute at all will I choose the above option. This is not the case in the current discussion.

     “You sent me to a list of 50 of their articles. Who knows, maybe some of them added knowledge or made it harder on my side and forced him to refine his positions even more" - I gave a list of articles. Some even deal with the evolution of the shotton. You are welcome to browse there.

     "So maybe not a new gene, in this case but in the interpretation of evolution" - again. A sneeze on the forehead is also an evolution. But there are certain types of changes that require multi-part coordination. And this cannot be the current case, even according to evolution itself.

     buddha,

     As I thought. What they do is simply predict a similar genome by phenotypic similarity. You don't need to be an expert for that. It is clear that a rat's genome, for example, will be closer to a mouse's than to a bird's. Do you need statistical analysis for this? In addition, the research I provided shows that this is not always the case. For example: a Tasmanian wolf is much more like a wolfhound than a miniature poodle. Although phylogenetically it is placed further down the scale.

     Ethology,

     "First of all, you didn't show how it is that "different creatures have different population sizes, different mutation rates, different generation lifespans, and of course also different natural selection pressures", as you say, affects the statistical analysis of their genomes" - the example of har1. There is a greater difference between a chimpanzee and a human than a chicken. The researchers justify this by claiming that there was a sharp increase in intelligence. The problem is that this is an ad hoc explanation. That is, a retrospective explanation.

     "A strange phylogenetic tree like the one found by Syvanen is only one type of evidence for horizontal gene transfer *that can* be found in statistical analyzes of genes" - but the researcher himself talks about the fact that there is no transfer in the aforementioned creatures.

     "No one would use to build an evolutionary tree a genetic sequence like HAR1 that is known to have passed something unique to the human lineage, precisely because it is *expected* to yield an incorrect phylogenetic tree." - He was "observed" only in retrospect. That is, after it has been tested and compared to other sequences. That is, first the arrow is shot, and then the target is marked.

     "Even if we accept the ENCODE conclusions as they are, we are left with 20 percent that have not been attributed the same "biochemical function" that the ENCODE people found. 20 percent is not a "small part" as you wrote later. "- Not accurate. The researchers only looked at certain types of cells. They didn't test them all. Which brings them to the following impressive conclusion:

     He explains that ENCODE only (!) looked at 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand. A given part of the genome might control a gene in one cell type, but not others. If every cell is included, functions may emerge for the phantom proportion. "It's likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent," says Birney

     http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/junk_no_more_en_1064001.html

     "First, you have an inaccuracy about genetic diseases. Many genetic diseases are not caused by the *lack of* function of a gene, but by its malfunction. "- Right. Sickle cell anemia is a good example. I was speaking in general.

     "Secondly, what kind of "degeneration" led to the fact that we have retrotransposons and dysfunctional viral DNA in our genome?" - I have something new for you. It turns out that retroviruses and transposons also have a function:

     http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/08/020802075138.htm

     "The link you gave does not discuss the scientists' opinion on intelligent design or evolution or any scientific topic, in fact. He reported on a survey of spirituality among scientists." - and he claims that only a minority of biologists do not believe in God, that is, in a planner. Which leaves us with an overwhelming majority that neither denies its existence nor supports its existence. Despite the theory of evolution. Imagine what the situation would be like if the problems in evolution were taught in a biology degree.

     "What studies contradict the claim that evolution creates things easily by using the existing raw materials? And are you referring to your multiplying clock analogy?” - also. Feel free to try to prove me wrong.

     - "I refer you again to the new article on the website, and to the book by the biologist Jonathan Wells." Which of his books and which article?" - refer to the following interesting article:

     https://www.hayadan.org.il/allegedly-useless-parts-of-the-human-genome-fulfil-regulatory-tasks-0151012/

620. Correction: The first source should have been this:
     Zhaxybayeva, O. (2009). Detection and Quantitative Assessment of Horizontal Gene Transfer. In MB Gogarten, JP Gogarten, & LC Olendzenski (Eds.), Horizontal Gene Transfer (Vol. 532, pp. 195–213). Humana Press. doi:10.1007/978-1-60327-853-9_11

621. xianghua,
     To say the least, your answer is lacking.
     You wrote: "There is no importance for statistical analysis even from the evolutionary side. If we found a it's good, and if we found b it's also good." And expanding on it before: "*Any phylogenetic result* can be taken into account. Did we find that the phylogeny fits the evolutionary path? Beauty. Did we find the opposite result than we expected? beauty too. There is no problem with evolution. That's why I ask: What phylogenetic finding will disprove evolution?"

     First, you didn't show how having "different creatures have different population sizes, different mutation rates, different generation lifespans, and of course also different natural selection pressures", as you say, affects the statistical analysis of their genomes. Instead, you just made a whole new argument. I am interested in an exhaustive answer that would justify what you said.

     Second, your new argument doesn't apply here. A strange phylogenetic tree like the one found by Syvanen is just one type of evidence for horizontal gene transfer that *can* be found in statistical analyzes of genes. There are several others and reviews on the subject are easy to find [1]. I skimmed over Syvanen's research. It doesn't seem like he was looking for any of the other types of evidence, so it doesn't surprise me that he presented the hypothesis that it was a hybrid as a possible explanation for the results he got, but not certain (it's clear even from the title). Wait for him or others to try to get in the thick of it in the future. Until then, it's not clear what your grievance is about.

     You also wrote, this time about HAR1: "There may indeed be deviations here or there." And I have never heard an evolutionist say what the maximum deviation space is. And in my opinion, he is also impossible." Again, it is not clear what your grievance is and in the current context it is bizarre. To understand that you're wrong, you don't need evolutionists to define a "deviation space", but to know the facts. The acronym HAR1 stands for human accelerated regions 1, because it was discovered for the first time through a comparative genomic analysis whose purpose was to locate DNA segments that underwent rapid evolution in the *human* lineage since it separated from the chimpanzee lineage [2]. No one would use an evolutionary tree to build a genetic sequence like HAR1 that is known to have passed something unique to the human lineage, precisely because it is *expected* to yield an incorrect phylogenetic tree. It's like using a hammer as a car wheel or a strainer as a container for liquids.

     "Fortunately, even one scientist (Prof. Dan Shechtman) is nothing." You were answered about the "Shechtman claim" well. I see no reason to repeat the answer.

     Regarding your words about ENCODE: "The funny thing is that (certain) senior evolutionists still continue to deny the findings and claim that most of the genetics is still "junk". Those scientists do not deny the findings, but dispute the conclusions of the ENCODE scientists. They have some arguments that I completely agree with, but as mentioned, there is no reason to get into it. Even if we accept the ENCODE conclusions as they are, we are left with 20 percent that have not been attributed the same "biochemical function" that the ENCODE people found. 20 percent is not a "small part" as you wrote later. That's a lot. Even 5 percent is a lot.

     Regarding your reasoning for the existence of junk DNA: "I don't agree. There is no problem that a small part of the genome is indeed junk. But this is evidence of degeneration and the accumulation of mutations, such as genetic diseases, etc." First, you have an inaccuracy about genetic diseases. Many genetic diseases are not caused by the *lack* of function of a gene, but by its malfunction. In other words, the gene has a biological function and is therefore not "junk". Second, what kind of "degeneration" led to the fact that we have retrotransposons and dysfunctional viral DNA within our genome? Why did the "intelligent planner" decide to implant in our genome so many viral genes and active retrotransposons and wait for them to degenerate? Third and last thing, why didn't our "intelligent designer" throw out this dysfunctional DNA one of the times he intervened in the evolution of life on Earth? What kind of planner does not worry about "oiling" the "machines" in order to prevent spoilage? There is no need to assume that the "machine" (the human body) is *broken* for this argument to be valid. The only assumption is that the "intelligent planner" is indeed intelligent.

     Regarding the survey: You claimed, and I quote, that "a survey published in 2005 in the "Washington Times" showed that out of all biologists, only a minority of them do not believe in intelligent design." The link you gave does not discuss the scientists' opinion on intelligent design or evolution or any scientific topic, in fact. He reported on a survey of spirituality among scientists.

     Small points:
     - "Which also refutes the claim about the appendix". How does that disprove her?
     - "And I don't understand your claim about homology as evidence for evolution." Explain what you didn't understand.
     - "This claim is denied by the studies. You are welcome to try to refute my argument with the analogy I proposed." What studies contradict the claim that evolution creates things easily by using the existing raw materials? And are you referring to your multiplying clock analogy?
     - "I refer you again to the new article on the website, and to the book by the biologist Jonathan Wells." Which books and which article?

     [1] Syvanen, M., & Ducore, J. (2010). Whole genome comparisons reveal a possible chimeric origin for a major Metazoan assemblage. Journal of Biological Systems, 18(02), 261–275. doi:10.1142/S0218339010003408
     [2] Pollard, KS, Salama, SR, Lambert, N., Lambot, M.-A., Coppens, S., Pedersen, JS, Katzman, S., et al. (2006). An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans. Nature, 443(7108), 167–172.

622. The meaning of the phylogenetic tree is very strong evidence for evolution
     ----------------------

     xianghua,

     When I wrote "there is nothing in the phylogenetic tree that would disprove evolution" I meant that the above tree is just another very strong evidence for evolution and even if the attempts to build the tree by analyzing the DNA of several mammals as was done in the "Fany" experiment are proven to be wrong (they are not) it will not hurt in the theory of evolution. On the other hand if we understand the experiment it will provide very strong evidence for evolution.

     You still haven't answered me about the simple analogy about telepathy but not bad.

     I didn't read all the details of Fanny's experiment, nor did I see the genes under an electron microscope, nor did I go through the code of their software, but I certainly understood the principle. If you're trying to claim that the scientists lied, that's one thing, then I don't think there's any point in continuing the discussion. If you assume that the experiment in itself is true then my answer is that I completely understood what it was about and since I have some background in the field of algorithms I am absolutely sure that this is extremely strong evidence.

     For those who might read this thread in the future, here is a simple example of a made-up phylogenetic tree:

     In an imaginary world, for 100 years scientists who believed in evolution built a tree of 4 mammals A, B, C and D. The scientists (who did not yet know about the existence of genes) performed an analysis based on the anatomical structure of the phenotypes and decided that:

     * A is the common ancestor of C and B
     * D and A are very different from each other and it seems that A and D also have a common ancestor.

     If molecular biology was invented, the above mentioned mammals were tested and it turned out that the DNA of the mammals contains 6 bases, each of which can contain the value 1 to 4. Their DNA is:

     A – the sequence is 111234
     B – the sequence is 111224
     C – the sequence is 111231
     D – the sequence is 122221

     My questions are:

     1. What is the most logical phylogenetic tree that can be built based on the DNA assuming that there should be the smallest difference between every two objects in the tree?

     2. Please explain why each object in the tree is placed in the place you chose.

     3. Is this tree the same as a tree built 100 years earlier based on anatomical analysis?

     4. How many different trees can be built from 4 objects?

     5. What is the probability that the tree constructed based on DNA was the same as the tree constructed based on anatomical analysis 100 years earlier?

     6. If the above principle was maintained but it was about 11 mammals, and if the tree built based on DNA was the same as the tree built based on anatomical analysis 100 years earlier, what is the probability of that?

     Among those who solve correctly, a subscription to Maariv for youth will be drawn.

623. Roy's proposal to appeal to the High Court is interesting. To me, this reminds me of what was about the core studies and was not successful (and maybe it will be and will be successful), but in that case the complaint was against the non-existence of a law or regulation. Here it is not clear to me how it can be attacked legally. I saw on a website that deals with education in Israel that authorized study materials for teaching were determined and the subjects in which the students must be determined, but the study contents were not determined.
     I will try to look into the matter. If there are relevant comments in this regard, I would love to hear them.

624. xianghua,
     I forgot two things, I apologize:
     1. If you take it upon yourself to tell about the intelligent planning, try to define who the planner is. If God, say God and if not, define the planner.

     2. Regarding the article that Roy published on Ynet, I read response 16 and I also read comments on response 16. And here it is:

     This is the activation of "off" genes through a selection process that is quite close to natural selection - daily activation of a centrifuge and selection of the heaviest cell clusters. A similar process, you can imagine, is done every day in the water pools at the Beaver Beach. Yeast does not have the "property to form colonies" - in the distant past they might have formed colonies, but today the strain in question lives as a single-celled yeast only. Reaching the situation where the yeast forms a cluster of cells with primary differentiation and the self-sacrifice of individual cells at the ends of the cluster "for" reproduction, and this in only a few hundred generations and without any chemical means or selective activation of genes - this is an amazing result, whether it is the activation of a forgotten evolutionary mechanism Or in the creation of such a mechanism from scratch (although of course the second option is much more interesting).

     If you manage to present in an organism a feature that during its normal life is not displayed - this means that the organism does not need it during its normal life - the question arises as to how and why it manifested itself in this context, and how and why it got there in the first place. Exactly the situation in which certain "edits" appear in the offspring of an organism, but also do not find significant expression in them, is the situation that raises the above questions.

     Salivation in response to the presentation of food is a condition that manifests normally in various animals. If you had discovered in an animal the characteristic of salivating in response to the ringing of a bell - a condition that is not normally expressed in him - then you would have to ask why he reacted that way.

     Apoptosis in yeast is not required since they are unicellular. That's exactly the point.

     So maybe not a new gene, in this case but in the interpretation of evolution: things evolve

625. xianghua,
     It's going to be long so if you don't have the strength to read my request is that you present your belief about intelligent design as I must understand once and for all what someone who receives it thinks. When did the planning come into action, before there were living beings or after, etc.
     Let's start

     1. The line between disagreement and heated disagreement does not pass through evolution. Regarding the existence of evolution, there is no sharp dispute, but there is a minority within a minority of scientists (almost all of them are religious) who do not accept evolution (including personal interest). I repeat and write this and this is what the court ruled. Certainly it matters that the dispute is not acute because it makes it easier, at least for me, to accept the majority opinion regarding the existence of evolution, which in this case is absolute and supported by countless evidence. You also accept their opinion that this is my hypothetical drug.

     2. Regarding your answer to point 1, I have addressed in detail why only God can be the answer to who the intelligent designer is. I copied you only the summary of the court's answer, but from the evidence heard by the court it is clear that the planner is God. I can't believe you don't know that? I don't accept this bullshit. The court did not accept this impudence and threw them off all the stairs.
     Nevertheless, I referred in my answer to the situation in which the planner is an alien and let's assume that the planner is an alien who is not God, meaning subject, like all of us, to the laws of nature. What did you do here if you didn't make life difficult for yourself because then you have to ask who created the alien, who is much more advanced than us (technologically). If God did not create the planner, then evolution created him, but now it did not create us, but a creature much, much more complicated than us. Kudos to evolution and if God created the alien, well, we're back to square one, so let's drop the "intermediate alien" and move forward with the discussion and assume we're the ultimate alien. No alien designed us. I have stopped this endless regression. What now? God or evolution. I am of course on the side of evolution.

     Regarding your suggestion that we were shown by people who went back in time, I don't quite know what to make of that answer. Let's say, and who created those people who went back in time? Chuck Norris?
     I always claim that the question of why we are here can have 4 answers: the laws of nature, God, the Matrix (everything around us is a simulation, so those who created the simulation have no idea what the laws are) and something I didn't think of. In this discussion God is the code name for the last three answers and as mentioned, the laws of nature and God are the only way to stop this endless regression.
     Now we come to the point: you wrote: "And even if it is indeed about God. How does this make the claim unscientific?" Do I really need to answer that? The answer "God" is the essence of unscientific. You, who recruited Le Popfer to the discussion, presents such a question? How can the theory that God created us be contradicted? By the way, on this subject there is a quote attributed to Bertrand Russell:

     We may all have come into existence five minutes ago, provided with ready-made memories, with holes in our socks and hair that needed cutting.

     By the way, I don't care what the scientists will do if evolution is disproved just like I don't care what the scientists did when Newton's theory was replaced by Einstein's more advanced theory.

     3. Regarding Irreducible Complexity, I am not wrong and the argument has been refuted. I refer her again to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Response_of_the_scientific_community
     Also read there about the example you gave. I understand that there may be such a concept of Irreducible Complexity, for example in the computer world, but it has never been proven on any biological system that Irreducible Complexity exists.
     By the way, the expert from the Discovery Institute admitted that he had made a mistake that he hoped would be corrected in the future. Did he fix it?
     The fact that you corresponded with experts on the subject is impressive, but I still accept Wikipedia as a better source and it is important to also read what the court said:

     We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design. (2:15, 2:35-40 (Miller); 28:63-66 (Fuller)). We will now consider the purportedly "positive argument" for design encompassed in the phrase used numerous times by Professors Behe ​​and Minnich throughout their expert testimony, which is the "purposeful arrangement of parts." Professor Behe ​​summarized the argument as follows: We infer design when we see parts that appear to be arranged for a purpose. The strength of the inference is quantitative; the more parts that are arranged, the more intricately they interact, the stronger is our confidence in design. The appearance of design in aspects of biology is overwhelming. Since nothing other than an intelligent cause has been demonstrated to be able to yield such a strong appearance of design, Darwinian claims notwithstanding, the conclusion that the design seen in life is real design is rationally justified. (18:90-91, 18:109-10 (Behe); 37:50 (Minnich)). As previously indicated, this argument is merely a restatement of the Reverend William Paley's argument applied at the cell level. Minnich, Behe, and Paley reach the same conclusion, that complex organisms must have been designed using the same reasoning, except that Professors Behe ​​and Minnich refuse to identify the designer, whereas Paley inferred from the presence of design that it was God. (1:6-7 (Miller); 38:44, 57 (Minnich)). Expert testimony revealed that this inductive argument is not scientific and as admitted by Professor Behe, can never be ruled out. (2:40 (Miller); 22:101 (Behe); 3:99 (Miller)).” (Pages 79–80)

     Well done they started publishing articles. The trial was held in 2005 and from what I understand from the link you brought from their website, the first publication is from 2004, so the court's argument is correct.
     I did a quick check on some of the articles they published and William Lane Craig appears there 4 times. William Lane Craig is a Christian philosopher who has debated Christopher Hitchens and Professor Lawrence Krauss. This adds to my claim (which is completely unoriginal and the court itself said so) that the Discovery Institute are Christians in disguise. Or actually not in costume. By the way, it is very amusing to see how Kraus tears him to pieces.

     In addition, you again answered the question with a question. I never claimed that there are no fabrications in science, but that science is, by and large, a mechanism for eliminating nonsense and since many people compete for publication by contradicting previous claims, the truth comes out. Every scientist is dying to prove Einstein wrong, to get famous, and that's what's so good about this mechanism. Every fibruck is eventually discovered. The example you gave demonstrates this especially since the fact that one has to go through many hurdles to make a scientific claim and by the way, national georaphic is not a scientific monthly and that is exactly what Roetz had. They rushed out with the news without prior consultation with someone from the scientific community (quote from the article you brought). In any case, if there are fabricators, they are private individuals in such a situation, you have to take their every word in a super limited guarantee. Regarding Discovery, which is an institute and not private individuals, the court ruled that the institute created a sharp dispute that does not exist (it is not sharp as I have shown but a dispute on the fringes of the fringes) and therefore you must not believe anything that comes out of his mouth. The institute created a false strategy and tried to enter the schools through the back door. Why do you forgive them?

     You wrote about my requirement to demonstrate the ability to refute intelligent design: "Present a scenario for the development of a complex system, thereby disproving the central claim in intelligent design."
     This will not disprove the theory of intelligent planning because it can always be argued that, at the base, there is an intelligent planner. My challenge still stands: you must show how the Intelligent Designer theory can be contradicted. It is clear to me that we will start arguing whether this is a contradiction or not, so I call (those who have survived what I have written so far) to intervene and express their opinion on the matter. Is what xianghua is a contradiction to the idea of ​​intelligent design?
     And by the way, evolution is such a scenario. voila.

     How can evolution be contradicted? Again, evolution is a name that says that things evolve. We see this in the laboratory in bacteria that develop resistance. This is not a claim that is in dispute any more than the existence of a wall that you are currently encountering is not in dispute. What can be contradicted, for example, is the mechanisms of evolution, natural selection, for example. As already said: if you find a rabbit in the dinosaur attack, it will create a huge headache for the supporters of natural selection. One has never been found.

     4. There is no way to contradict God. What is your partial agreement? What part of this argument do you disagree with? Where did you get that the official claim of intelligent design is that there is no gradual transition. What is a gradual transition and why not? What prevents such a transition? Do you know a drowning law that prevents such a transition? You wrote that this is a good question and usually when you write "a good question" it means that there is no answer. Indeed, there is no such brake. There is no law of nature, known to us, that will stop something from gradual change. The whole point of genes is to create a base on which changes can be made.

     I don't understand your question about going from car to plane. These are not living beings and therefore are not expected to undergo such changes in the years of our lives, but I will add that in the multiverse on the number of stars, etc. yes, it is possible. Wind, stones, lightning, it must have happened somewhere. By the way, did you just choose a car for the plane? I saw a series about creatures that do something like that when I was little, Transformers. I didn't go to the movies. They seemed particularly bad to me.

     5. You are welcome to write here the principles of intelligent design as you understand them, but they do claim that what we see happened, including evolution, but they claim that something else guides evolution. At most they claim (as far as I understand) that no transitional fossils have been found, but they do not claim that such a transition is impossible, and yes, I get most of the data from Wikipedia, on this subject. You are welcome to write your own belief about intelligent design, but it is important that you try to examine how their theory can be contradicted. The court ruled and the scientific establishment claims that it is not possible to disprove their basic claim that there is a Tabonitz planner

     Thanks for answering question 2. That says it all. On important issues, you will run to the warm embrace of science and that it is not binding (but only shapes your whole personality), you will believe in the institute. In my opinion, this is a huge contradiction. To my delight, I live perfectly with myself. I accept the science and also use the drugs he prescribes for me. I don't have a split personality.

     I'll skip question 3 here. You sent me to a list of 50 of their articles. Who knows, maybe some of them added knowledge or made it harder on my side and forced him to refine his positions even more

     Happy holiday

626. Dr. Gabi Avital is a respected aeronautical engineer. In all other subjects, his opinions are like those of any private person who can be tainted by biases of all kinds - religious or economic.

627. Hello R.H

     To your question, I do support intelligent planning. I agree with you that there are many good scientists, but it is evident that it is precisely the opinion of the extreme minority that sets the tone. And I see it time and time again. See the case of Dr. Gabi Avital. However, happily, I believe that truth has legs.

     buddha,

     "Regarding the phylogenetic tree, there is nothing in the phylogenetic tree that would disprove evolution, but only what would prove it." - Sorry, but if there is nothing to disprove the claim, then it is not scientific.

     ” I return again to the example of telepathy that you did not answer. If the researchers in the Fanny experiment tested 5 proteins and each of them had a 1 in a million chance that it would give a correct result, then the chance that all of them would give a correct result is a million in five. I'm willing to compromise even on one in a million "- I say again: in my opinion the model they proposed has no meaning. The claim that there is a one in a million chance of creating this or that tree is not supported by anything in my opinion. Come on, you explain to me, did you understand how they came to the above conclusion, or do you simply trust them?

     Shmulik,

     I see that we are finally getting to the claims themselves, so that we can decide for ourselves whether the court is right or not. And I shift gears a bit.

     ” Then again, in dispute, perhaps, because all that is needed is for someone to dispute, regardless of whether he has a real claim or not, but certainly not in a heated dispute. "- So it's nice that you agree with me that there is a disagreement. And now the debate here is whether it is spicy or not. So I ask you: where is the line between a heated dispute and a non-heated one?

     Plus, what does it matter if it's spicy or not? The evidence is what determines as stated. And if Shechtman's discovery took 20 years, let's wait a few more years and see what happens with intelligent planning. By the way, another question is what do you think evolution scientists will do tomorrow if they find out that the theory has been disproved?

     And now we come to the arguments themselves:

     "1. The intelligent design (which is another name for God) requires that there be a higher power - this is enough to make the theory unscientific" - a mistake. According to the planning theory, these could also be aliens, people who returned in time from the future, and more. And even if it is indeed God. How does this make the claim unscientific?

     2″. The Irreducible Complexity argument which is critical to intelligent design - this argument has been refuted and is not true." - You are right in that it is critical, but wrong in that it is not true. I think that in the trial itself, Prof. Kenneth Miller brought as an example the ttss system, which is based on several proteins homologous to the bacterial flagellum. Miller claims because the basis of both is similar, hence the flagellum could have evolved from the ttss. But Miller is wrong - common components can also be found in a car and an airplane. Both contain fuel, electrical wiring, wheels, etc. But there is no gradual transition between a car and an airplane, and hence there is no gradual transition between the ttss and the flagellum either. I even got to correspond with some world experts in the field, including Miller himself.

     3″. Intelligent design was not accepted by the scientific community, its supporters do not publish articles that are reviewed by peers - peer review (the nightmare of all opponents of evolution) - a mistake. Here is the official list from the institute's own website:

     http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

     "I will ask again, in view of my additional explanation: are these the actions of the Tamim Institute? Lefabrak, the washed-up word for - to lie?" - see above, there is no fabruk. If anything, the evolutionary scientists are the ones who fabricated in the past. Remember the man from Fleetdown? The fetus of the easy? The scientists who hid fossils? The scandal that was at the time in National Geographic?:

     http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3923528,00.html

     "You, as mentioned, canceled the work of the court with a wave of your hand, so please, I will ask you to tell me how the intelligent planning can be contradicted. "- Present a scenario for the development of a complex system, thereby disproving the central claim of intelligent design.

     "There is no way to contradict the claim of intelligent design, because even if we somehow prove that evolution is supremely correct, this does not mean that there is no intelligent design or God, but that there is no need for an intelligent designer, or God. "- Partially agree. There are certain scientists who support theistic evolution, guided or not. But the official claim of intelligent planning is that there is no gradual transition. In addition, and that evolution can be disproved in your opinion?

     "Regarding your answer about bacteria, you said that - "Diuretics yes. But bacteria remain and do not develop a new complex system." I have heard this answer quite a few times and never understood it. Is there any brake to change?" - good question. I again return to the human engineering analogy. Is there any obstacle in the gradual transition from car to plane?

     "On this topic, please read about evolution that took place in the laboratory:" - read comment 16 there. There are no new genes here.

     "They do not oppose the findings of science (because that would weaken their position in the public) but claim that something else is behind these findings and therefore they do not claim that evolution does not exist but that an intelligent designer created the infrastructure for it. "- Definately not. Only a small part of them claim it. I hope you are not relying on Wikipedia here.

     "There are 2 medicines on the market for a certain disease. Would you purchase for your child (if you have one) or for yourself drug A, which was recommended by a federal court and most scientific organizations, or drug B, which was recommended by the Discovery Institute. "- I guess I would choose option A. Although not 100%.

     "Regarding question number 3, you did not meet the challenge and did not provide evidence that the people of the institute are behind the research on junk DNA. "- I didn't claim that either. I just claimed that it was their prediction. See above the book of Jonathan Wells.

628. Roy,
     I actually addressed the issue and in almost every post I expressed my opinion thanks to studying evolution in schools.
     On the High Court point, I agree with another one, but it could have been an interesting case to ask whether the Ministry of Education is behaving in an extremely unreasonable manner by not taking care of studying the subject.
     According to all the numbers that the CBS publishes, most of the first graders in Israel are not secular and this majority is going to grow in the coming years. It's hard for me to see the graph change direction, so I'm very, very not optimistic that all Israeli students will ever learn the subject.

629. Roy
     It would be an insane precedent if the High Court of Justice decides what is taught in the State of Israel.

630. Dear friends, perhaps you did not address the most important thing in the comments - the studies of the theory of evolution in the educational system in Israel.
     I have a question for those "greater" than me - is it not possible to attack in the High Court the current curriculum, which actually leads to incredible ignorance in the field?
     After all, this is analogous to not being told, even implicitly, that the earth is round...

631. R.H.

     The scientific establishment is an establishment like any establishment and as such it also contains corruption. There is no problem with that. It is not possible to produce a perfect system.

     Science (or the way of scientific inquiry if you like) is an idea that does not depend on the people who engage in it. The simple principle is that one person creates a hypothesis or claim and many independent people check whether it is true. The process eventually converges to create another layer in human knowledge. When I write "truth" I mean the creation of a scientific convention (in Shechtman's case, for example, the fact that there are pentagonal crystals in the world). In the future if strong evidence against any scientific convention emerges it may change. (For example again in the same case, the convention that pentagonal crystals cannot be formed was abolished). This method created our technology in a very short time and we have not found a better method to this day.

     Besides, it seems to me that you are somewhat troubled by issues such as ego, honor and the pursuit of greed. This is natural given the background you come from and heartwarming to read. I just wanted to tell you that according to Buddhism you should not be bothered by all these and especially not by other people's egos. It's like being bothered by the clouds in the sky. Every person and every system tends to protect the known and familiar to them and treat with suspicion the new and unknown. There is no other possibility to produce a stable system.

632. xianghua

     It seems to me that what I wrote should be carefully read again:
     We agree that only the evidence is decisive and the court determined, based on the evidence, that they fabricated a controversy by claiming that evolution is hotly contested. The institute tried to argue that evolution is a theory in crisis because there is a hot dispute and the court said they fabricated that claim.
     At this point I must point out that you are emptying the word dispute of its content. From your point of view, a heated dispute, on a scientific topic, is a situation where even one scientist opposes the theory (the conceptual Schechtman) and it immediately falls into the category of a hotly disputed theory. So no and the court ruled that about evolution. You told, without reference!! About 800 scientists who oppose evolution, while Ethologica told you about 50000 scientists in two associations in total who support evolution, while I brought a link to a list of 68 national academies that bring together the best scientists, from every country, who call for evolution to be taught in science classes. Then again, in dispute, perhaps, because all that is needed is for someone to dispute, regardless of whether he has a real claim or not, but certainly not in a heated dispute.

     Regarding your claim that you presented Popper's definition of theory... and that "there is not much point in bringing the court's words here" (a bit disparaging?) I would say that it is worth revisiting what the court determined, and therefore I will present again:
     After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. ...It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.

     Before I translate into Hebrew, I will mention that the court thoroughly examined the claims of the Discovery Institute.
     The court ruled that the Discovery Institute created a theory that includes the following claims:
     1. Intelligent design (which is another name for God) requires a higher power - this is enough to make the theory unscientific
     2. The Irreducible Complexity argument which is critical to intelligent design - this argument has been refuted and is not true. You are welcome to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
     3. Intelligent design was not accepted by the scientific community, its supporters do not publish articles that are reviewed by peers - peer review (the nightmare of all opponents of evolution) and the "theory" is not tested and researched (what should be researched, they claim that God created everything so that he would see as if evolution exists)

     In other words, the court's ruling did not go into determining the veracity of scientific theories but determined that evolution is not in sharp dispute, determined that intelligent design is not science and therefore should not be taught in schools, certainly not in science classes and that the institute fabricated the contention of the dispute. I will ask again, in view of my additional explanation: are these the actions of the Tamim Institute? Lafabrak, the washed-up word for lie?

     You, as mentioned, canceled the work of the court with a wave of your hand, so please, I will ask you to tell me how the intelligent planning can be contradicted. If you try to define an intelligent planner who is not God, then you have only complicated yourself even more since you have created a being, who created us, that is, he is developed from us, but he is not God and therefore it is permissible to ask: Who created this intelligent planner? Even if he had an intelligent planner, you're entering an infinite regression here and only evolution or God (Matrix or Chuck Norris) can rescue you from it.
     As far as I understand, there is no way to contradict the claim of intelligent design because even if we somehow prove that evolution is supremely correct, this does not mean that there is no intelligent design or God, but that there is no need for an intelligent designer, or God.

     Regarding your answer about bacteria, you said that - "Diuretics yes." But bacteria remain and do not develop a new complex system." I have heard this answer quite a few times and never understood it. Is there any brake to change? What does it mean that a bacterium changes, it means that its DNA has changed and why then does a bacterium not become something more complex? What is this barrier? What is blocking it? Is there a physical law that prevents the bacterium from becoming more complex?
     On this topic, please read about an evolution that took place in the laboratory:
     http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4087635,00.html

     In general, the intelligent planning people are intelligent people. According to the first amendment to the constitution, the state is forbidden to promote religion and therefore it is forbidden to teach religion in the schools funded by the state and therefore the people of the intelligent planning tried to bring God in the back door. Since they are intelligent, they do not oppose the findings of science (because that would weaken their position in the public) but claim that something else is behind these findings and therefore they do not claim that evolution does not exist but that an intelligent designer created the infrastructure for it. Therefore, you claimed about the bacteria that "they do change." But bacteria remain and do not develop a new complex system" is not supported by the people of intelligent planning.
     Of course, the people of intelligent planning are actually Christians who believe that God does everything and is behind every change and change of every particle, wave of power and thought and are only obligated, outwardly, to invent pseudo-scientific claims that hide God from the public, to fabricate in the language of the court. Their attempt to do this in the schools was blocked by the court.

     Regarding my number 2 question, I'm already frustrated. I wrote that it is more respectful to say that you do not want to answer than to avoid. You copied this sentence of mine and then evaded it by answering my question, with a (impolite) question. I made it difficult for you and then you chose a choice that I did not allow: I did not allow to answer FDA (and I wrote it explicitly). I will rewrite my question:
     There are 2 drugs on the market for a certain disease. Would you purchase for your child (if you have one) or for yourself drug A, which was recommended by a federal court and most scientific organizations, or drug B, which was recommended by the Discovery Institute. By the way, it is more respectful to answer that you do not want to answer question 2 than to avoid and tell me that you will use the drug recommended by your doctor or the FDA (which, by the way, is assisted by the same scientists from the same scientific organizations). Given these two options, only, which would you choose?

     Regarding question number 3, you did not meet the challenge and did not provide evidence that the people of the institute are behind the research on junk DNA. In light of articles I have recently read on the subject, the usual scientific establishment stands behind these studies on the subject. My challenge still stands:
     Those who are familiar with the operation of the institute, I would be happy to receive links that present a contribution to the science of the institute, which according to xianghua "is a scientific body composed of scientists with advanced degrees"

     Thanks for the link and here's another one
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science#Studies_on_the_views_of_the_public_and_individuals_in_higher_education

633. buddha,
     The most important (for me!) I did not refer to:
     "The truth is revealed sooner or later by a series of independent experiments. "
     what truth?? And more importantly - how long will it remain true? what is late
     And most importantly: does science provide answers to these questions as well?

634. buddha,
     I admit that I didn't know Shechtman's story as you described it, to my clothes and clothes. I will immediately run to Google the matter and try to understand the story better. It seems to me that the main issue here is the very long period of time it took for his discovery to be accepted, which nicely indicates how difficult it was for the scientific establishment to go through all the stages you described, and you will well admit that this is not due to over-criticism as much as it is due to an over-enhanced ego.
     The sentence that Pauling said about the quasi-crystals - "There are no quasi-crystals, but there are quasi-scientists", indicates a critical, but disrespectful attitude. And come on - you know how typical this is for scientists. By the way, I think Pauling definitely deserves great respect and appreciation as a scientist - he is one of the few multidisciplinary scientists we have known in the last century, and I wish we had more scientists of his stature. This does not make his sentence any less vile and disgusting.
     And the truth is that I actually agreed that sometimes scientists compliment each other, but with an emphasis on "sometimes".

     I don't back down at all from my opinion - the scientific establishment in most western countries receives a lot of money, a lot of resources and a lot of power, for hundreds of years (it's hard to define precisely). Like any establishment that gains power, including the corrupt rabbinical establishment, the scientific establishment has become corrupt, because as we know - power attracts the most corrupt people, or those with the highest potential to become corrupt - the pursuers of honor and greed, even if they are smart (hey, a kind of natural selection, No?).
     And all this without saying a word about the ego. Well, the truth is, I already said a word about the ego;
     Inflated ego. too much.

635. xianghua,

     The survey you posted does describe a very sad situation. This is perhaps the best reason that came up here in the discussions according to which evolution should be introduced into the curriculum as soon as possible. On the other hand, I am optimistic because 500 years ago the situation was much worse. Besides, I estimate that most of the scientists in the survey believe in Spinoza's God or something similar because 75% at least do not believe in what is written in the Bible.

     Regarding the phylogenetic tree, there is nothing in the phylogenetic tree that would disprove evolution, only what would prove it. I return again to the example of telepathy that you did not answer. If the researchers in the Fanny experiment tested 5 proteins and each of them had a 1 in a million chance that it would give a correct result, then the chance that all of them would give a correct result is a million in five. I am willing to compromise even on one in a million (if it is claimed that the aforementioned proteins are part of one DNA, etc.). You gave one more example that didn't work. So what does that mean? is nothing. If I choose a 7 digit number and you have to guess it I am willing to give you 10 guesses as well. If you succeed in one of them then you are a magician.

     Regarding Shechtman, I really do not agree with R.H. He felt contempt for the scientific establishment, etc. Shechtman's example glorifies science. The scientific system is much more than the people who make it up who are endowed with all the variety of human qualities (like in a Torah yeshiva and like anywhere else). The truth is revealed sooner or later by a series of independent experiments. I think the story is very relevant to the subject in question and to this whole thread. If we want to teach our children what science is and how it works.

     Shechtman's story had several stages:

     1. Schechtman accidentally discovered a pentagonal crystal, which until then was considered impossible and therefore received rejection from his immediate environment. It's totally legit. It is impossible to take every fanciful idea that goes against the known laws of chemistry and treat it from the start as equivalent to the scientific consensus. If the idea is worth something it will gain height, as indeed happened later.

     2. People started to test it especially after he showed how to reproduce the experiment with X-ray and many scientists from all over the world reproduced the experiment. Pauling objected. At this stage, his theory can be described as a "controversial theory". A scientific theory in dispute is when there are many scientists from many recognized universities who think A and many who think B.

     3. At this point Shechtman says he has "risen to Pauling's level" it becomes "Pauling against Shechtman" this is a display of enormous appreciation for Shechtman! Pauling offered him a year before he died to write a joint article. Schechtman made it conditional on Pauling acknowledging the discovery, so Pauling replied that if so it was not yet time for a joint paper.

     4. The objection was overcome and he received a Nobel Prize.

     There is a lot of symbolism in this story. In his youth Pauling was a member of the Lutheran Church, but later joined the Unitarian Universalist Church. About two years before his death, he declared that he was an atheist, adding: "I am not militant in my atheism." (Wikipedia).

636. (not to be confused with R.H. Refai.m)
     First of all, I'm sorry to whoever responded to me and I'm not responding to him now (I'm not sure who it was anymore)... There have been a lot of comments in the thread, and I no longer have the patience to go through it all.

     now, xianghua,
     I see that you provoke a lot of reactions, and from a quick glance at what you wrote it is evident that you are certainly intelligent so that, unlike my father, it is clear to me that we are not dealing here with Mechabat, as his blatant and ugly language suggests. So I'm sorry but I have to ask - what is your claim? What is all this commotion about that bombarded my email?
     Are you against evolution? Do you support the theory of intelligent design?
     Just give me a piece of information, basically, so I know.

     And one more thing - you must stop using Shechtman. True, the scientific establishment is disgusting, full of interests and hypocrisy. The scientific establishment is controlled by mafias for all intents and purposes. And of course those who are considered experts in it are much more in pursuit of honor and profit than striving for that of "scientific truth", a vague concept in itself. (And sorry for the generalizations - there are also good and worthy scientists who do their work out of a sense of mission, love of knowledge and also love of people. And there are also despicable people). In general, it seems to me that you also share the same feeling that I feel. A feeling of disgust and contempt towards the scientific establishment that exists today in Israel and abroad (and I also feel nostalgia for some of the great scientists of the 20th century). But you still know that the face of science is not always the face of Shechtman's story, and there are situations where scientists even compliment each other (and even for a second!). That's why it makes you a demagogue and it's a pity.

     I don't have the strength to address all the other scientific matters properly, what's more, I have the feeling that the majority here understand them more than I do, and I assume they do their job faithfully.
     happy holiday and a good note.

637. According to your criteria, gravity is also a controversial doctrine.
     There is a difference between a dispute within the scientists and a dispute between scientists and between those pretending to be scientists and it has already been proven that people from the Discovery Institute are pretending to be scientists.

638. Some interesting problems were thrown here, I will try to answer.

     Shmulik,

     "How does he do this, isn't the court an expert in mathematics? He does this by hearing mathematicians and deciding in light of their testimony" - very true. Courts have no understanding of the subject itself. He just *trusts* the experts. that's it. He is what I said - only the evidence determines. Not the opinion of the court, which apparently does not even know what a ribosome is.

     "Evolution is a doctrine in crisis because of the incorrect claim (all from the court's decision) that the subject is in dispute in the scientific community" - the subject is indeed in dispute. According to your criterion for the dispute, Prof. Dan Shechtman's words should not have been taken seriously. But the fact is that he was right all along. Despite being a minority opinion.

     "And what you see in microscopes for colonies of bacteria does not exist and they do not change" - they do change. But bacteria remain and do not develop a new complex system.

     "The court also determined, after listening to the experts, that intelligent design is not a scientific theory" - I assume you know the classic definition of a scientific theory, which of course includes Popper's refutation principle. The intelligent planning does meet the above definition as I explained earlier. So again - there is not much point in bringing the court's words here.

     Regarding your question regarding the use of the drug. Assuming I didn't have any understanding on the subject, I guess I would have gone with the fda recommendation option. Because it is a more famous and official body. But as mentioned, the current case is not similar.

     Uri and Buddha,

     Regarding the phylogenetic tree. Obviously, evolutionists will continue to claim that evolution is true. But evolution is a clear prediction, and it was denied in the aforementioned study. The researchers' explanation is actually an ad hoc explanation. That is, a retrospective explanation that can explain everything, and what explains everything actually explains nothing. There is no statistical interest here. *Any* phylogenetic outcome can be taken into account. Did we find that the phylogeny fits the evolutionary path? Beauty. Did we find the opposite result than we expected? beauty too. There is no problem with evolution. That's why I ask: What phylogenetic finding will disprove evolution?

     By the way, has such a chimera ever been observed in real time, or is it simply pulled out of the researchers' sleeve?

     Ethology,

     "But you have not shown in any way that they will affect a statistical analysis of these genomes. It's an unimportant cosmetic argument" - see above, there is no importance for statistical analysis even from the evolutionary side. If we found a it's good, and if we found b it's also good.

     “I'll leave aside for a moment that HAR1 is just part of a much larger transcriptome. The problem is worse than that: no evolutionist demands that *every* genomic sequence yields the same phylogenetic tree and it has never been the case. "- here I agree with you. There may indeed be deviations here or there. And I have never heard an evolutionist say what the maximum deviation space is. And I don't think it's possible either.

     "100 biologists is simply nothing. It's not even close to a scientific controversy." - Happily, even one scientist (Prof. Dan Shechtman) is nothing.

     Regarding "Janak", the funny thing is that (certain) senior evolutionists still continue to deny the findings and claim that most of the Genon is still "junk". Happily, "Hidan" has already published an article on the subject. Here I have to agree with my father. Junk's existence/non-existence does not disprove evolution, nor does it prove it.

     "From the perspective of the "theory" of intelligent design, the very existence of such segments, even if they are a single percent of the genome, is problematic and can only be explained by referring to the whims of the Creator" - I do not agree. There is no problem that a small part of the genome is indeed junk. But this is evidence of degeneration and the accumulation of mutations, such as genetic diseases, etc. Which also refutes the claim about the appendix. And I don't understand your claim about homology as evidence for evolution.

     "That creates things by changing the "raw materials" that are available to it, easily creates such an organ" - this claim is hidden by the research. You are welcome to try to refute my argument with the analogy I offered. Can you change a complex system into another complex system incrementally?

     "It is not clear to me on what basis you attribute the ENCODE project and the findings of those who study the appendix to the Discovery Institute and the people of intelligent design." - I refer you again to the new article on the website, and to the book by the biologist Jonathan Wells.

     And of course, before I forget, here is the survey in question:

     http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/aug/14/20050814-115521-9143r/

639. "In front of you is a breeding clock that is on another planet. Most scientists support the claim that it evolved by itself. A small number of scientists claim that it is proof of aliens. Which option will you choose?”
     A question that contains a thought sting and the writer is intelligent enough to understand what it is.

640. Ethology,
     Good luck. Encourage the other practicing students and instructors to respond

641. ...and of course, I forgot to add Avi Blizovsky's comments as well. (The editor of the website. who occasionally also makes sure to release comments. Thank you)

642. Ethology
     Like I said, you're wasting your time.
     And no, you won't change his mind, you can forget about the bonus 🙂
     Your effort to provide an answer to the seducer causes the seducer to write you more nonsense.
     And the general public is not as stupid as you think, they - the ones with their eyes in their heads - understand on their own the fact that Hingue is a religious person who writes nonsense condemning evolution. You can understand this about the general audience by reading Sherlock's comment here: https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-study-in-the-holyland-240912/comment-page-7/#comment-363062
     And reading the response of the cat Shimil here: https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-study-in-the-holyland-240912/comment-page-6/#comment-362931
     And the anonymous commenter here: https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-study-in-the-holyland-240912/comment-page-4/#comment-362634
     And Yehuda Sabdarmish here: https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-study-in-the-holyland-240912/comment-page-4/#comment-362594
     for example.
     Your efforts here add nothing. But of course you are welcome to grind the subject until the smoke comes out of your ears successfully

643. R.H. Rafai.M,
     Influencing xianghua's opinion is less important to me. If he changes his mind it will be a great bonus to me and nothing else. I want the general public who will encounter this discussion to have an easy and accessible way to see the evolutionist response to these arguments.

     Shmulik,
     Thanks. Comments like yours are a shot of motivation.

     In order not to create a wrong impression, I will add that I am not an expert, but just a bachelor's student in life sciences.

644. Ethology,
     You are not wasting your time here and it is precisely important that your voice and that of other experts like you be heard because the arena must not be abandoned to half-truths and lies and that is precisely why a country that wants to walk proudly along the paths of the 21st century will not hide evolution, one of the greatest scientific enterprises of all time, from a student but you will learn

     I enjoyed the post

645. Ethology
     You're wasting your time fooling around. This dude is more religious than a Rabbi who abuses a rooster on Yom Kippur.

646. xianghua,
     post Scriptum.
     I'm still interested in an exact reference to the Washington Post article. The name of the author, the title of the article and the exact publication date - as far as you are concerned.

647. xianghua,

     In your response to Uri Natat, it is quoted from an article by Evolution News and Views. Uri answered you nicely from the article itself, but I want to add a layer to it. You have fallen victim to Discovery Institute quote mining. Their quote is missing some very important things in order to put these findings in context. Here are the missing pieces:

     Conventionally, sea squirts - also known as tunicates - are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates. "Roughly 50 percent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 percent another," Syvanen says.
     The most likely explanation for this, he argues, is that tunicates are chimeras, created by the fusion of an early chordate and an ancestor of the sea urchins around 600 million years ago.
     "We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely," says Syvanen. "What would Darwin have made of that?"

     From what the Discovery Institute omitted it appears that Uri was right. Note the unquoted sentence on the Discovery Institute website: "The most likely explanation for this, [Syvanen] claims, is that the tunicates are chimeras created by the fusion of an early stringer and a sea urchin ancestor." Chimera and hybrid are words with the same meaning in this context.

     Such hypotheses are not new in evolution, it has never been and has not prevented people from continuing to treat evolution as creating a tree. Since the 80s, the various hypotheses for the formation of eukaryotes have always included a union between two different organisms. The only change to which this recognition of the development of eukaryotes has led is that their tree is presented in a form without a "root", because they are a fusion of two organisms. He is still a tree. Maybe that's what needs to be done here (I haven't read Syvanen's research so I don't know). What is certain is that his idea as he reports in the article in New Scientist is not revolutionary, does not undermine the principles of evolution and certainly does not "destroy" the concept of evolutionary trees. At most, he revealed something interesting to us about a certain part of the tree: there was a fusion between an ancient mithran and sea urchins.

     In your response to Buddha, you claimed that statistical phylogenetic analysis is impossible because "different creatures have different population sizes, different mutation rates, different generational lifespans, and of course also different natural selection pressures." Some of the things you mentioned could affect the genome sequence of the various creatures during their evolution, but you have not shown in any way that they would affect a statistical analysis of these genomes. This is an insignificant cosmetic argument.

     Regarding your words about HAR1 - even if the situation you described is correct and indeed a different phylogenetic tree is obtained for HAR1, it is not clear to me what the problem is. I will leave aside for a moment that HAR1 is only part of a much larger transcription. The problem is worse than that: no evolutionist demands that *every* genomic sequence yields the same phylogenetic tree and it has never been the case. What is needed is a statistical clustering of phylogenetic trees inferred from different sequences around a small group of similar trees (which is often obtained when analyzing at the species level) or a single tree (which is often obtained when analyzing at taxonomic levels higher than species).

     "Sho Fabrico? There is a list of 800 scientists who question the claim that evolution is responsible for the formation of complex biological systems. Of these, over 100 are PhDs in biology."

     The American Society for Microbiology alone has close to 40 thousand microbiologists and scientists members and the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology has about 12 thousand members. These are just two scientific societies that focus on biology that popped into my head at the moment. 800 scientists is a drop in the ocean, and 100 biologists is simply nothing. It's not even close to a scientific controversy. To this must be added the Steve Project in which many more than 800 scientists with the name Steve and its biases have signed a statement supporting the theory of evolution. Your argument is weak, to say the least. There is no dispute.

     "What about the claim that garbage dna is not garbage (something that was proven to be true only recently)?"

     This has not been proven true recently. Even under the ENCODE project people's interpretation of their findings (which I disagree with and I'm not alone), the project only found a "biochemical function" for about 80 percent of the genome. You ignore the other 20 percent. Worse, you're ignoring entire passages that have positive evidence that they do nothing (lots of pseudogenes, for example). From the perspective of the "theory" of intelligent design, the very existence of such segments, even if they are a single percent of the genome, is problematic and can only be explained by appealing to the whims of the Creator. From an evolutionary perspective their existence is clear.

     "On removing the unnecessary appendix?"

     As of today there is a fairly minor controversy about the status of the appendix. Some believe that it still meets the definition of an organ remnant and some argue that it does not. The dispute is largely semantic and should not be relevant, because both agree on the following facts: the appendix has a function whose importance is unclear in the accumulation of intestinal bacteria and a *possible* minor function in the immune system, but it has lost its main function in digesting food. The dispute is about whether the appendix underwent specialization for a new function or whether it remained as it was after it degenerated. If he has specialized for a new function, he is a fine example of evolutionary opportunism. If not, it is a vestigial organ, a special case of the evidence in favor of evolution from homology. Even if the first side in the argument is right, the appendix is ​​still evidence for evolution because it is still evidence from homology. The appendix is ​​an example of structural similarity between organs with different functions (=homology in the pre-Darwinist sense). It is not understood what the engineering consideration was that motivated the creator to create the organ in this way, but evolution, which creates things by changing the "raw materials" available to it, easily creates such an organ. In any case, everyone will admit that when the appendix gets infected, its removal is a must.

     It is not clear to me on what basis you attribute the ENCODE project and the findings of those who study the appendix to the Discovery Institute and the people of intelligent design. Which of the people from the Center for Science and Culture participated in the ENCODE project? Who performed dissections of various digestive systems during comparative anatomy studies to clarify the role of the appendix? Did they even donate money to these things? In all these cases the research was driven by completely different scientific motives. Your arguments remind me of the scientific knowledge arguments found in the Bible after scientists discovered it. Just like the rabbis who make such arguments, you go far beyond the absurd logic and even distort, probably not on purpose, the accumulated scientific knowledge in order to match it with your pet "theory". I don't know if you are religious and I don't care either. I know you're wrong and it's a shame. The truth is so much more beautiful than this nonsense.

648. I guess this is a rhetorical question, the answer to which is in the payslip.

649. I wonder where they got the money from

650. For another, the difference is simply in the investment - the followers of the God conspiracy theory have trillions of dollars/euros/shekels. On the other hand, the followers of the conspiracy theory against the landing on the moon managed to spend several millions. We do not hold meetings in Israel of those who deny the landing on the moon...

651. Menachem Ben and his ilk are religious for me. I don't care how they define themselves.

652. Father - there are people who believe that the walk on the moon was staged and that the twins fell due to bombs that were planted inside them before - believing in intelligent planning is nothing compared to this.

653. My father - there are secularists who believe in God - religious - traditional - secular - does not necessarily indicate a level of faith - these are about piety in laws and commandments.
     Some people believe that the Twin Towers fell due to bombs planted in them before 9.11/XNUMX - so opposing evolution is not that unusual.

654. Since it has already been decided that intelligent planning is a disguise for creationism = religion, and since there are such people who outwardly appear to be secular (according to Menachem Ben), then they are religious in every way and this is how they should be treated. Otherwise they will achieve victory by misleading the public that there are secularists who believe in creationism.

655. Avi,
     If you had read my response you would have understood that this synthesis was exactly what I meant. You said that genetics is part of evolution, which is of course nonsense. I said that genetics and evolution are intertwined, and one cannot say that one is part of the other.

     And your second paragraph really annoys me.
     It is nobody's business what xianghua does in his private life, and your discussion with him should not be in this context, but in relation to what he says. He has unfounded claims, refute them. Don't try to make it religious by force and thus turn it into a "pan" as you say. It's not up to you. And his right not to doubt what he says here about himself. He defines himself as religious or secular, not you.

656. xianghua,

     You continue to ignore Syvanen's conclusion. Why do you quote from the article when you see that the writer chose not to present the researchers' words in full?

     The researchers wrote:
     The tunicate has traditionally been classified with the chordates because of its
     larval form resembles the tadpole larvae of the chordates. However, the tunicate
     has an adult form that is completely unique among metazoan phyla. We are not the
     first to be intrigued with tunicate taxonomy. The tunicate anomaly has perplexed
     students of biology for more than a century and led Don Williamson to suggest
     that the tunicate had hybrid origins with those genes controlling larval development
     coming from a chordate ancestor, and those genes controlling adult development
     coming from some other phylum

     According to the researcher, this is all about a classification problem. Some class or system is classified in a certain way because of the similarity in larval development. After the study it became clear that there is a problem with this classification and according to the researchers hybridization explains the results. It turns out that for more than a century that tunicate has amazed scientists and a scientist named Williamson suspected that it was a hybrid, as it turned out from this study.

     I am attaching the corrected "tree" that appears in the study in section 3:
     http://s14.postimage.org/b6pqesi73/tree.png

     The research findings do not contradict evolution, at least not according to the researchers. They can be wrong, but you can't just ignore their conclusions. The article from the website http://www.evolutionnews.org She did not mention the researchers' conclusions at all. Even if in the opinion of the authors of the article the conclusions are incorrect, it is worth mentioning them.

657. xianghua,
     Fibarko - this is what the Federal Court determined and this is what I mean when I write: "sit on the bench":
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover#Witnesses_for_the_plaintiffs

     You have to understand that the court did not determine matters of science on its own, but after hearing many, many experts. The court is constantly determining issues whose essence is scientific, for example: the court determines (unfortunately) that Texas Hold'em is illegal because the dominant factor, for amateurs, is luck. How does he do this, since the court is not an expert in mathematics? He does this by hearing mathematicians and deciding in light of their testimony.

     What the court determined regarding the Discovery Institute is that they tried to convince schools to teach intelligent design because evolution is a doctrine in crisis because of the incorrect claim (all from the court's decision) that the issue is in dispute in the scientific community. Here is the English text again, from:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute#cite_note-slate-7

     A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis",[8 ] through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.[9][10][11] In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions",[8][10][12] and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy,[13] describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".[14][15] It was the Federal Court's opinion that intelligent design was merely a redressing of creationism and that, as such, it was not a scientific proposition

     So you can repeat how many times there are scientists (without providing links) who claim that there is no evolution, and what you see under microscopes for colonies of bacteria does not exist and they do not change, but the absolute majority of scientists, that is what the court ruled (and this is exactly its authority because it is neutral and listens to the testimony of two the parties) does accept the correctness of the theory of evolution. Note that I have not gone into the mechanisms that drive evolution here.
     The court also determined, after listening to experts, that intelligent design is not a scientific theory. of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover#Witnesses_for_the_plaintiffs, and read carefully how the court does not determine whether the institute's general claim is correct or not:

     After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. ...It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena

     So I ask again in light of the clarification of the court's ruling: Do you think that these are the actions of Tamim Institute? An institute that is determined to try to introduce non-scientific Torah into science classes in schools? An institute that was determined to have fabricated claims that evolution is in fierce dispute in the scientific community, a dispute not about one or another mechanism within the Torah but about the Torah itself.
     Please let's try to move forward. I think I explained why the court's determination was appropriate and that it did not deal at all with the institute's principled claim and please, do not repeat the mantra that there are scientists... I showed you the court's determination that there is no strong dispute, I showed in a previous post a list of 68 national academies that incorporate a huge list of scientists, Around the world encompassing far more than 800 scientists who seek to teach evolution (an article my father translated). All this does not mean that tomorrow they will discover something new, but today, this is the best Torah we have.

     I would like to point out that you did not bring a link to the survey you told about and I would really appreciate it if you did. Regarding my number 3 question, she would not be angry and stop making my life difficult and bring links to the fact that this is the institute that discovered that junk DNA is not really junk. By the way, I read about the issue at the time and I agree that many times scientists confuse "lack of evidence for" and "lack of evidence", just as in the 60's they didn't think breastfeeding with breast milk was important, but regarding your claim, I'm asking for links.
     The thing that upsets me the most is your answer to my 2nd question. You copied my sentence that starts with "By the way, it's more honorable to answer that you don't want to answer question 2 than to dodge" and then, you dodged! So no, I don't want to answer you. I asked first and I will let you answer first. My question came to find out how much you consider the Discovery Institute on issues that are in your blood, life and death are now at stake, what medicine you will use. put your money where your mouth is
     Your question is meant to embarrass a layman, and I do not claim to be anything beyond that, regarding evolution and in any case, it is impolite to answer a question with a question and therefore I am asking for an answer.

     Thanks

658. RH You haven't heard of the modern synthesis between evolution and genetics, it's already from the thirties and it's actually the only approach in science, there is no separation between evolution and genetics as you try to claim. You are simply wrong in the definition, or you were mistakenly convinced by the definition that the pans distribute under the guise of science. Part of the point of the site is to disprove ignorance, and this particular article is about the government knowingly spreading ignorance.

     As for imposters - one of the features of the Discovery Institute is dishonesty when its people disguise themselves as scientists and secularists. It's a shame that his supporters in Israel learn these qualities from him as well. It doesn't add to them. There is no such thing as a secularist who denies evolution, not even Menachem Ben. He is religious even if he travels on Shabbat.

659. Avi,
     I have a hard time understanding why you had to add the following words: "Assuming that you are not religious, a rather unreasonable assumption for those who follow all your comments on the website".
     Leave the guy alone. He owes you no account of his private life. You don't agree with his opinions and you may think they are nonsense - address that. It has nothing to do with his private life.
     Embarrassing that I, the site guest, have to say this to the site manager.

     By the way, your claim that "genetics is part of evolution" is not understandable to me. For us today, it is clear that genetics is an integral component of biology, just as evolution is an integral component of biology, and it is impossible to understand one field without another. However, Darwin developed his theory regardless of Mendelian genetics, Mendel developed his theory regardless of Darwinian evolution, and both did so without knowing all the discoveries that were made in the 20th century (more on genetics). I know today that it is impossible to understand biology properly (not that we really understand it properly...) without one of them.
     The claim that genetics is part of evolution is vanity and the glorification of evolution far beyond what it is. I think you already understand that this thing bothers me a lot, even though I of course accept the whole evolution without question.

660. xianghua,

     First, I wanted to point out that I do not agree with the writing style of "Sherlock" and I find his writing somewhat blunt.
     I would be happy if you answered my question about whether you have a scientific background, computer science, etc.

     Regarding what you wrote about har1 (man, chicken and chimpanzee), I would appreciate it if you would attach a link and then I can check what it is about. In any case, even if what you wrote is true, it still does not harm anything in the amazing proof in David Fanny's 1982 experiment. This is for a very simple logical reason. If you try to prove, for example, that occult vision exists, and you find 5 people who claim this ability and give each of them a task to discover an 11-digit number and one of them succeeds (assuming the experiment is kosher), this means that there is telepathy. How about that?

     Regarding the numbers I mentioned in the previous response, I was indeed referring to the number of bases in DNA.

661. Xingua, since the 20s, that is, for 90 years, genetics has been part of evolution. You fell asleep a little I would say, and as for the arguments that the Discovery Institute recycles from real scientific debates, they do not indicate a mistake in evolution but a mistake in the interpretation of findings within the framework of evolution. There is no contradiction in evolution if there are vestigial organs or not, or if there is junk DNA or no junk DNA. So despite the nonsense that the people of the institute write, even if they are right in their diagnosis in several sub-fields, it is of no importance because the debate is within the framework of evolution and the fact that they side with a certain side within it does not make him a side that supports creationism.

     As for your idea that you are not religious, and all of this points to the seriousness of the matter of not teaching the theory of evolution, and the Hatbats enter this hole created by the Ministry of Education, build a scarecrow of evolution and then smash it, the audience in their ignorance thinks they have smashed the true theory of evolution, but because of the omission This is you and many others like you do not understand this. (Assuming that you are not religious, a pretty far-fetched assumption for those who follow all of your comments on the site, but the truth of Mechabat is a very flexible thing - some rabbis allow lying in order to repent).

662. Guys, cow cow. I will try to respond briefly to all the claims made.

     First, my father, I really don't want to start a new monster thread here. Those who wish can take a look at the article "Evolution or Balevolution" on the current website. There I had extensive correspondence with several scientists and each one explained his arguments and his theory.

     Ori,

     "The scientists' findings showed the horizontal transfer of genes, and they gave an explanation for this that does not contradict evolution. "- Not really. The article also explicitly talks about developed creatures, in which horizontal transfer does not exist:

     But the tree of life is challenged even among higher organisms where such promiscuous gene-swapping across taxa is not thought to not take place. As the article explains:

     Syvanen recently compared 2,000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed

     buddha,

     ” There are 34 million possibilities but the same tree came out. I don't know if you've ever been involved in genetic data processing. I messed around with it a bit. A person has 4 billion genes and a dog 2.8 billion." - First, maybe you mean 3 billion dna bases. In my opinion, the researchers are making a big mistake here. In my opinion, such a statistical analysis is not possible for several reasons:

     a) Different creatures have different population sizes, different mutation rates, different generation lifespans, and of course also different natural selection pressures. So in my opinion it is not possible to create a statistical model. And I've already seen enough models that don't stand the test of reality.

     "Note! This is about a completely blind computer program that if you feed it the DNA of these 11 creatures it will tell you that the cow resembles a sheep and the human resembles a monkey" - and guess what will happen if you enter the data of the har1 genetic segment of a human, a chicken and a chimpanzee into the computer? (hint - you will get the opposite result than expected)

     shmulibr,

     "This means that a federal court that listened attentively, sat on the bench, heard witnesses and decided according to all the evidence before it, as well as most scientific organizations, which gather most of the scientific discoveries you know, say that the Discovery Institute Manufactured (I used the English word on purpose) and in Hebrew, fabricated a dispute"- Shaw Fabrico? There is a list of 800 scientists who question the claim that evolution is responsible for the formation of complex biological systems. Of these, over 100 are PhDs in biology. And again, since when do courts rule in matters of science?

     "By the way, it is more respectful to answer that you don't want to answer question 2 than to evade and tell me that you will use the medicine recommended by your doctor or the FDA (which, by the way, is assisted by the same scientists from the same scientific organizations). Given these two options, what would you choose?" - Before I answer your question, I would be happy if you would answer my question. Before you is a breeding clock that is on another planet. Most scientists support the claim that it evolved by itself. A small number of scientists claim that it is proof of aliens. Which option will you choose?

     "None of the fans of the institute responded to my easy challenge: give me a donation to science that the institute, according to xianghua, is "a scientific body made up of scientists with advanced degrees" - just one donation? What about the claim that junk dna is not junk (something that was proven to be true only recently)? About removing the unnecessary appendix? About the rest of the chatter about residual organs? And in general, science will only go and improve if the scientists take into account the designer theory. And in general, what benefit did evolutionary scientists contribute exactly? (antibiotic development is genetics, not evolution). What's more, a scientific theory is not measured by utility, but by the evidence.

     Hi Sherlock, you're on me :). Indeed I do not usually write here on Saturdays. But not writing on Shabbat can be due to several reasons that I will not specify at the moment (for example, the knowledge that there are also religious readers here). But what can I do, I live in Tel Aviv and I don't even have a kippah. So you were quite far from your description of me.

663. sherlock,
     Wow, you're Sherlock!
     You got on him, he's religious! What the hell is religious doing in science?!

     In short, you understand for yourself how pathetic it sounds. He defined himself alone and is a big enough boy. If he lies, he lies, and that is his full right. I actually quite believe him.

     In general, this whole idea of ​​getting into someone's guts and seeing when he reacts, and thereby deciding that he is religious and that he is lying, seems both disgusting and childish to me. It is none of your business what strange actions he does, what words he mumbles and what piece of cloth he has on his head.
     Be serious.

664. xianghua
     So far I've enjoyed hearing your arguments, but you've pretty much burned your credibility in my eyes when you feel the need to lie:
     "I am a traditional secularist".
     Every time you didn't comment here on Saturday and waited for Sunday.
     Today we won't hear a peep from you after 17:00

     The very fact that you have to hide your religiosity puts you in a position of great weakness in the eyes of all of us.
     Be proud - say 'I am a follower of Satmar Hasidism and evolution is scientifically nonsense because of A. B. C.

665. xianghua,
     Just because it's interesting, give a link to the survey you talked about.
     On the other hand, here is a list of 68 National Academies that call for the study of evolution in schools: https://www.hayadan.org.il/twas-against-intelligent-design-3006061/
     And this is not a survey but a signature, not anonymous, of the academies themselves

     You asked for order, so here it is again:
     A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want...
     This means that a federal court that listened attentively, sat on the bench, heard witnesses and decided according to all the evidence before it, as well as most of the scientific organizations, which gather most of the scientific discoveries you know, say that the Discovery Institute Manufactured (intentionally I used the word in English) and in Hebrew, fabricated a dispute...
     1. Now, does that sound like something an innocent organization would do to you?

     2. On the market there are 2 medicines for a certain disease. Would you purchase for your child (if you have one) or for yourself drug A, which was recommended by a federal court and most scientific organizations, or drug B, which was recommended by the Discovery Institute. By the way, it is more respectful to answer that you do not want to answer question 2 than to avoid and tell me that you will use the drug recommended by your doctor or the FDA (which, by the way, is assisted by the same scientists from the same scientific organizations). Given these two options, which would you choose?

     3. None of the fans of the institute responded to my easy challenge: give me a contribution to science that the institute, according to xianghua, "is a scientific body composed of scientists with advanced degrees"

666. xianghua,
     What is the name of the writer of that article from 2005 in the Washington Times that reported on the survey that "showed that out of all biologists, only a minority of them do not believe in intelligent design"?

667. xianghua,

     I read again what you wrote about the tree. It seems to me that you did not understand the research at all, how amazing it is and certainly no one has denied it and will not deny it.

     This is what you wrote:

     "About the tree. The words of the scientists (evolutionists by the way) say it all. They are based on a series of studies from the field. Which completely negates the study you brought about 5 proteins. The logic is this: if we take a group of proteins from several creatures, we are supposed to build a hierarchical tree that will indicate the time of their split. But what happens when you find one garden that fits, and one garden that fits a different tree at all? This means that the tree has been disproved or does not exist."

     If we forget for a moment about the global tree of life, the bacteria and germs, etc. and think about the following story:

     A little less than 200 years ago Darwin came and hypothesized that all creatures were created as a result of natural selection and that they all have a common ancestor. And since then people who believed in the theory tried to classify the animals according to the appearance of their eyes (who looks like who) and created a tree that made the most sense. We will refer to only 11 known mammals (kangaroo, human, chimpanzee, horse, cow, guinea pig, rabbit, rat, dog, pig, macaque) at this stage it is only a theory. If you want entertainment for your free time. The rest of the people continued to believe that God created all these creatures in two days as they are ready.

     After about 150 years they discovered the genes (which I appreciate that you do believe) and then took parts of the genes and tried to build a tree based on a statistical comparison of the genes only. There are 34 million possibilities but the same tree came out. I don't know if you've ever been involved in genetic data processing. I messed around with it a bit. A person has 4 billion genes and a dog 2.8 billion.

     Note! This is about a completely blind computer program that if you feed it the DNA of these 11 creatures it will tell you that a cow is similar to a sheep and a human is similar to a monkey (without of course knowing what a person is and what a cow is).

     Do you have any background in statistics and computer science?
     How do you explain it?

     I'd love to hear any reasonable explanation you can think of.

668. xianghua,

     The scientists' findings showed the horizontal transfer of genes, and they gave an explanation for this that does not contradict evolution. The link you gave did not mention this at all, but presented it as if there were findings that could not be explained within the framework of evolution.

     Horizontal transfer, as in this case, does not create a tree, but also does not contradict evolution, so I am not clear what you are trying to say. So maybe once before they knew about horizontal transfer they thought there had to be a tree, so what?

     I don't remember Jerry claiming that most of the genome is junk, he did talk about pseudogenes. I brought it up just to emphasize that Dawkins is one man and even if he was wrong there are scientists for whom the phylogenetic tree is not important enough to be included in a book dealing with evidence for evolution.

669. Shiguay, I see you've started your war of attrition again. go rest
     Science is not a legal arena, your stupid arguments and the partial and out of context quotes of scientists who said or didn't say something that you understood as you understood it, is quibbling and not engaging in science.
     The 'scientists' who claim there is controversy in evolution are the ones employed by the evangelical universities. And it's not just that these universities are not recognized by the scientific establishment, because their science is worth nothing.

670. Again, some order

     "The institute lied not about the intelligent design but about the claim that "the entire issue is controversial in the scientific establishment". The issue is not controversial. "- This is simply not true. As long as there are serious scientists who claim otherwise, the issue is in dispute. Otherwise, we will never be able to define when there is a dispute. After all, where is the line between controversy and non-controversy? In one scientist? two? twenty? Thousand?

     "Every day someone puts forward a hypothesis and takes a lot of time to confirm or disprove it. Experiments should be repeated independently, etc." - true. And all the experiments show that a dog remains a dog and a cat remains a cat and that there are no gradual steps between biological system and biological system. And it turns out that the supporters of evolution actually disagree with the scientific research.

     Uri, here is a quote from the scientists themselves:

     For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality

     Do you disagree with him?

     In addition, if every phylogenetic finding comes into consideration, then evolution can absorb any finding, and hence is not scientific.

     "Coyne's phylogenetic tree is not mentioned at all, and the author brings a lot of other evidence" - I know them all. And none of them proves a common origin. By the way, is this the same Jerry who claimed that most of the genome is "junk"? Good joke debunked a few weeks ago.

671. And another thing, Dawkins did say that the strongest evidence for evolution is the phylogenetic tree, but in Coyne's book "why evolution is true" the phylogenetic tree is not mentioned at all, and the author brings a bunch of other evidence.

672. The site that xianghua brought relied on Syvanen's experiment, here is a link to his original article:

     http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/vme/hgt/jbiosys18-2.pdf

     The conclusion (part 3):
     Therefore the simplest explanation for these results is that
     the ancestor that gave rise to Ciona was a hybrid between an early protostome (ie
     related to an ancestor in the Drosophila-C.elegans clade) and a vertebrate ancestor
     (excluding Amphioxus)

     So the researchers do have an explanation that doesn't include an intelligent planner for the findings, and the website that uses their research doesn't even bother to mention it.

673. xianghua4,

     The institute lied not about the intelligent design but about the claim that "the whole issue is controversial in the scientific establishment". The issue is not controversial. It's like I'll tell you about two people who disagree on something when they do agree. This is not a scientific question at all. This only shows the type of activity of the "Institute".

     As for the science, I'm sorry but that's how science works. Science cannot work otherwise. Every day someone puts forward a hypothesis and takes a lot of time to confirm or disprove it. Experiments should be repeated independently, etc. It may seem like a slow and cumbersome process but it progresses at the speed of light (500 years and look where it has brought the human race) compared to any other method that the human race has managed to invent to date.

674. Since in the creationist community learning English (so that their children can also work) is an unforgivable crime, I translated the paragraph into Hebrew.

     A federal court, as well as most scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS - the publisher of the journal Science, AB) say that the institute itself created the differences of opinion that they seek to teach by coddling the misconception that evolution is a 'theory in crisis'. Using incorrect arguments that the topic is controversial and discussed as a topic of controversy within the scientific community. In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute's claims "demonstrate religious, cultural and legal missions", and that the Institute's manifesto, and the strategy of driving the wedge describe a religious goal "to reverse the suffocating dominance of the materialist concept and replace it with science that is constrained by Christian and theistic convictions". This court ruling that intelligent design is creationism in disguise, and as such, should not be taught in science classes.

675. Buddha, some order. First, I would define myself as secular-traditional, like most of the population I guess. And I do support some intelligent planning.

     "The one who determined that the institute is lying is the US court." - Not accurate. He did not state that they are lying but that the alleged intelligent design is not scientific. But here's the problem: since when are courts an authority in matters of science? Why do evolutionists hang on in courts if their theory is so successful? It just shows that the debate here is not purely scientific. Second, according to the criterion of a scientific theory, intelligent design definitely meets the definition. If you manage to show the development of a complex system gradually, the theory will be disproved. Something I already suggested at the beginning of this thread.

     "It is a fact that it took 20 years and at the end the scientific establishment accepted Dan Shechtman's opinion. "- 20 years are not walking. Real science should have accepted this already after the first evidence.

     ". Biological robots can evolve from robots that are simpler life forms. It's easier for most people to grasp that about bacteria being robots. In the Lansky experiment, we see with certainty that a new bacterium was created through a process of natural selection. The same applies to animals and humans." - This is not a new bacteria. The ability to digest citrate already existed in the bacterium. But I already explained that earlier.

676. Here is what a federal court ruled about the Discovery Institute, from:

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
     A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis",[8 ] through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.[9][10][11] In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions",[8][10][12] and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy,[13] describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".[14][15] It was the Federal Court's opinion that intelligent design was merely a redressing of creationism and that, as such, it was not a scientific proposition.

     I don't think it's worth using the institute's "findings".

     By the way, to all the fans of the institute, can you point to his contribution to science (I'm not bored enough to look for it myself)?

677. Buddha
     I didn't see your comment at first
     What kind of sarcasm are you and RH talking about?
     There is a fallacy of Poe's law here.
     I don't know the theory of evolution in depth and I don't know the "problems" that the various creationists point out.
     I just pointed out that the argument that - there is a problem with evolution-> there is intelligent design - is a logical fallacy that I saw they were guilty of.
     Even if the theory of evolution were to collapse completely - this is in no way proof of intelligent design.

678. xianghua,

     First, I would appreciate it if you could detail your background and beliefs. I have asked you several times already. The fact that you ignore does not add respect to you. Are you trying to hide something?

     Regarding the Discovery Institute, I repeat that I trust the scientific establishment. The scientific establishment consists of leading universities in the world. Discovery Institute is not like that. The one who determined that the institute is lying is the US court. Unfortunately 80% of Americans believe in God and intelligent design including some of their presidents. It is certainly impossible to claim that the court opposes intelligent planning...

     Dan Shechtman's example is an excellent example and that is exactly what I am talking about. It is a fact that it took 20 years and at the end the scientific establishment accepted Dan Shechtman's opinion. He not only received but also gave him a Nobel Prize. If you had asked me what I thought about his theory 20 years ago, I would have said that I do not support it because I do not understand anything about it and the scientific establishment did not accept it. If you ask me today I will tell you that today I get her. very simple. I wish you would behave the same way in your meetings.

     See for example what happened not long ago with the film by Professor Natan Aviezer and Bar Ilan University. Natan Aviezer as a private person can make any film he wants, but Bar Ilan University very quickly removed his name from the work because it is contrary to the existing scientific concept. That is why I can continue to trust Bar Ilan University even though it is affiliated with the religious sector. I hope you get the idea.

     http://www.tapuz.co.il/blog/net/ViewEntry.aspx?entryId=2368330&skip=1

     Regarding your question "Do you believe that robots can be created by a natural process?" The short answer is "yes".
     If you define natural selection as a natural process then:

     1. Biological robots can evolve from robots that are simpler life forms. It's easier for most people to grasp that about bacteria being robots. In the Lansky experiment, we see with certainty that a new bacterium was created through a process of natural selection. The same applies to animals and humans.

     2. Can a living creature be created from organic materials naturally? I tend to estimate that yes, but science has not yet formed an opinion on the matter.

679. The Discovery Institute testified in lawsuits by parents against decisions of educational boards to teach creationism or intelligent design in the US (on the side of those boards) and lost in all cases, in one case the judge even stated unequivocally that the theory of intelligent design is not a scientific theory but a cover for a religious belief.

680. Buddha, first of all, the Discovery Institute is a scientific body composed of scientists with advanced degrees (one of them even has a doctorate in evolutionary biology). It is clear that the opponents of intelligent planning will argue otherwise, and what were you thinking? The fact that you trust science with your eyes closed is your right. I have the right to disagree. If anything, a survey published in 2005 in the "Washington Times" showed that out of all biologists, only a minority of them do not believe in intelligent design. Imagine what the results of the survey would have been if they had also taught about the problems in evolution (which does not happen).

     Regarding the rest of your words:

     "I simply trust the scientific system as a system that encourages criticism, criticizes itself, etc. This system also makes mistakes and hurries to correct its mistakes "- are you sure of your words? Did you hear about what they did to Prof. Dan Shechtman until his evidence was received?

     "According to the information I have, evolution is the unquestionably dominant scientific theory and there is no serious scientist who disagrees with it." - There are hundreds of scientists who oppose it. Show me hundreds of scientists who disagree that the earth is spherical.

     1". What is really important to understand is that a "robot cat" is a robot. "Cat" is a robot. "Adam" is a robot." - So do you believe that robots can be created through a natural process?

     about the tree The words of the scientists (evolutionists by the way) say it all. They are based on a series of studies from the field. Which completely negates the study you brought about 5 proteins. The logic is this: if we take a group of proteins from several creatures, we are supposed to build a hierarchical tree that will indicate the time of their split. But what happens when you find one garden that fits, and one garden that fits a different tree at all? This means that the tree has been debunked or does not exist. Obviously, evolutionists will argue that the tree has not been disproved. Did you think they would say otherwise? And what do you think they will do tomorrow morning when they admit that evolution has been disproved? Will they still have work in the field?

681. Shmulik - The word 'fact' when it comes to the field of science is a problematic word.
     On a philosophical level it conflicts with what science is supposed to be.
     This fact is better understood legally when all parties agree on some event - either politically or on a day-to-day level.
     In science - the word 'fact' is dangerous because it causes people who do not have developed critical thinking to accept it as fact as they are cases - something absolutely certain that cannot be disputed (this includes many scientists as well)

682. another one,
     Just as I wrote and others also: evolution is a fact as much as a physical fact can be a fact. The fact that things evolve, with the passage of time, is a fact: we see it in the laboratory and in fossils and that is exactly why I wrote that we should stop apologizing for this knowledge.

     Evolution is a fact just as the moon is an existing fact. Maybe quantum mechanics knows how to say that as long as you don't look at the moon, it may not exist, but at the level of the Hebrew language, the word fact is exactly suitable for describing our knowledge of the moon, and the same goes for our knowledge of evolution, otherwise, the word fact should be eliminated.

     R.H
     Of course the revolution is tremendous on a scientific level and there is really no need to say much about it. The cognitive revolution is just as important and since you mentioned Nietzsche, so here it is:
     http://philosophynow.org/issues/29/Nietzsche_and_Evolution

     And from the secular Bible:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche

     Nietzsche saw nihilism as the outcome of repeated frustrations in the search for meaning. He diagnosed nihilism as a latent presence within the very foundations of European culture, and saw it as a necessary and approaching destiny. The religious worldview had already suffered a number of challenges from contrary perspectives grounded in philosophical skepticism, and in modern science's evolutionary and heliocentric theory. [citation needed] Nietzsche saw this intellectual condition as a new challenge to European culture, which had extended itself beyond a sort of point-of-no-return. Nietzsche conceptualizes this with the famous statement "God is dead"
     I read that he had a criticism of Darwin but on the basis of the Torah and it seems that it also shaped his world view.

     Regarding the students of Israel, the study of evolution will introduce a basic rationality into their lives that will help them (at least some of them) get rid of the burden of religion that offers a connection theory to our existence here. The human race prefers a connection theory to no theory and in the absence of such a study, the connection theory known as the Torah will seep in. It has so much power in Israel.
     Rationality is essential for every person and especially for teenage children and studying evolution will help to create a rational worldview for them.

683. xianghua,

     The tree of life is still the scientific consensus. It is valid for animals but not really for bacteria etc.
     The published research was biased (probably to bash Darwin on the 200th anniversary of his birth) and received a lot of criticism.
     If you think otherwise, show me a website of some university that specifically wrote that the tree is not correct, etc.

     A very detailed review can be found here:

     http://www.texscience.org/reports/sboe-tree-life-2009feb7.htm

     You probably know this study by David Penny from New Zealand from 1982 (penny et al 1982):

     https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmbe.oxfordjournals.org%2Fcontent%2F3%2F5%2F403.full.pdf

     This is an amazing study that says it all. They built a tree of 11 animals using 5 different proteins and got 5 times the same tree that zoologists built before from physical data. The chance of getting this tree by chance for all the proteins is one in 34 million in five... that's what moved Dawkins in the video you posted.

684. R.H
     I did not use any form of sarcasm.
     What I meant was that intelligent design advocates at least the ones I've read.
     They look for "contradictions and "problems" in the theory of evolution - and then say that since evolution is incorrect because of that fault - then intelligent design is the only option left.
     By and large, those who oppose the idea of ​​intelligent design do so for several possible reasons

     Scientific reason - they believe that evolution is the best explanation that science offers and defend it in a scientific way.

     Scientific-philosophical reason - intelligent design is something that cannot be disproved and has and is not expected to have confirmations therefore it is not a scientific theory and should not be part of a scientific discussion.

     Atheist religious reason - they oppose intelligent design for religious reasons (they believe that there is no God and/or that religion is the root of youth/evil in the world)

685. To all those debating the correctness of evolution or its refutation - this is not the subject of the discussion here. The discussion is about the quality of education and the spillover of political approaches to the content of education in elementary and high schools in Israel.
     From the sample knowledge I have, in Israeli society, in a rough generalization, among the religious there are two approaches: one - ablution is a complete lie, stupid, illogical, absurd, an example of the biasing of common sense so that it is possible to follow the will of evil, etc., etc. I found this attitude among ultra-Orthodox and converts/reverts to the ultra-Orthodox world. Second approach - ignore! If we don't talk about it, it might go away. I found this approach in religious Zionism/knitted caps, who are especially careful not to teach this topic or approach it. Even if they uncomfortably admit that evolution is a strong scientific theory.
     I have also come across exceptions - an ultra-orthodox rabbi who has no problem accepting evolution, and an educated man with a deep philosophical education who for some reason strongly claims that evolution is not scientific.
     As part of the evolution of education programs in Israel, for many years the Ministry of Education was led by Ministers from the Federal Ministry of Education and Culture. Maybe that's the origin of the matter...

686. xianghua

     I would appreciate it if you would attach a link to the study, so I can refer to it and also consult experts.

     Studies I have read have shown that biological taxonomy based on DNA is very accurate. On the other hand, I have also read opposite things such as "It is possible to find identical or very similar sequences among distant organisms (conserved sequences) such as humans and jellyfish". I have not read anywhere that this undermines the validity of the theory of evolution. If it was like that they would be happy to point it out.

     Again, I would love to know what your background is and what you believe? Or do you have some reason to hide it and not speak openly?

     to one another,

     Your sarcasm is out of place since this is science. If you show me a scientific study (from a recognized university, etc.) that points to problems with evolution, I would be happy to read it. Science has nothing personal against creationists and any scientist would be very happy to have a theory that disproves evolution. He will be even more happy to prove that God created the world. This is the difference between them and the religious. For a scientist, discovering a mistake is better than making a new discovery. Look for example Susan Blackmore spent 20 years to scientifically prove that telepathy works but she failed. The telepaths blame her... they don't understand that she would have received a Nobel Prize if she had succeeded.

     R.H.

     I have no problem with the theory that the first cell is the result of intelligent design. Bring one that has some kind of evidence to support it and we'll add it to the list of the world of RNA and soup, etc. Regarding the sequel, it is no longer relevant because we know how evolution works. If someone claims that God supervises and directs everything that happens in the world (and also that there is free will) then this already smacks of paranoid schizophrenia in my eyes. If you smoke certain substances you may definitely feel this way. Maybe one day it will turn out to be true too. The theory that there is a cosmic entity that oversees everything we do all the time and knows when we think things that are not "good" is a theory that cannot be disproved, Russell's tea pot, our holes in our stockings, etc. If she enjoys examining everything that goes through all people's minds every second, then let her be blessed.

687. Shmulik,
     In your words to "Another" you said this: "The revolution for which the theory of evolution is responsible is the initial release of man from the yoke of God...if it is not a tremendous revolution, perhaps the greatest that has ever taken place, then it is certainly one of the most important revolutions." . It is possible that evolution is such a revolution, I don't know (in my eyes there are other much more important revolutions). The point is that this revolution is indifferent, meaning scientifically meaningless! The liberation of man from the yoke of God (strange... I have always tended to attribute the aforementioned liberation to someone - Nietzsche) is not significant in terms of the way science perceives the world, and it should be so also in terms of the way scientists perceive the world, even though it is not so. This is because science from the beginning knows only in this world how much exists and how much is subject to investigation. The question of the existence of God does not interest science because it only deals with what is found in this world. Moreover, even if we assume that God is nothing more than a historical fiction, science should not be interested in it, because the history of humanity and the internal struggles within it are not of interest to science, or at least not to biology. Science is interested in phenomena that exist or have existed in the natural world, and therefore even if the liberation of man from the burden of God has a first-rate historical importance, it still has no scientific importance.
     Where am I headed with this?
     If we pretend to teach the children of Israel science, and only science, the liberation of man from the burden of God should not interest us. This should not be the reasoning that professional experts put in front of their eyes when they choose what content the students will learn. This is exactly the same "foreign interest" whose owner may be sitting in the Ministry of Education and I am so anxious about his meeting there, whether he is a God-fearing Jew or whether he eats carrion to his heart's content. It seems to me that I have already talked about this more than enough, and you can see my previous comments to understand exactly what I mean.

     I didn't ask whether Israeli students would be better students if they studied evolution, and I don't understand at all how their being "good" is related to studying evolution. It is appropriate and important to teach them evolution, because it is appropriate and important for them to learn science, and that the role of the schools is to teach the students different fields of thought. As I have already argued here, I do not think that familiarity with evolution makes a person "better", and I assume of course that you mean a more moral person, in the usual sense of the word.

     You also probably didn't notice the distinction I made between not studying evolution and studying cultural/national/religious content (like Torah in XNUMXnd grade). Members of the Knesset cannot declare that there is no gravity. They are also not allowed to declare that this or that content is not taught in the schools due to various considerations. This is the matter of foreign interests that I resent so much. This is exactly why the Ministry of Education is made up of officials, whose considerations are supposed to be professional and matter-of-fact.

     Everything you said about democracy and the need for evolution is of course true, but of course it has nothing to do with the digs I dug for Buddha. My intention was that the situation today, in which any religious content is conveyed in schools to students, is due to the fact that a very large majority of the public thinks that this content is necessary (not necessarily for religious reasons). This is not a situation of the tyranny of the majority, because it does not prevent Buddha from telling his children that all these things are nonsense. What is more, Buddha should not expect to change this situation in a "democratic" way, that is, through the Knesset, because the opinion of the majority is the opinion of the majority, and it is decisive. What can be done is to change the opinion of the majority and make it the opinion of the minority. Such a change can only be effected through persuasion.

     In conclusion, I am not optimistic at all and I also think that there is a terrible process of radicalization here. I meant that Buddha could try to convince, I made no commitment that it would work at all. Unlike you, I seriously doubt whether this extremism is really religious, and it undoubtedly has elements that are loosely connected to religion. As someone who has publicly stated here that he has a very deep affinity for Jewish law and the Jewish religion, I find it difficult to accept this as arising from religious motives, certainly not halachic: http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/politics/1.1835284

     Hello,
     I get your point. However, I'm still not sure how I'm supposed to approach her. Will she turn those foreign interests over to us? And what can we do with them? How can we kick them out of the Ministry of Education?

688. buddha,

     You are not accurate. One of the central predictions in the theory has been disproved in recent years in a comprehensive scientific study. In the study, sequences of about 2000 genes from different creatures were examined. According to the evolutionary prediction, examining their sequence will allow us to know who evolved from whom. In other words: a phylogenetic tree. But the prediction is very serious. The scientists could not tell who evolved from whom. Some genes showed that species a is closer to species b. Whereas another part of the genes showed that species b is generally closer to species c than to species a. In short, a complete mess. Or as the researchers themselves concluded: there is no evidence that such a tree exists.

689. Another one (if you allow me to intervene in the discussion, not me),
     I understand that you wrote your words with a certain sarcasm. If so, it's worth using any exclamation marks, otherwise it's hard to understand your position and it's possible to mistakenly think you've changed it.
     You presented the position of intelligent planning, if I understood you correctly, in these words: "Something seems to be not working out and therefore intelligent planning must be correct". I suppose that according to the opinion of some of those who support the position of intelligent design, something does not make sense in that there is no planner or director to direct the process that led to the creation of complex living beings. This is their opinion, and there are many who disagree with them. Maybe that's why you used the word "allegedly". The problem, from the point of view of the opponents of the intelligent design approach, is that the introduction of intelligent design into the story requires the assumption of its existence, which is rationally impossible. So they think.
     The problem is that you inserted the word "must". Intelligent planning can certainly exist and cannot be ruled out. It is possible that there is an intelligent designer directing evolution, which we perceive as a random process. The point is that it is not needed to explain evolution (therefore it seems to me that the root of the dispute is in the question of whether there is something illogical in evolution, or whether there is none and the whole of evolution is explained in an acceptable way). From a scientific point of view, you cannot introduce into the story a factor that you know nothing about, other than being "intelligent".
     Personally, I have no problem with the fact that followers of intelligent design try to bring God into the whole cauldron of evolution. They have the right to say that as far as they are concerned, the Almighty sits and pulls the strings of evolution for his pleasure while we stand and fool around (I, by the way, am not fooled at all). The problem is when they say it is necessary. At this point their argument becomes completely illogical. I mean, I don't have a problem as long as they admit they prefer to see the whole thing illogically, but when they try to forcefully make it logical, then it just stops making sense.
     And again, sorry for interfering in a discussion that is not mine.

690. Buddha
     I understand
     The problem with creationists is that they try to use the problems of the theory of evolution as proof of intelligent design - something seems to be wrong and therefore intelligent design must be true - this way of thinking is not critical or scientific or even logical.

691. Lonely, you probably haven't heard of the following study: As you know, one of the main pieces of evidence for the theory of evolution according to its supporters, is the alleged existence of the phylogenetic tree. Dawkins claims this is the most impressive evidence he knows:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PlqNoCAIgA

     Well, it turns out Dawkins is wrong. In an article published by the New Scientist in 2009, evolutionary biologists admitted that there is no such tree at all, and that in fact it is disproved by research:

     http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/testing_the_orchard_model_and032481.html

     For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality

     and also:

     But the tree of life is challenged even among higher organisms where such promiscuous gene-swapping across taxa is not thought to not take place. As the article explains:

     Syvanen recently compared 2,000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed

     That means even in fortifications where horizontal transfer should not occur, there is no wood at all.

     And a last and important detail: even if such a tree existed, it would not prove the claim of common origin. Hierarchical trees can also be built from model cars and airplanes. This does not prove that they evolved from each other, even if they did reproduce.

692. to one another,

     To be precise, evolution is a scientific theory that is supported by a huge number of evidences that support it and to date not even one evidence has been found that contradicts it.

     The reason many call evolution a "fact" is because, unlike other theories that are universally accepted, the opponents of evolution continue to ignore it and say "it's just a theory".

693. Shmulik - If evolution is disprovable - how is it a fact?
     If it is not refutable - how is it science?
     The reality is that in science - the word "fact" has a different meaning - we have findings that evolution is the simplest and most logical explanation of them that we have today. "Fact" is a relative term in science and it is better not to use it.

694. Dear xianghua,

     The Discovery Institute is (in the opinion of the US court) a deliberate fraud scheme to present non-scientific material as science and incorrectly describe scientific "controversies" where they do not exist at all. This institute is not a scientific body and is not recognized as such by the scientific establishment.

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

     I'm not a biologist and I don't have the scientific tools to find out for myself whether evolution is a fact. I mean at the level that I don't have an electron microscope at home and I haven't mapped the human genome myself, etc. I simply trust the scientific system as a system that encourages criticism, criticizes itself, etc. This system also makes mistakes and hurries to correct its mistakes (see the last example from a few months ago about measuring the speed of particles that exceed the speed of light. The wrongdoers hastened to apologize).

     Look, I have no problem if you tell the forum that you are a religious person who does not believe in evolution and does not believe in the validity of science. That is your full right. According to the information I have, evolution is the undisputed dominant scientific theory and there is no serious scientist who disagrees with it. If you have heard of another scientific theory I would love to hear it. I also have a lot of non-scientific theories and as for fake theories, please spare us.

     I would appreciate it if you could tell us what you believe (as I wrote) before we continue the conversation. Do you believe in God, if so of which religion, and if not do you simply not believe in evolution but in intelligent design?

     Regarding the question about the cat:

     1. What is really important to understand is that a "robot cat" is a robot. "Cat" is a robot. "Adam" is a robot.

     2. Your conclusion is "If A is more complex than B and A requires planning then B also requires planning. What do you base it on? The burden of proof is on you. According to the prevailing scientific view today, this is simply not true.

695. To Shlomi and Buddha.

     Hello, I have read enough material on the subject, thank you.

     Buddha, you are welcome to visit the blog of the Discovery Institute - evolution news and views, and see for yourself the hottest news on the issues of evolution. I also recommend the site creation ministries, the snake to the largest creation site on the web. These would be good for a start.

     You are also welcome to refute the following argument:

     A) It is agreed that a cat-like robot that contains DNA and reproduces requires planning
     b) The real cat is more complex than such a robot

     A + B = the cat requires planning.

696. I am ashamed that such an interesting lecture was given in several places
     bad day
     Yehuda

697. Sabdarmish Yehuda
     I saw the lecture at the Technion
     I don't remember the lecturer's name.

698. to another one
     I was at this lecture, it was in Hamada. It was a well-founded lecture and it doesn't seem to me that it was refuted
     Sabdarmish Yehuda

699. Sabdarmish Yehuda
     I am telling you and B. that I came across a lecture by a respected scientist (whose name I have forgotten) who explained a theory based on findings that
     The ancestor of man and chimpanzees was very similar to chimpanzees-
     Maybe I don't remember correctly = maybe it has been disproved since then - maybe it's just not popular - but you shouldn't be fanatically attached to this aspect of science in a religious way.

700. R.H.,
     It's not silly at all. If you look between the lines of what she says then you can understand that she is sorry that the system in which she operates is crooked and completely unprofessional. I think a spirit of support in this matter can only be helpful.

701. another one,
     Evolution is a fact. Is natural selection the only mechanism, are there other things that drive evolution, maybe, but evolution itself is a fact. In school, we teach, in science classes, what is known today to be true or approximately true (and this is why it is appropriate to teach Newton that although he is wrong, his error is only manifested tangibly at high speeds or at tiny sizes and he provides good intuition for everyday life). Not everything that gives good intuition deserves to be taught in science classes. Anything that is not refutable should not enter science classes.

     In science, there are no true things, but only theories that have not been disproved, and therefore, there is no need to be alarmed if, for example, quantum mechanics has not been completely proven (even if it is wrong to a certain extent) because its implications are wonderful and every electronic device owes its life to quantum mechanics and hence it is an obligation to teach it (I I don't know whether to include Israeli students, but certainly to mention its existence to physics students). Exactly the same with evolution which provides predictions and a framework upon which the whole science of biology is explained.

     I again claim (although this is not my original claim) that the revolution for which the theory of evolution is responsible is the initial liberation of man from the yoke of God. Until the theory of evolution, the only explanation for the variety of species was God and the opinion was that each species evolved separately. The theory of evolution put an end to all that and put man on the map. Today's physics even allows us to say that maybe there is a victorious multiverse (so there is no need for God) or that at most he somewhere there gave the initial push (this claim cannot be refuted) and together our entire existence here is explained physically but the initial part was provided by evolution and if it is not a revolution Great, perhaps the greatest that has ever existed, so it is surely one of the most important revolutions.

     R. H.,
     As I imagine you asked whether studying evolution will make Israeli students better (and if not, I apologize) and the answer is, I don't know but I think so. I think this framework and its meanings will make them less messianic, and more rational people. I think that without acknowledging the theory of evolution, we will help religion take over the country and that will be a disaster.

     You have made several claims about democracy and indeed, if the absolute majority of people choose to teach astrology and not astronomy, alchemy and not chemistry and religion in science classes and not evolution, it will probably not be possible to stop this but I would like to remind you that modern democracy is not only the rule of the majority but rather a rule that allows minorities to survive and live their lives and this by a constitution, separation of powers and the rule of law. Indeed, if all Americans choose to change the constitution, it will be changed, but it is very, very complicated and a huge majority is needed for that, and so, the constitution, which actually narrows the ability of the majority to support itself in the minority, is what makes American democracy so immune, while here, a random majority in the Knesset can indeed cause atrocities Through democracy, for the spirit of democracy. The day when an accidental and non-professional majority decides what should be taught, that is the day when we can say hello to democracy because the reality is not interested in what members of the Knesset say. They can decide there is no gravity, so what, does the apple care?

     All of this is to say that the only way to ensure that a majority will not arise here, that one day will decide to restrict science, that one day will decide to hide the truth and the facts, is to teach the truth and the facts and evolution is, at least as of today, the truth known to us which provides a detailed explanation for our existence here, Without the need for God, and it is enough to apologize for that, and if enough students knew this, they would not give the world a hand, in the name of religion (and as it is written here, the religious are the ones who prevent the study of evolution, as the MPM member had to admit), to hide the truth. By the way, this is the place to apologize to religious people, for the generalizations, since it is clear to me that there are masses of religious people who live peacefully with evolution, but their voices are silenced by the extremists among them, who always drag us all to a place not for us.

     Unfortunately, I'm not really optimistic and it's clear to the eye that there is a process here with positive feedback, to eliminate the secular heritage in the country, so I don't really see a chance for change. What is still clear to me is the flood of responses (perhaps I exaggerated) that will tell me that evolution is actually unproven, from people who are clear that there is a God, despite him, like the stories of the Torah, there is no proof and it is not clear how they can fight like lions to look for loopholes in evolution but do not try to look for it Even one flaw in the stories of the Torah.

702. xianghua,
     According to your comments you are an intelligent person. I think you are capable of reading the relevant material to understand what is right and what is wrong, you are just apparently not interested. I don't want to waste my time in circular discussions with people who ignore facts and try to bring the discussion to their turf where it is convenient for them to create straw man arguments. So let me not answer your question.
     You can bring the horse to the trough but you can't force him to drink - this is the only analogy that is relevant to his case now.

703. xianghua,

     Well, you convinced me. Evolution is wrong and it's a good thing they don't teach it in schools.
     If you have a good explanation of how we were created, then we would be happy if you could send a link or something.

     Thanks.

704. buddha,

     You are confused because I did not talk about evolution at all in my previous response. I was talking about the national-cultural or religious content, which every student in the Israeli educational institution will be breastfed from kindergarten age to enlistment age. Sorry, I was sure that was understandable.

     Regarding evolution, I have already said that in my opinion it should be taught, just as any other scientific subject should be taught. The purpose of the school is, among other things, to impart knowledge about the world to its students, and all scientific subjects deserve to be studied by the students. The problem is that it is impossible in practice, so there are pedagogical experts who decide what is taught.
     This is in contrast to any cultural/national/religious content, which the state may decide on the schools to teach, because this is the desire of the majority of citizens.
     In my opinion, there is no point in introducing evolution into the curriculum within the current disgrace in science studies. It will not help anything, and in fact will probably prevent the learning of more critical content. As part of a reform, or even general changes in the nature of the scientific curricula, or at the very least additional hours! I studied four hours a week of "science" in middle school, a subject that included physics, chemistry and biology (at the elementary level, in my opinion). Those who know how classes are conducted in middle school, know that you actually study something like two and a half hours out of these four hours, at best. In this framework, it is impossible to introduce the studies of evolution without harming other things. There is no doubt in my mind that it is very appropriate to teach evolution, but only accompanied by additional changes in the Education Department, and not to burden the teachers with another subject who are already not enough to teach the material.

     I have a feeling that you haven't made up my mind either. The change of opinion (not about evolution, but about matters of faith, etc.) is not done by democratic means, this is what I oppose! You can change my mind by trying to convince me, even if you will likely fail. What Einat Wilf said concerned evolution, so it seems to me that I really did not properly explain my position. I hope you understand now.

     Shlomi Israel,
     I would very much like to try to draft a letter to Pamperit about this. But it seems a bit silly to me. ZA, I should ask her if she herself has foreign interests? It's quite likely she'll say no. What I want to find out is whether there are any foreign interests at all and who are the owners of the foreign interests. If there are any, I want to kick them the hell out of the office that oversees what my little brothers learn. I thought that this could be examined and done by an external body, so I suggested contacting the Public Complaints Commission, who might be able to examine the matter in a neutral way.

705. heart.
     Of course, you are XNUMX percent right, and I also say this to all those who claim that man was created from a monkey, simply that we and the monkey had a common father.
     I just didn't want to complicate my answer
     But your response is spot on
     Happy Holidays
     Yehuda Sabdarmish

706. To Buddha and my peace,

     The truth is that I have read Dawkins enough. I would not advise you to rely on popular science. For example, in The Blind Watchman, Dawkins tries to explain to us that small changes are required for the development of proteins. He cites as an example the protein hemoglobin, the length of a subdomain of which is 150 ha. But the reality is, contrary to the popular science books, a large part of the protein volume is required for its function. And hence there are no small steps leading to the development of proteins, and hence evolution is wrong.

     Regarding "those genes". Obviously, there are differences in the genes that code for the same proteins in different organisms, but the above genes code for the same protein. Whether it is hemoglobin or cytochrome b.

     Shlomi, the link you provided links to speciation (according to this logic, secular people are a new species because they do not usually marry religious people). There is no evidence of the development of a new complex system. I gave you a good analogy from the world of technology. Are you, as an intelligent agent, capable of gradually changing a car into an airplane, each step being effective in its own right?

707. The speed of evolutionary changes:
     Evolutionary changes do not have to be slow.

     for example:
     There are already bacteria resistant to antibiotics today.
     That is, within a period of about fifty years since antibiotics were invented, there was a very rapid development of bacteria.
     Fifty years is very fast!

708. They can change and become Kentucky Fried Chicken. But in a restaurant in China

709. ב
     In a lecture I saw a few years ago about evolution-
     It was said that, despite what was thought until recently, there is no ancestor between the chimpanzee and the human, but the chimpanzee (or an animal very similar to the chimpanzee) is the ancestor - it could be that it has been expanded since then - the confirmation was based on genetic research.
     By and large - not principled.

710. Lori:
     There is no contradiction here!
     The chance of a dog becoming something else is zero.
     A dog will always be a dog.
     But the dog's offspring can go through an evolutionary process. That is to change and become something different from a dog.
     Since we have already received proof of the process, there is no point in repeating these questions again and again.

     Can a parrot turn into a pigeon?
     Absolutely not!
     A parrot remains a parrot and a pigeon remains a pigeon.
     But the parrot and the pigeon are descendants of a common ancestor.
     The offspring of the parrot can change and become something that does not resemble a parrot.
     The offspring of the dove can change and become something that does not resemble a dove.

711. R.H.,
     Your suggestion to contact the Public Complaints Commission is interesting. It appears from the website of the Ministry of Education that the department that handles public complaints does not deal with the subjects of the curriculum content but with the implementation of the procedures and the exercise of the rights of students and teaching staff.
     I think that if the biology PMR is professional as you said, then it is better to go in cooperation with her and not require her to act through a complaint, what's more, there is really no one to complain to. If the foreign considerations do worry you (the clear evidence of them is the PMPR's own answer to the Chairman of the Education Committee) come and draft a letter on the matter and I will be happy to go over it and add my position so that we can issue it together to the PMPR.
     My email is shlomi.israel at gmail dot com.

712. To Judah:
     The mouse did not become a bat!
     Apparently the mouse and the bat had a common ancestor.
     The bear did not become a leviathan!
     Apparently the bear and the Leviathan had a common ancestor.

     And so on.

     And the monkey did not become a man!
     Apparently ape and man had a common ancestor.

713. Sabdarmish Yehuda,

     In hindsight we do see a land creature that became a sea creature or a flying creature. My point was that if a person came today and pointed to a certain production, let's say a dog, and claimed that the chance of it becoming a flying one is very low and almost impossible it does not contradict what we see in retrospect, or that the same dog will become some other creature.

714. xianghua and the other sages,
     There are certain cases where analogies are required but in this case, really, there's no point in trying.
     If you want to be impressed by actual examples of the division into species, you are welcome to read here:
     http://evolutionlist.blogspot.co.il/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html

     In the link there is a nice summary of dozens of scientific studies that show a division into species. Your claim that there is evidence for microevolution but not macroevolution is so old and so wrong that it has been disproved more times than I care to count. Here is another link in this style that summarizes a number of studies:
     http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

     So I ask that, as you give more analogies from the world of the car or the cell phone, read what I sent and understand that in the world of biology your argument does not hold water, not even a drop.

715. It seemed to me that there were already things from the past and a mouse turned into a bird-bat-like creature
     A bear became a fish-like creature - a dolphin, a leviathan
     Plus a dinosaur turned Kentucky Fried Chicken
     Happy Holidays
     Sabdarmish Yehuda

716. xianghua,

     If you haven't read Dawkins then read and if he didn't convince you then I probably won't succeed. He talks there about your question and many other difficulties.
     A Poodle and a Great Dane do not have the same genes. In fact no two creatures (not even two poodles) have exactly the same genes except maybe identical twins. What you are doing "variation in alleles" is genetic variation. Is it big or small? Depends on what you're comparing. Change is change. Between two organisms there is a lot of genetic similarity and a lot of genetic difference.

     to one another,

     I don't believe in anything. I have a certain perception of reality and it changes according to new knowledge from time to time. I appreciate that all living things are robotic survival machines created by natural selection and the brain is a state machine. There are many new discoveries in brain research that point in this direction.

     I appreciate that there are very similar lines between my view and Spinoza, Taoism (without the religious part) and Susan Blackmore for example.

     http://tomerpersico.com/tag/%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%96%D7%9F-%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%A7%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A8/

     http://www.haaretz.co.il/misc/1.1406826

717. xianghua,

     You might equally ask whether, given millions of years and cumulative changes, a dog would become a bird-like creature. The problem here is that predicting in advance where evolution will go is impossible. It may not be likely that the dog will turn into a bird-like creature but what is certain is that given millions of years and cumulative changes it will turn into something else different from a dog. So regarding the car analogy I would say that it will become something else, maybe very different from the original and maybe slightly different.

718. Buddha
     The word religious may not be correct
     The word 'believer' is more correct.
     What do you believe in Buddha?
     What is your truth?

719. Buddha, the truth is that a poodle and a Great Dane have the same genes. That is, there is variation in the alleles, but it is limited. A good analogy would be from a car. There are certain cars of the same company, only with minor changes. Different color, different wheels, different windows, etc. But it is the same car. In your opinion, given the millions of years and changes accumulated in a car (suppose for a moment that there was such a car), would we get a plane or a submarine? Reason suggests not, because there are no gradual steps between one and the other.

720. to one another,

     I am not a religious person. I don't believe in Buddhism either if that's what you meant.

     By the way, regarding the definition of what is religion in general or what is a religious person, I adopt the definition of Yuval Noah Harari as he described it in his last book. Belief in some irrational basis and making decisions, taking actions and actions as a result. According to his definition, Nazism, Communism and Humanism are three additional religions to the religions known to us and I tend to adopt the model (of course these are only definitions).

721. R.H.

     We completely agree. It is quite clear that the majority decides and since the majority believe in God both here and in the US then this is the situation and it will probably remain that way for the foreseeable future. Articles like this article try to influence and change the situation by changing public opinion in a democratic way and there is still a long way to go. This is exactly what Anit Wolf is trying to do and there is a public that supports her.

     Once the children were also taught that the sun revolves around the earth. At least we managed to change that.

722. Buddha
     When I read what you write also in reply to other people
     I get a strong impression that you yourself are a religious person-
     What exactly do you believe?
     And why do you think your faith is closer to the "truth" than the faith of others?
     And why do you think evolution weakens the "argument" of other religions but strengthens yours?

723. buddha,

     I understand very well your desire to burn what you perceive as "ignorance" and to instill what you perceive as "truth".
     But what to do - a democratic and healthy country cannot impose its "ignorance" on its citizens. I agree that a democratic country whose principle of human dignity, freedom and reason is a candle to its feet, should do everything possible to fight ignorance - it should do as much as it can so that all its citizens know more. However, it cannot fight the views and opinions they hold: superstitions, beliefs in demons and spirits, and for you also belief in God. She also does not need to do this, and should not be required to do so. A country that does this is by definition a totalitarian country - a country that also invades the private space of its citizens.
     But I definitely believe that it is the right of the citizens themselves, like me and you, to fight against "ignorance" (note the distinction I make between "ignorance" and "ignorance"), or what they perceive as "ignorance".

     Why am I saying all this?
     Mainly because I have the feeling that you expect the state not to educate you in "ignorance". But you forget one thing: the country is the people! In a democracy, as in a democracy, the majority rules. The majority is usually not the wisest, nor the righteous. But he is the majority, so he has power. That is why he can cause the schools to also teach subjects that in your opinion are "inappropriate", such as Torah in the second grade. But one cannot define for the majority, or for any other person, what "freedom" is. No man can say to a secular and religious man that he is not free. If you really believe that he is not free, you may try to change his mind, but the state is not the platform for that, and it should not be.
     If you succeed in uprooting the "ignorance" through persuasion, I will bless you. Then the day will come, and secular children will no longer learn Torah in the schools either (something that seems to me to be mainly due to national-cultural motives, not religious ones).

     Despite this, it is clear that every person has a natural right to educate his child as he wishes. If you think that the schools are putting garbage into your children's heads, then tell them when they return from school what you told me: "Until recently, people did not have science, so they invented all kinds of beautiful stories and believed in them, and even today a large part of the people believe in the above-mentioned stories because The tradition and you should respect them." In the same religious, traditional and secular way, the believers will educate their children to believe in God, and no person can protest that.

     All these things are quite self-explanatory. So why am I writing them? Mainly because I'm afraid of people who want to free me, and especially mainly of people who try to free me from my own vain beliefs, in whose light I live, and in whose light I will educate my children. That's why I say to you - if in your eyes these beliefs are vanity, fight for them! Try to convince me. But don't under any circumstances try to force my release from them through the state, or from the notion that the state is supposed to release from "ignorance". This is a misconception, which is a perfect recipe for totalitarianism.
     Most of this country today sees great importance in the fact that children in the second grade learn Torah, and even children in kindergarten learn the "Holidays of Israel." Whether from a religious interpretation, or from a cultural national interpretation. This is largely reflected in the results of the last election. Therefore, you certainly cannot expect the state, which is the majority, to try to educate while freeing you from this "ignorance". But you can try to convince, and if you convince enough people, maybe the situation will change. This is a democracy.

724. R.H.

     Actually I tend to accept your words. There is no specific fact in studying to develop critical thinking. Beyond that, it seems that even if they decide to teach evolution, the teachers wouldn't really know how to do it because they themselves are devoid of critical thinking... the things I wrote are more in terms of wishful thinking.

     Nevertheless, there is a certain problem here that can perhaps be solved or improved. Most of the public in the western world believes in God in one way or another. The children are taught Torah in the XNUMXnd grade and are told that there is God, and then at an older age they add the scientific truth and objections, etc. This idea is very strongly embedded in the mind, which is why most of the secularists I know will tell you things like "yes, but you can't know", "I fast on Yom Kippur for sure", "there are no atheists on a falling plane", etc.

     I had the chance to meet a few months ago with a genius scientist in the field of biotech who understands biology much more than I do. He is completely secular, but when the subject came up and I pressed him a little, he began to explain to me that inside every cell there is actually an element of a divine soul, etc... only that scientists have not yet discovered it...

     We live in a world haunted by demons - hi-tech and superstitions. Most of the secular people are in a worse situation in my eyes than the religious believers. They are actually unconsciously religious.

     If you ask me what's wrong with that or what I have against religion, the answer is clear. These people (the majority of the population) are not free. They can be much freer if they don't get garbage in their heads at a young age. I may very well be wrong and people's need to believe in superstitions will outweigh any attempt to dispel ignorance. All in all, it is a strong need of the human brain that has survived for many years. The need to believe nonsense.

725. Anonymous user
     Evolution is not "deep truth"
     It is a good diagnosis of reality based on evidence and a scientific model that captures them that is well confirmed by different fields of science.
     Newton's second law is not a "deep truth" either
     Evolution is also not the greatest thought revolution made by humanity.
     Not even close - do you really think that if you "teach" enough people evolution they will abandon their old beliefs and we will reach a new enlightened age or something?

726. buddha,
     I am sincerely trying to understand what you are saying, but I am encountering greater and greater difficulties.
     Why would there be a necessary connection between the knowledge of evolution in the biological framework, and the development of critical thinking?
     The vast majority of people I know know evolution, or at least know what it is, even if without a deep understanding of it ("All living things in the world evolved into what they are today over millions of years. We came from the monkey" or some other slightly neutered version of evolution). It really does not mean that they will have critical thinking. It really does not mean that they will understand that their minds are being bombarded with "nonsense" as you say. And most of them will still enlist in the IDF.

     Knowledge of evolution at the level you describe exists in most people I know, it seems to me. And yet - those of them who recognize the XNUMX books of the Bible as divine truth, will not engage in apologetics of the Torah against science every day. The rest are secular and simply don't care, and a minority do the same "hocus pocus". That is, it really does not prevent the fact that they will believe in one or another "nonsense".

     I also don't think that we should strive for children to learn so that - "they will have the clean foundation and won't believe so quickly all the nonsense they are told". We should strive for the children to know, because it is important to us that they know!
     Regardless of the beliefs they hold, or their worldviews, or the "nonsense" they are inundated with, they need to know, because there are things they need to know. point. Because there are things that a person living in the 21st century needs to know about the world. And in this matter I am sorry, but I stand by my position: evolution is not more important than mechanics, the periodic table, or the structure of the cell. It seems to me that any person who has a superficial acquaintance with physics, chemistry and biology, will admit that evolution is no longer important, in terms of our knowledge of the world. It does not explain the fact of our existence here more than the fact that matter consists entirely of atoms, and we fit, and that all the different substances in the world are actually chemical elements. All are important, on the same scale.
     Anonymous wrote - "I repeat the reason again and again: because this is the truth and it is so deep because it tells us that we know how to explain the story of our existence here through a physical explanation that we arrived at after thousands of years of research."
     I of course agree, but that doesn't make evolution more important. The thousands of years of research (in my eyes actually hundreds of years of research, not thousands) led us to understand the fact of our very existence! We are made up of atoms, which are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons, and so on.

     Evolution was indeed a milestone in the history of science: it was indeed the first time a theory was put forward that contradicted the Holy Scriptures. This is an important fact, but not scientifically important. Scientifically, evolution is another part of science. It explains how the living creatures on earth were created. If we stop looking at the matter from the point of view of the relationship between science and religion, but of science in itself, it seems that evolution does not explain anything more fundamental than the other fields I mentioned.

     Regarding what Shlomi Israel wrote: Perhaps we can contact the Public Complaints Commission to investigate whether or not there really are extraneous motives. Is there anyone willing to initiate the matter?

727. Buddha
     The education system does not exist to fix society-
     The state education system is part of an elected government that represents a coalition that only represents part of the people and tactical political considerations. You really don't want it to have pretensions to "fix society"
     Such things are the free choice of parents to teach their children - according to their worldview - and it is not the role of the education system to decide what worldview should be instilled in children.
     You start from the point of view that there is a known enlightenment and the education system should lead to that - but there is disagreement regarding this idea - neither you nor I will determine what is "right" and the more you want an education system that instills more "values" than practical knowledge and abilities - you will end up in a dangerous situation where the education system will not necessarily teach what you want to learn.
     There is a difference between studying evolution as a science - along with its history, method, confirmations - and between teaching it as a fait accompli in ten words to 6-year-old children - the first is studying science - the second is indoctrination.

     Avi Blizovsky
     Avi - what is taught in the education system is not the consensus - but what was decided in the education system - a decision that also includes ideological, political and practical considerations. - Officials, politicians and even professors who decide there - do not have a monopoly on the truth and despite this they have the power to influence the consensus much more than the consensus has the power to influence them. The fact that many support a certain opinion does not make it more correct. Ask Dan Shechtman and Barry Marshall.
     Regarding the issue of warming - this is not the place to debate this issue.

728. another one,
     I repeat the reason again and again: because this is the truth and it is so deep because it tells us that we know how to explain the story of our existence here through a physical explanation that we arrived at after thousands of years of research.
     This is not just a fact, but this is a thought revolution, perhaps the greatest made by the human race

729. There is a thing called scientific consensus and even the editor of Science spoke out on the subject and said that only the scientific consensus should be taught - and he specifically mentioned evolution and global warming. Anyone who wants to teach their children nonsense should do it at home in their free time.

730. another one,

     Your question is really strange. Who should teach the children if not the education system? Ministry of Agriculture? Department of Justice? The tea department in Tel Aviv municipality?

     As a citizen of the country I am interested in living in a reformed society. The main tool to reform society is the education system. More importantly, I think it will improve the quality of life and standard of living for students and make the world a better place. By the way, this is true everywhere in the world and not only in Israel.

     As the saying goes: "We came to banish darkness!"

731. Buddha-
     What you want to teach children-
     "The sun rises in the morning in the east and sets in the evening in the west. There are 4 seasons, the earth was created in a big explosion many years ago. In a way that we still don't know how the first bacterium was created from different materials, this bacterium multiplied many times and more developed creatures like fish, monkeys and people were created from it. that's it. "
     You and every citizen can teach on their own - why is it so important to you that the education system learn this?

     Avi Blizovsky
     Science is indeed not a democracy, so this means that the majority does not determine what is more or less true.
     If you want to renew the discussion about preventable anthropogenic global warming - open a new post on the subject.

732. xianghua1,

     What exactly is "the same animal" according to your definition?

     Genetic changes happen all the time and no two creatures on this planet are actually "the same animal".

     Sorting into different types is artificial and limited as explained here:

     http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9F_(%D7%98%D7%A7%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%94)

     Dogs are genetically different from wolves and genetically different from each other. In fact the genetic difference between the dogs is extremely small and yet we witness a huge difference in phenotype between a dwarf poodle and a great dane for example. This interesting fact only illustrates how in the process of evolution very small mistakes that occur and do not affect reproductive capacity can have a very significant effect on the phenotype.

     http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2007/5/genetics-and-the-shape-of-dogs

733. R.H.
     You're right
     Sorry for the unnecessary "fucking" addition
     Happy Holidays
     Sabdarmish Yehuda

734. Xingua, with all due respect to your pans, if a wolf and a dog are the same animal, it's only because not enough time has passed, meaning enough changes. Why does an intelligent person sleep a little every now and then? After all, the iPhone is also waiting for teeth to grow in order to announce a new version, and if that's not enough, then the 4S version is called. So do you think iPhone 4 and 4S are still the same device but 5 is already a different species?
     In short, it means nothing to an intelligent planner if he does nonsense.

735. Abby, I don't think you understood the analogy. After all, in the interpretation it is said that *an intelligent factor* can change whatever it wants. That is, it includes the ability to inherit the changes.

     "But wolves within a few tens or hundreds of generations of small changes gave birth to the dogs" - first, it is not certain that there is a historical document. And even if so, it is the same genes. No new creature is created here.

736. A. Your claim was disproved 200 years ago. Machines do not bring offspring that are slightly different from them, therefore changes in them will be made by humans. For claims of this nonsense, please contact the nearest panchayat. Indeed iPhone 4 will not give birth to iPhone 5, but wolves within a few tens or hundreds of generations of small changes gave birth to dogs.

737. Another small thing. I see creationists keep commenting here. Everything I wrote is intended for those who believe that evolution is a scientific fact (like Newtonian physics) and the debate is whether to teach it or not. Those who do not think so are welcome to ignore what I wrote.

738. R.H. dear,

     I will briefly and simply explain my opinion to you. This is my opinion only.

     1. I think evolution should be taught the way children are taught to look left and right before crossing a road and that is regardless of biology studies or anything else. Just like they are taught what father, mother, house, dog, car, plane, etc. are.

     2. The enormous consequences of the evolution I was referring to are really not the theory of water, social and ideological evolution (as in the link on the idea with Yuval Neman published here), etc. It's not that those implications aren't important, I just didn't mean them.

     3. The reason is much simpler. There is a very simple principle called "know thyself" (without its complex philosophical meaning). You simply explain to the child like this: the sun rises in the morning in the east and sets in the evening in the west. There are 4 seasons, the earth was created in a big explosion many years ago. In a way that we still don't know how the first bacterium was created from different materials, this bacterium multiplied many times and more developed creatures like fish, monkeys and people were created from it. that's it.

     You can also add that until recently people did not have science so they invented all kinds of beautiful stories and believed in them and even today a large part of people believe in the above stories because of tradition and they should be respected.

     Beyond that, the child will grow up and learn what he wants. Philosophy, science, history or nothing. It's just that his head won't be full of garbage that can't be removed.

     Why is this so important? Well, those who have the "clean" basis will not believe so much sooner or later all kinds of nonsense that they are told. that he is part of such and such a nation and therefore he should do such and such. He came out of a clean assumption that he was a creature created by chance like all the other creatures around him such as his parents and his entire family. If this is the truth why would we hide it? And if we hide it, there is disrespect for the child.

     This, in my opinion, is a true respect for tradition - in our family, for example, it has been running like this for several generations, and that is why we, for example, do not go to the grave of any of the very beloved people who have passed away. My father didn't bother to put a headstone on his mother's grave not out of disdain but out of true appreciation for the real person she was. Before they jump on me, I'm not saying that everyone should behave like this. I only bring it up as an example of a respectable outlook on life.

     As the child grows up, he will be able to judge for himself what is his rightful place in society. Since society is made up of creatures created just like him, he will be able to decide which requirements and rules he wants to comply with and which he doesn't. Since most of the world today unfortunately consists of ignorant people who need to be dealt with this will at least give him a fair chance at opening.

     In conclusion, studying the origin of the person at a young age at the stage when the personality is being formed will increase the child's chance of becoming a free person.

     I hope this answered your question.

739. Evolution is not a fact but a hypothesis. The only fact is that there may be minor changes in existing traits (for example, all modern dog species remain dogs). And in fact, it has never been proven that a transition to the creation of a new being is possible. A good analogy would be from the world of technology: is it possible to gradually change a computer into a wristwatch by an intelligent factor (such as mutations)? This is not possible because there are no small steps leading from a computer to a watch. So how is this possible among much more complex biological creatures?

740. Shmulik, Shlomi Israel, Yehuda and Buddha (I am writing the response to all of you together, because things are quite mixed up in my head). Actually not with Yehuda, because I conduct a mature and respectful discussion and I am not ready to argue with someone who calls an opinion different from his own "crap", even if it is such in his eyes.

     I think that first and foremost, a fundamental distinction should be made between evolution as a scientific fact in the field of biology (and by the way - thank you Shlomi for the precision of the distinction between a scientific fact and a scientific theory), and the various consequences that the principle of natural selection has in other fields, that is - to various theories that arose on the basis of The Darwinian evolutionary model (such as Dawkins's memetics).
     I hope that it is clear to everyone, to the supporters of mathematica and its fools, that there is no place to teach mathematica in schools today. In the future it is possible that future generations will treat us as retarded since we did not understand the reality of memetics. However, it is clear to everyone that the theory has not yet been developed enough and has not been accepted among the scientific community enough (if it should be called science at all, of course).
     Therefore, something is a bit incomprehensible to me in Buddha's argument: evolution may have far-reaching consequences for our understanding of the world and our human existence (I of course disagree with that), but the moment evolution ceases to be a mere scientific fact, and becomes this big thing that you all talk about and I have a hard time understanding - Is there still room to study in biology classes? In other words; If biology is so important to teach, for non-scientific reasons only, why should it be taught in biology classes? Maybe there is a place to teach evolution as part of philosophy classes (even if there aren't any), or maybe as a substitute for them (a substitute for what isn't there, don't forget)?

     What I am saying in this rather annoying dig is that the metascientific rationales for teaching evolution cannot be of use when we are trying to teach evolution in science classes. Philosophy is not taught in schools in the State of Israel, and this is a tragedy in itself. Albert Camus's "thing" is perhaps rarely taught in literature classes. Why actually teach a theory with such far-reaching philosophical implications, if philosophy is not taught?
     All this, of course, without referring to the work that all those implications of the evolutionary principle, such as memetics, are fiercely disputed. This is what I meant above - the idea of ​​teaching mathematics in high school would not occur to anyone today. In exactly the same way, the motivation for studying evolution in high school should not be the consequences of evolution on our existence, but rather evolution as the biological process that created all living things on this planet.

     Again regarding the ranking - I'm afraid that the too high priority that Shmulik and Buddha give to the study of evolution really stems from the same consequences they attribute to it (like the clear-as-sun understanding that comes from a superficial study of evolution, that we are nothing more than machines for replicating genes). If they treat it as a mere biological fact, I really can't see how it can be defined as more important than studying cell structure and basic Newtonian mechanics.

     Regarding those foreign interests that prevent the study of evolution in high schools: First of all, my teacher claimed several times that Ruthie Mandelovich is a supremely professional professor. I, in light of the last matriculation exam in biology, had a different impression. But that doesn't change the fact that I still find it very difficult to believe in the importance of the influence of those with foreign interests - as far as I know, the ones wearing black have not yet taken over the Ministry of Education, and there are still scavengers, Shabbat violators and nidad thieves sitting there.

     After all, we must fight against those with foreign interests, if there are any, without anything to do with evolution, and without anything to do with them being believers. Those with foreign interests must be fought because they have foreign interests. If significant evidence supporting this claim is presented to me, I would of course be happy to join the fight. And without having anything to do with the matter of evolution, I think there is an urgent need for a deep reform in science education in this country.

     And I have to start shortening my comments. sorry and thank you.

741. For a kafir, this is exactly the problem. Science is not a democracy, and one should not take into account the opinion of one or another opponents of science in order to balance, will you balance, for example, the science of global warming, with the claims of delusional people backed by the money of oil giants as if there is no warming?
     Science says what it has to say and describes reality. All others should align themselves with it and not try to deny it.

742. Vic,
     You meant Chuck Norris: there is no such thing as evolution, rather Chuck Norris decides who will live and who won't and he is the reason why there is no life on Mars

     Kfir,
     I completely disagree with you. The Torah is not a scientific theory and there is no way to disprove it, while evolution is a scientific theory and I again refer to Bill Maher's great clip on the subject:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A41WZBcmnfc

743. As the Bible is studied on the basis of the assumption (I purposely do not use the term theory, so as not to offend believers here) that there was creation, there is no reason why the theory of evolution should not also be studied and thus the student will be given the opportunity to exercise his own judgment. More than that, I'm sure there will be scientists and rabbis who would be happy to participate in school panels that would debate the theories, one against the other.

744. There is no evolution, it's all bullshit. God is the only one who created us

745. I think that in the last responses you sailed too far in the consequences that may have for the expansion of evolution studies in the education system. Personally, I would like it to increase the students' ability to think scientifically/critically, but even so, I may be giving too much credit to this step. Mainly I'm talking about the simplification, about the current situation where an important scientific field is allocated from the curriculum because of foreign considerations. This is an absurd situation and it needs to be fixed.

     In this context, I can say that an interesting discussion developed here, mainly around R.H.'s beautiful words, but the discussion remained on the philosophical and emotional level. As I wrote at the end of the post, I hoped that it would serve as a call for joint thinking about a possible solution to the situation, and I did not see any comments here in that spirit. If it is possible to develop the discussion in this direction, I would be happy to share your opinion.

746. https://www.hayadan.org.il/%D7%90%D7%91%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA/

747. Evolution actually talks about changes that happen to any phenomenon as a result of changes that happen in its environment. Taking the phenomenon of life alone and seeing how the environment causes living things to change is only one of the possibilities - perhaps the best known of them. We can see an evolution in painting, from the cave paintings of the ancient man to the paintings made with the help of a computer, as is the case with evolution in the theater, starting from the Greek theater with its chorus and ending with the modern theater that combines various effects. Evolution in urbanization starting with the walled cities and ending with the modern cities without walls with their skyscrapers, evolution in building tools in cinema and more.
     I would also like to refer the readers to the article "Evolution of Theories" that I wrote here on the science website in which I showed full compatibility between the development of living things and the development of theories.
     Therefore, an education system that cancels all evolutions at once because human evolution does not fit someone's screwed up opinion, is something that will not be done. Those who do this are not ready for any change in the environment and cancel any change that the environment demands of the individual.
     In addition, I completely disagree with the previous commenter Buddha who stated/implied that evolution would prevent people from volunteering for the military. In the meantime, I see that many of those who oppose evolution are ultra-Orthodox who do not serve.
     Happy holiday
     Sabdarmish Yehuda

748. Hello, I completely agree with you and I wanted to add two more small details.

     1. There is no problem with those who claim that evolution is a scientific theory like Newtonian mechanics. The problem is that a very large part of the public claims that evolution should not be taught "because it is only a theory" but no one claims this about mechanics. That's why Dawkins calls evolution in advance a "scientific fact" etc. The words shape the thought.

     2. In my opinion, evolution has a higher value in understanding the essence of man than physics and the structure of the cell. Hence it is even more important to teach it and this is also the reason why it arouses opposition in circles that prefer to preserve ignorance on the subject. This ignorance is the basis for the control mechanisms of a minority over a majority throughout human history and it is not only about religion but also about the social and national concept in general. I appreciate that some of the commenters here who support the study of evolution will not agree with me, but in my opinion understanding evolution will cause many people not to volunteer and serve in the army for example. And the one who understands will understand.

749. I will try to answer two points that came up again and again in the comments:

     * Why focus specifically on evolution, since many other scientific subjects are not properly taught?
     First let's agree that the main branches of the natural sciences are physics, chemistry and biology and basic knowledge must be imparted in all these sciences. The basic concepts in physics and chemistry, as I see it, are Newtonian mechanics and the periodic table. I consider them as such because of the great revolution they caused at the time they were discovered, but that is not the fundamental reason. The more fundamental reason is that these are unifying concepts that make it possible to similarly understand the laws of motion of a planet and a cannon ball and make it possible to define a group of elements such as the noble gases according to their position in the periodic table before an individual examination of their properties. Because what unifying concepts they caused such a revolution in their field and remain necessary for the understanding of science to this day. I argue that evolution is also like this for biology.
     But unlike Newtonian mechanics and the periodic table, which are learned immediately when approaching the relevant subjects, evolution is not taught as an inherent part of the curriculum. It seems that it is assigned, and the verification of this comes in the comments of the most senior officials in the Ministry of Education who say that it is in order not to hurt feelings. This is the answer that Einat Wilf, chairman of the education committee in the Knesset, received from Ruti Mandelevich, professor of biology. I guess if she had a less awkward and more professional answer she would have provided it. Those here looking for verification of the claim will find it in the article in the knowledge that a link to it appears at the beginning of the post. For me, as a person who aspires to live in a liberal country, this is an answer that receives a failing grade, a red card. I am concerned about the considerations that guide the education system on the side of science teaching. That's why I decided to examine the subject and write about it.
     I have no doubt about the importance of cell biology for understanding a variety of topics in biology, and if it had been assigned from the curriculum for non-business reasons, I think it would have bothered me to a similar extent. By the way, my claims about the basic theories in science are not just private opinions but are based on the perceptions of people who have specialized in these fields. But even here there are different perceptions and you don't have to crown the most important theory and neglect everything else. Everything that is really important can be accomplished if we are busy.

     * Is evolution a fact or a scientific theory?
     There was confusion between the concepts in the responses and it is desirable to align. Luckily they did it before and you can read a good explanation here:
     http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=11
     In short, evolution is a scientific theory that is based on many scientific facts. Since this is a very well-founded theory (provided a number of predictions that stood the test of refutation) then it is also treated as a fact, but only in the colloquial language. There is nothing insulting in calling evolution a "theory" if we remember that Newtonian mechanics is also a scientific theory that explains reality in a way that makes sense, and also that the theory of atoms and the other things that we are ready to accept as facts in our world are in fact based scientific theories.

750. R.H
     I did not write anything regarding my opinion regarding the importance of subjects that must be taught, but I wrote that these two things are serious and indicate a tremendous failure of the education system. It must be remembered that in this forum it is difficult to convey all my thoughts on the subject, especially if the post requires me to be brief and in addition, I do not think I have the expertise to create a hierarchy of importance, but it is clear to me beyond any doubt that the subject should be taught in schools to all students and not only to students majoring in biology, and it seems that you are of the same opinion so. The issue is fundamentally important.

     If, after all, I have to decide between knowing the fact that we are made of cells and a general recognition of the theory of evolution, I think that knowing the subject of evolution is more important (perhaps even more burdensome) although these two subjects (cells and evolution) are intertwined and it is difficult for me to see how evolution is taught Without the fact that you mentioned and that's why I think this point question is a bit pointed, especially in this forum.

     The demand for conclusive proof that there are extraneous considerations in the matter is a demand for something that is probably impossible, after all I cannot question under oath all the parties involved in the matter, what if I try to do so, there will be too much work for the ophthalmologists due to excessive eye rolls and they are extremely busy anyway to the head So as mentioned there is no proof, but I assume that this is the situation (worse case situation)

     The fact that there are foreign interests and considerations (now I'm acting on the assumption that stems from the article I brought, the case of the chief scientist of the Ministry of Education) is the "icing on the cake" because it means that if I do nothing (and to be honest, I don't really do anything except talk about the issue), the The other will win and the subject may disappear from the map.

751. Shmulik,
     First of all, thank you for the compliment.
     Regarding the ranking of what is more serious and what is less serious - I completely disagree with you. There is no doubt in my mind that it is more important to know that my body is made up of cells, or what the laws of gravity are, than to know which organs are included in the digestive tract (which is included in the "Human Biology" subject in the XNUMXth grade). There are basic topics, which every person should definitely know, and there are less basic topics, which do not have to be passed on to all students. There is definitely a need for this ranking, and it is the job of the experts in the Ministry of Education to do it. This is despite the fact that in my eyes the rating that exists today is definitely deficient. Evolution in this matter is placed in a high place in my eyes, but it is definitely not the first. As I said, there are topics in biology that should be taught to all Israeli students even before evolution.
     I am definitely in favor of the idea that all Israeli students should learn about evolution in an orderly manner, but I am aware that there are practical difficulties and that there are subjects whose priority is higher. Therefore, I think that a serious reform should be made in science studies - add hours, change the existing ranking, etc. That is why the treatment of evolution also seems not serious to me, and therefore I also think that it would be a mistake to introduce evolution as a compulsory subject for all Israeli students within the current situation, because it would harm the contents which are, what to do, more important. Promotion of evolution as a mandatory subject should be within the framework of an overall reform, and only within such a framework.

     I am not familiar with the system that determines the curriculum at the Ministry of Education, so I also cannot say whether or not there are foreign interests there. All I can testify about is my experience from my high school studies, which are not that far from me. As I have said repeatedly - I have not come across any attempts to sweep away evolution (certainly not from the teachers), and in most of the textbooks (even those in which I studied with the rest of the class, and not only with the major) there were quite a few mentions of the importance/function of such a mechanism/organ or Evolutionarily different. If there are foreign interests that prevent the promotion of evolution as a compulsory subject and try to hide it from all Israeli students, this is certainly a serious thing that must be fought, but it does not matter as long as the situation in science studies in general is as bad as it is today.
     I have no interest in fighting those vested interests as they gain power. I have an interest in fighting them if they really have non-kosher interests that are involved in their pedagogical decisions, without anything to do with evolution (that is, even if their interests were different and would prevent learning other content). So far I have not seen any conclusive proof of this, so I really have a hard time believing it, again - in light of my personal experience.

752. R.H
     It's fun to read your comments regarding the permit, thanks to the level of your wording. I wish for all of us.
     Regarding your question, I think it is a bit unnecessary to try to rank which is more serious. Everything is serious and sad and if my children leave school without knowing that they are built appropriately, the system and we (the parents) have failed. This is my answer on a practical level.

     On a principled level, I repeat that evolution is not taught to all Israeli students due to foreign interns (I think there is enough evidence to make such a claim, even if I have not proven it beyond a reasonable doubt) but this is not the case with ignorance (for example, in the subject of biology). While ignorance can be addressed, whether by adding hours, whether by improving lesson plans, or by splitting the science subject, as you said, but fighting the foreign interests, which are becoming stronger and stronger day by day, hour by hour, is almost a losing battle, and this is what makes the need to teach evolution even more It is important, certainly while emphasizing the points that Yael presented.

     By the way, the description of the Facebook status, after visiting Poland, that you mentioned, is stunning. Indeed with virtue.

753. buddha,
     I assume you decided to end the discussion, and if you did, then the discussion is over.
     And to be honest, I would have refrained from commenting except that you chose to refer to Leibovitz, and since it is Leibovitz I cannot ignore it, because as we know, the honor of scholars is not forgiven (Leibowitz was a great scholar, what is more, I owe him a tremendous debt) I will try very vigorously to briefly explain his position to you, And I hope I don't do him too great an injustice:
     In your words, there is the basic assumption that keeping the mitzvot depends on knowledge. Observance of the mitzvot, which is a distinct value decision, does not depend on knowledge according to Leibovitz. The dichotomous separation between science and values ​​is well explained in Leibovitz's book "On Science and Values", a highly recommended book.
     What is the source of this separation?
     I could quote you Wittgenstein or David Hume, but I won't. Instead, I will give a classic Leibovichian reasoning (a bit demagogic, very typical, and with a half-smile of course):

     Hundreds and thousands of teenagers go on trips to Poland every year. They visit the extermination camps, and become well acquainted with the horrors of the Nazi horror. Upon their return to Israel, they post statuses on Facebook such as "May all the Arabs burn, Shabbat Shalom!" And you, despite all the mountains of information they were bombarded with during the trip to Poland, and contrary to all their knowledge about the atrocities committed by the Nazis, they make a value decision, and this value decision is to be fascists!
     All the best to you.

754. R.H.

     On the philosophical issue I actually agreed with you until about a year ago. In the last year I changed my opinion on the subject because I discovered that a large number of significant philosophical questions received, in my opinion, a scientific solution. Dawkins himself writes this in the opening of one of his books (I think it's the blind watchmaker) about how today, unlike in the past, we already know with almost complete certainty how man and all living creatures were created, etc. Also, in my opinion, all moral issues have been resolved by brain research, and here I recommend Jonah Lehrer's book "How We Decide" with an emphasis on the chapter dealing with the moral brain. In short, he claims and explains that what we call morality is a number of clear biological systems that make us refrain from harming others in certain situations. This is not the place to discuss that and also I state again that this is only my opinion, etc.

     Regarding the "undesirable" topic ("...the fact that he chose to observe the mitzvot that these people invented is in my view something undesirable...") I admit that my basic feeling entered here (through the back door without me noticing). Indeed things depend very much on the wording. Researchers have found that the wording of a question or sentence may greatly change the degree of agreement of people (see for example Dan Arieli, etc.). If we write two sentences:

     1. It bothers me that Leibovitz chose to observe the mitzvot despite his scientific knowledge.

     2. It bothers me that Leibovitz chose to observe the mitzvot even though he knew they were inventions of people who lived in ancient times and understood much less about the world than he himself, etc.

     The two sentences basically mean the same thing but if you catch me off guard I will agree with the second sentence and not the first sentence.

     Indeed an interesting thought exercise for me and maybe for you too.

     It was pleasant and enriching to talk with you.

755. Buddha saw,
     My criticism of Dawkins is mainly a criticism against his anti-philosophical view, and not necessarily towards the answers he gives to the philosophical questions I raised, and other questions. What do I mean?
     It seems to me that Dawkins' approach can be defined as logical positivist - there is no subject that science does not deal with because science is the only tool with which it is possible to investigate. What goes beyond the boundaries of science is unexplorable, and therefore does not exist. I have a disagreement with this concept, but it is essentially a philosophical disagreement. What Dawkins does is that he makes his method the only rationally legitimate method, and by doing so he makes the entire philosophical discussion redundant. I think that when the philosophical discussion about the role and place of science in particular, and the philosophical discussion in general, is abandoned, enormous damage may be caused to what you and Shmulik call "critical thinking", which is what has promoted both philosophy and science since time immemorial. What you say about science being perfected when its theories are disproved and when it discovers its mistakes, is relevant only within the frameworks of the various fields of science. In the absence of a philosophical critique of the role of science and how science perceives itself, it is very likely that scientists will become arrogant and conceited who think that the truth lies in their pockets. You will be surprised, but there are quite a few people for whom science is used as a religion. If they read a scientific article and the title "Dr" is added next to the author's name, they will accept his words as true only because of his title and scientific status, even if his words are complete nonsense. I am not asserting the somewhat populist claim that science is another form of religion, but I am asserting that in order to avoid treating it as a religion, critical thinking is necessary which cannot exist in a state of renouncing philosophy.
     All this, of course, without referring to the tragic loss of humanity's profound philosophical heritage since the ancient Greeks.
     This is more or less what I meant by the words "arrogantly and bluntly". I probably didn't explain things properly. From my personal point of view, the disdainful attitude towards philosophy has a sense of condescension. I didn't mean Dawkins' wording (however, many atheists word it with disgusting bluntness, also on this site) but the actual content, which has an attitude of deep disdain.

     Regarding your words regarding that "affinity": you explicitly claimed that - "the fact that he chose to observe the mitzvot that these people invented is in my view something undesirable. It doesn't make him any less smart, but it's kind of like I'll continue to engage in high-level software development, but at the same time I'll start worshiping my cat...". Your words well demonstrate the same short I was talking about. My personal feelings, which are strong and exist, are not only about the conceptual content of Judaism, but also about the practical content, i.e. the mitzvot. I believe that not only I, but also other "embarrassed" religious and traditionalists, feel the same affinity that makes them engage in hocus pocus, and Leibovitz among them. In your eyes this affinity is the same as worshiping a cat. And of course I can't say anything about that. This is the gap. Another thing: if in your eyes the observance of Leibovitz's mitzvot is not desirable, then in your view those feelings should be canceled, or at the very least be encapsulated, so that they are not expressed in the mitzvot.

     I find it difficult to understand your words regarding Buddhism and I would appreciate it if you could elaborate more. How can I not identify with the contents of my consciousness, including my feelings? I still have to learn a lot of Buddhism, of course, but I would appreciate it if you tried to clarify things anyway.

     And by the way, I'll mention that this is one of the most interesting discussions I've ever had in science, certainly the most pleasant and relaxed of them (because, as we know, they often tend to be verbally violent and vulgar). I would actually be happy to continue developing it, but do as you wish of course.

     And one last thing, regarding the hatred: there is no doubt that hatred has taken over our districts for a long time. People do have a need to share their truth with others, but that doesn't stop the hate. On the contrary - they tend to impose their truth mainly on those they hate. Of course, my words are aimed at both sides.

756. To teach evolution you need several conditions: a heartwarming and interesting curriculum and not just Darwin's theory. A serious, comprehensive, colorful textbook that also includes graphs and calculations.

     To teach evolution you need a background in genetics. Without it - studying is writing on a block of ice. The students learn to recite. All questions are similar and all questions have similar answers! The Torah is taught as a theory and not as a science.

     To this day, the students did not like the subject (compared to physiology which is a much, much more difficult subject, but it is interesting. It has graphs, charts, pictures and a lot of material on the net and also an excellent textbook). Despite this, I taught the subject out of ideology and a sense of mission.

     The teachers, in my opinion, do not know evolution and it is not their fault. Also in uni I studied this course (elective) not in an exciting way at all.

     There is no problem at all with the religious students (most students believe in God in public schools anyway), they don't argue. I wish so! Most of them want to get the material and go home as soon as possible.

     There was an old textbook that is no longer published today, the book was not bad but it is outdated and not colorful. Since this book was already sold out, I had no choice and switched to another optional subject (reproduction in humans and animals which is also a very important and beautiful subject).

757. R.H.

     First of all I wanted to point out again that it is a pleasure to read you both in terms of content and in terms of wording.

     It seems to me that the discussion has already gone a little beyond the boundaries of the section. I will ask to finish it and not continue to develop it, but I just wanted to clarify a number of important things that I wrote and were misunderstood through my fault.

     All feelings, including your attachment to tradition or something else, are an existing fact. I never even tried to imply that you should deny them or God forbid cancel them or devalue them or try to change them. Buddhism advises us to develop awareness of them and the more aware you are of what you feel and think the better! On the other hand, there is no need to increase the weight of feelings and thoughts and identify with them. It's hard to explain it in a short answer but if you want to read a little about Buddhism I have no doubt you will understand what I mean.

     Regarding your comments about the arrogance of Dawkins and science. First we don't have to do and research anything. Secondly, I would suggest to ignore the arrogance and bluntness and the modesty and humility of any person and refer only to what is said. Those who express themselves in an arrogant and blatant way, this can be due to many reasons, such as directly, for example. Those who shy away may try to manipulate. I'm not saying it's always like that. I just ignore the packaging. When someone speaks arrogantly and bluntly it just hurts your ego and there is nothing in it.

     Regarding the claim that if everyone thought like Dawkins there would be no critical thinking, this holds in the case of religion but not in the case of science. The reason is that in science everyone is constantly trying to reproduce experiments that others have done and if there is a mistake it will be discovered sooner or later. Scientists consider positively any case of discovering a mistake because it advances science.

     Regarding what you wrote about the hatred of the parties, I think you are wrong. Many people are motivated by the need to share the truth with other human beings and this is true for both sides.

758. skeptic,

     I read "Bacterial Guns and Steel", and in fact I wrote what I wrote also inspired by it. I quote from the book, chapter 6:

     "We must disprove some of the misconceptions regarding the origin of food production... In truth, food production was neither discovered nor invented... Many times there was not even a deliberate choice between food production and hunting and gathering... Food production developed as a by-product of decisions made without knowing the consequences .”

     And also in chapter 7:
     "The ancient farmers didn't even have any existing crop that would serve as a model for them and inspire them to develop new crops. Hence they could not know that their actions were going to yield a juicy delicacy."

     "As far as the plants themselves are concerned, we are but one of thousands of animal species that unwittingly "domesticate" plants."

     Diamond goes on to give examples, such as the mutant pea that did not crack or the wheat that did not break its stalks.

     I am not saying that the fields overlap, but there is also no sharp separation between them. The last quote I gave shows this in the best way, we are just another animal, and in terms of the plant there is no difference between us and another animal that chooses it, we are also part of nature.

759. Ernst and Buddha, I forgot to thank you for the feedback you gave to my previous previous comment, so thank you.
     Ernest,
     I share your feeling that today the main thing is no longer opinion but hatred. It is the hatred for the religious and the ultra-Orthodox that defines the secular and the atheist, more than their philosophical view of the world, and the hatred for the secular and the atheist is what defines the ultra-Orthodox and the religious, more than their religious worldview. The hatred of the left defines the right more than its loyalty to the "homeland", and the hatred of the right defines the left more than its loyalty to "democracy"/"peace". That's why I say that at some point, this communication shortfall is no longer solvable. I assume that you also already understand that today the national religious public brings more division among the people, than unification.

     I don't know if I share Leibovitz's position regarding the relationship between religion and the state, but I know very well that there is something in his words. Religion becomes self-destructive under the rule of the state, and corruption pervades it. Make no mistake: even before 400 there was corruption among the religious establishment and the rabbis of various kinds (and up to the four countries, etc.) but unlike today's corruption, it did not come from a place of power, which is given by the state. Therefore, it was a matter of very little corruption compared to today.

     Shmulik,
     I agree with your opinion that every student and every person should know, broadly speaking, what evolution is. And again I refer you to the question I asked in the previous response - is not knowing evolution serious in your eyes, not knowing the same basic fact that I brought up in the XNUMXth grade? I claim that this is a much more serious and comprehensive problem than the failure to learn evolution, which in my personal experience as a student at the Ministry of Education does not arise from religious motives but rather from practical motives.
     The solution is not very complex in my opinion: devote more hours to science studies in middle and elementary school. Abolish the stupid subject "science" and teach biology, physics and chemistry separately, even during the same hours during the year, in rotation (not by the same teachers!). Require all high school students to take some kind of scientific matriculation, and even create a new matriculation exam that will contain content from biology, physics and chemistry, for all students (in addition to the increased subjects), instead of the same idiocy that exists in studying biology and chemistry in the XNUMXth grade - "internal subjects". And I have many more.

     I'm sorry that the site that claims to be scientific does not deal with the image of science as a whole in the education department, but rather focuses on evolution. I also have no doubt that the obsessive preoccupation of those who call themselves "atheists" in evolution, comes not only from pure motives of the pursuit of knowledge, but also from less kosher motives.
     י

760. R.H
     I'm clarifying because maybe I wasn't clear: I'm not claiming that every student should learn evolution at the 5-unit level, but everyone should learn about the subject. Not only biology students, but anyone who has been in the education system should be able to say that they learned a little about the subject: the facts and the theories while being careful to think critically

761. R. H.
     It is indeed shocking, and regarding your question about whether to teach in second grade, etc., I am not a pedagogue, so it is difficult for me to answer about when it is necessary and exactly how, but it is clear to me that it is necessary and professionals would easily know how to convey the content.
     Regarding the emotional aspect of how they will react, the answer is that I prefer not to lie to the children and present what we know (according to the content that the professionals will dictate) and in addition, even if evolution says that we are just a survival machine, then we live in a society of people who try to be moral (the golden rule) and And the parents are supposed to prepare the next generation who will know and recognize proper moral values ​​and behavior.

     According to the article I brought and conversations with quite a few people, it is clear to me that this topic was pushed out of the school because of religion. The previous chief scientist (appointment of Gideon Sa'ar?) was thrown out of office because of the denial of evolution and the profession of citizenship (education for common life) is under a tremendous attack by the same people.

     So it's true, our education system is very bad, but individually, evolution is not taught here in the religious general and, as I wrote, it's system madness. The subject should be studied as a core subject and those who do not study it will not receive funding from the state. As mentioned, this is my opinion on the subject.

     another one,
     How should students be taught a subject they are not ready to learn? The first answer is that just as mathematics is not liked by students and we tell them: life is hard and stop whining, so is evolution.
     The second answer is that it's not that the students don't want to learn, but the leaders of their parents' community don't want the profession to be taught. Read the articles on the subject again.
     If you think that the next Nobel Prize in a scientific profession will come from lack of study, you are very optimistic

762. Buddha

     The internal investigation allows us to understand the source of the feelings, thoughts and beliefs that appear in our consciousness. You identify with your emotion and see it as a part of you, but the truth is that man is an empty machine and all the thoughts and feelings we experience are not part of us. This idea was born in the East many, many years ago and has been proven by science including evolution and breakthroughs in brain research in recent years

     what? what do you mean here

     In my opinion, evolution does answer to a large extent, even if not completely, the question "why". We learn from her that the human race in itself has no purpose (at least no more than bacteria). Moreover, the concept of "why" exists only within the human mind. The human brain is a machine that developed through the evolutionary process. The concept of "why" (cause - result, action - purpose) was developed within the above complex to improve survivability.

     You used the term 'why', not me - those who believe in some kind of hidden truth will tell you that even bacteria have a purpose - the search for meaning and purpose for life and human existence is not a scientific search. And there is no point in looking for it through scientific means - the fact that you don't find it also does not 'prove' that there is no purpose or meaning.

763. buddha,
     I probably strongly disagree with you in understanding evolution. Evolution cannot give an answer to the question "Who am I", unless, as you mentioned, "We are nothing but survival machines". Evolution defines "who I am" to the same extent that history defines who I am - it describes the processes that took place and resulted in my being created.
     I do not think like you that our thoughts do not define us. Even if they are not an inherent part of our biological essence, they certainly define us and differentiate us from the rest. Evolution and biology in general define man as a biological species only, and not as anything else. And here we come to a question that seems to me to be at the foundation of the philosophy of science: Can we examine the whole of reality, and ourselves, through the scientific prism alone? Do we have to do this? And what will be the consequences of such a view? These three questions are among the greatest and most difficult philosophical questions ever asked, for which I am willing to accept different and conflicting answers, but the arrogance and bluntness with which Dawkins and his ilk dismiss them is nothing less than shocking in my eyes. If all human beings answer all these questions as Dawkins answers them, then the scroll will be closed on what you call "critical thinking", just as if all human beings are extreme creationist evangelical Christians, the scroll on critical thinking will also be closed.

     In your answer to "one other" you said that evolution does answer the question of "why", that is - "why do we exist?" When you examine the reality of the entire human race through the scientific prism, then it is possible that there really is no purpose for our existence, but that is because the concept of "purpose" does not exist in science. There is only causality in science, not goals!
     I would appreciate it if you could provide evidence for your claim that the concept of "why" developed during evolution within the human brain only. And if so, so what? To the extent that this concept exists within my mind, I need to give it answers. The concept of "how", like any other concept, developed in the human mind during evolution. And what does science do if it does not give answers to concepts that have developed inside our minds?

     To the extent that the affinity I feel towards the Israeli tradition is an emotion, then surely there is no reason to claim that it is unnecessary. I have the right to feel every emotion in the world, and my right to act on it, as long as I don't hurt another person because of it. No person can demand that I give up this feeling just as I do not demand that another person give up his feelings towards his family and friends. There is no room for an analytical examination of these feelings, precisely because an intellectually honest person will admit that he cannot examine his feelings objectively. There are places where human rationality is supposed to tell us by itself that it is unable to answer all possible questions. This is the gross lie of the absolute rationalists (yes, including Rambam) in all generations, who were supposed to admit that not everything we feel can be examined objectively rationally, and they did not admit it. Note - I did not mean here a scientific examination of the sensations I feel inside my brain, but an objective analytical examination of my feelings by myself.

     Shmulik,
     As I wrote in one of my previous messages, as part of 5 units of biology, I did not study evolution as an extended subject in the twelfth grade, but we still dealt with evolution. We didn't study the subject as a separate subject, but certainly my teacher had no problem presenting it and even relatively comprehensively, in my opinion. That's why I think this is a wild exaggeration.
     I don't know if it's appropriate to teach evolution at elementary age, and I'm not even sure if all the students will understand the idea to the end (even in my XNUMXth grade, there were students who had difficulty understanding the principle of natural selection). By the way, even in the XNUMXth grade, where I studied biology with the rest of the class and at a fairly low level, the teacher (another teacher) did not refrain from mentioning evolution as a fact for everything, in different contexts (for example regarding the duodenum).
     And now, if Buddha is right - and evolution really has enormous implications for many different fields of thought, and it does teach us that we are nothing but "survival machines" - are you sure a child in the second grade should digest such a fact?
     That is, if we have a child in the second grade, very smart and talented, who, like Buddha - from studying evolution as a biological process only, will understand that we are all survival machines, how do you think he will react to this mentally? Do you think his parents are educating him in a way that is consistent with this fact (regardless of religion)?
     There are contents that should be adapted to their target audience, and it seems to me that the study of evolution is one of them. It is appropriate and necessary to mention what evolution is already in the XNUMXth-XNUMXth grades, but it is possible to try and teach the subject in an orderly manner even only in middle school. The sky will not fall, and the students will no longer be ignorant.

     As someone who graduated from high school last year, I can testify from a source that the level of science education in this country is abysmal in general, and evolution is one subject in one scientific subject, nothing more. I find it hard to believe that there is anything to do with religion, but there are simply lots and lots of subjects that need to be taught as part of biology studies. If a person thinks that it is more important to teach evolution than the structure of the cell and its function, then in my eyes he is not only ignorant, but also strives for ignorance. If there really is a subject in biology that is the basis of all other fields and without which there is no biology - it is cytology, the study of the cell. With all due respect to evolution, it is a subject that is objectively much more significant for understanding many different areas of biology. The comparison itself is ridiculous.
     Now, go do a survey and look for an answer to the following question: How many students finish elementary school and know the following fact: "All living things in the world are made up of cells"? Hint, the answer will shock you.

764. Ori pay attention,

     There are those who claim that ET is a scientific fact and there are those who claim that: "...there are various claims that are made against ET (for example: (1) Is it true..."

     I claim that ET is a scientific fact and hence it follows that it should be taught to children.
     Those who think that ET is not a scientific fact may have a different opinion on whether it should be taught as a theory, etc.

     Skeptic, I apologize for the link I attached to Endler's experiment. The experiment is not properly described there. There is a more detailed explanation in Dawkins' book "The Greatest Show in the World" and I found another link here for those who are interested:

     http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IVCexperiments.shtml

765. Buddha

     I have nothing to add, except that you probably have problems with reading comprehension: I drew your attention to the fact that you did not understand what was said about the Degi Gopi experiment in the article you mention, and probably your further reading did not help you understand it.

     In the same experiment, artificial intervention *did not create any evolution* in Gopi fish (as you claimed). The description of the experiment is the last part of the article and begins with the words "2 groups of gopi fish were packed...".

     Everything that was said before those words is not an experiment but an interpretation of what may have happened in the two habitats of the guppy fish, an interpretation is not an experiment.

     Sorry, I'm not ready for more idle arguments.

766. Ori

     Everything is probably written in the answer I listed (and if not there, then in the previous comments regarding the current article).

     Anyway, in short. There are various claims that are made against ET (for example: (1) is it true, (2) is it necessary to understand other areas of life). Some people who make claims seem to be giving misleading answers by blurring the difference between the BE domain and the ET domain.

     If the abstract formulation here is not clear to you I will give a concrete example of giving a false answer by blurring the difference between two fields. The example is extreme, so that it is more understandable.

     And here is the example. Let's say someone claims "the development of atomic bombs is good for the advancement of human society", and his reasoning is this:
     * The development of nuclear reactors and the development of atomic bombs use similar technologies, in fact there is no big difference between the two technologies.
     * The development of nuclear reactors is essential for humanity because it will provide us with energy.
     * Conclusion from the last two claims: the development of atomic bombs is good for the advancement of humanity.

     As for the examples you mentioned (domestication of animals and plants) which are included in the framework of BE. (By the way, it is not true that domestication was done unintentionally, domestication was intentional and progressed slowly when the goals of domestication were marked in advance, there were failures in domestication and it was only successful in a few cases, see the book "Bacterial Guns and Steel".

767. R.H

     I enjoyed reading your answer to Buddha, the honesty and openness of your words.
     In the past I saw the religious Zionist circles as a factor that unites the people who know how to live according to their faith
     However, he is also awake and working for perfection and unity within the people, understanding that this is important for his strength and survival.

     Leibovitz rightly claimed, in a conversation with Ben-Gurion, that religion should be conducted independently, without connection to state institutions, out of the fact that he feared that religion would be harmed and deviate from its teachings.

     I believe that all the beliefs, teachings and concepts in the world could be taught, Islam, science, Christianity, Buddha...
     Every child in Israel, if there was no rift if extremism did not rule, hatred would be for nothing.

     Today the subject of the debate is meaningless, it is just another one of dozens of heated debates dominated by hatred
     and not the subject. Separating religion from politics from public corruption is the goal, the only hope.

768. R.H.

     I really appreciate what you wrote due to the openness, honesty and authenticity of the response.

     The main importance of understanding evolution in my eyes is not in the understanding that natural selection works on many other levels. It is important but it is not the main thing.

     The importance of evolution is in the help it provides to man to answer the question "Who am I".

     I think I understand your situation, the feeling of attachment you feel is just an emotion. Every person experiences endless emotions and feels a connection to his family, friends, hometown, etc. The question is what do these feelings mean and do they define the person?

     The internal investigation allows us to understand the source of the feelings, thoughts and beliefs that appear in our consciousness. You identify with your emotion and see it as a part of you, but the truth is that man is an empty machine and all the thoughts and feelings we experience are not part of us. This idea was born in the East many, many years ago and has been proven by science including evolution and breakthroughs in brain research in recent years.

     "We are survival machines and nothing else - robotic tools that were blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules called genes"

     I wanted to write here how evolution helps to understand the subject but the subject is too broad for a response. I believe that if you continue to research the subject you will come to similar conclusions.

     to one another,

     In my opinion, evolution does answer to a large extent, even if not completely, the question "why". We learn from her that the human race in itself has no purpose (at least no more than bacteria). Moreover, the concept of "why" exists only within the human mind. The human brain is a machine that developed through the evolutionary process. The concept of "why" (cause - result, action - purpose) was developed within the above complex to improve survivability.

769. Shmulik didn't answer me - how do you teach something to someone who doesn't want to learn?
     If you force evolution to be taught in all biology subjects, you will alienate religious people from the subject.
     If you force everyone to learn the profession - you will provoke a backlash from the religious community -
     It won't work - you won't get anything - you won't ask anyone back either.
     At no point did anyone teach me about evolution - and I still assume that this is the best explanation we have for the development of life on Earth.

     Buddha
     What evolution does not explain - what science as a whole does not explain - is 'why' - 'why' is a question of purpose.
     And as of today, science has no solutions to the question of what is the purpose of humanity (or if humanity has a purpose at all) - and in my opinion there never will be, this is not a scientific question.

770. R. H.,
     I copy from the article:
     "In the past year, 15 students took the matriculation exam in biology. In the field there are three core subjects, which the students are obliged to study. Beside them there are optional subjects, and evolution is one of them. According to the data of the Ministry of Education, only 515 students took the subject. "

     I studied physics in high school, so I have no idea if all biology students touch on the subject and only 515 expanded on it, but the facts (unless I am mistaken) are that too few are exposed to the subject

     Here is another copy from the article:

     "I was surprised to discover that indeed evolution is taught only as part of extended biology studies and that this is done out of 'consideration of certain populations'," said MK Wilf, "It is not clear who are the populations that are too sensitive to science and the truth, but I am not
     I see no reason that considering them would result in all students in the State of Israel not learning the theory of evolution. This is a topic that does not belong in biology for five units, but in 'nature' classes in elementary and high school."

     It should be remembered that the article is talking about biology students. What about everyone who doesn't study biology?
     Therefore, there is no wild exaggeration here and in light of all these facts, one can simply assume that the topic is hidden from Israeli students and I completely agree with Wolff who says that the topic should be in elementary and high school nature classes.

     This of course won't happen so don't worry (for anyone who was worried). As Bibi once said: "He m p h d i m". He was right, I'm afraid

771. buddha,
     Your assessment is largely correct (even though I didn't highlight it). I really feel a very deep connection to the Israeli tradition (even though I am commenting here on Shabbat). And yes, Leibovitz definitely gave me the most plausible answer to this contradiction. Precisely because of the difference between my starting points and yours, it seems to me that you are unable to understand my situation.

     The affinity I feel towards the tradition does not come from anything, except maybe the way I was raised. I do not feel an affinity for tradition because it is logical, because it is humanistic, etc. I feel an affinity towards her because she is a part of me, and I cannot be me without her. This is my starting point, and therefore when it collides with science/morality/modernity/rationality, I feel the same "embarrassment". For you, this embarrassment is irrelevant, simply because your starting point is different from mine. You don't feel the same affinity for tradition, so you don't feel the same embarrassment. You say that the way Leibovitz continued to observe mitzvot "is not desirable in your eyes". That's why you also don't understand why I can't just throw this tradition to hell and be a rational and modern person. In your eyes this is primitiveness or stupidity or ignorance. In my eyes, even if I understand that there is ignorance or primitiveness in the tradition, the tradition is still a part of me. I can't and I don't want to throw it away. Why? I guess I just can't explain it to you.

     As far as I can testify, it seems to me that other religious and traditional people feel this too. They feel that they cannot give up tradition, in addition to not having the courage to leave the religious society, etc. There are many among the religious and traditionalists that you might define as "ignorant", but they also feel this way and that's where all kinds of ridiculous things come from, like the lectures of this Amnon Yitzchak etc.

     If you spoke earlier about how "there is no real possibility of reconciling the above two views" it seems to me that this is what you meant, or at least that is what you should have meant. This media shortfall between the public that preserves tradition and the public that rejects it with both hands, is one of the greatest tragedies of our time, and it may also be impossible to successfully bridge it.

     You forget that the vast majority of religious and traditionalists will never admit that they are doing "hocus pocus". They will claim that the explanation they bring to the contradiction between religion and science, for example, is completely logical and is the answer to their embarrassment, if they even acknowledge this embarrassment. I cannot say on their behalf if they know in their hearts that they are wrong or if they believe it with all their souls. But I'm sure they also feel the same affinity I'm talking about.

     So do I have a complete answer to my embarrassments? As you probably already guessed, not really. I'm also not really sure that I will find an answer, yet - this does not call into question my affinity to Judaism. Leibovitz certainly helped me, and he gave me one of the closest things to an answer that I have, but I do not adhere to it (also because I do not completely accept his concept of religiosity - I respond here on Shabbat). I also do not rule out a possible connection between science and values, and the possibility that scientific knowledge can prevent a person (note - prevent a person and not cause a person) certain value choices.

     Note: Leibovitz knew very well and even claimed that Judaism, which is actually embodied in Halacha, was created by humans, not by God. This is the Torah in the Bible, and it gives validity, according to Leibovitz, to the written Torah - the XNUMX books of the Bible.

     And my entire long response has nothing to do with what I said about evolution. I repeat: evolution is a scientific fact. It is not a supreme principle that guides reality. If you mean something like that, you mean the principle of natural selection, which is also not a "super principle"; It appears in other planes of reality besides biology, but not in all, and certainly one should not try to apply it to other elements of our existence such as ethics, politics, etc.
     And sorry for the too detailed answer.

772. skeptic,

     This sharp division into ET and BE is not clear to me, what about cases where there is human intervention but not on purpose? For example, in the domestication of the dog from the wolf, or in the domestication of plants in ancient times?

773. to the doubter,

     I have no interest in demagoguery and/or convincing anyone.

     When you have a criticism of something that someone wrote, it is better to refer only to what was written and point out mistakes and not try to disqualify the writer for any reason (even if he is the creator...just)

     I have only read 3 books on evolution so I must understand much less than you.

     In my opinion, the most impressive experiment in the field is the Lenski experiment, but you refuse to refer to bacteria for some reason. It is not clear why. We share a common biological structure with them.

     Regarding the fish, it is explicitly written at the end of the article "The conclusion reached by the researchers is: that the difference between the populations is a difference of genetic origin" How do you think fish with weak colors will suddenly start being born in a certain lake? Has God run out of paint?

     There is also the experiment with the lizards on an island near Italy.

     In the above three experiments, according to your definition, it is ET (natural selection). No scientist picked the germs in Lansky's experiment with tweezers and only transferred some of them between the test tubes. As for the fish and lizards, they were raised in the wild in lakes (and on an island) where completely natural conditions prevailed.

     Just to clarify, I'm not referring to an experiment like the work of Dmitri Blaaev (fox domestication) which according to your definition is BE.

     Beyond all this, I feel that the strong desire to separate ET from BE comes from fear of discovering the truth. Someone is afraid to find out that they are actually the same thing. But that's just me and my bullshit.

774. Buddha.

     This is a response to your message of September 26th. This will probably be the last response on the matter since I have no interest in an idle debate with someone who does not know the theory of evolution well (although he may think he does), or with someone who is not accurate in his words (not accurate by mistake or with demagogic intent).

     When we talk about evolution (which I will denote by ET later) we only mean something else:
     Biological changes in living things (including bacteria, viruses and plants) that occur naturally. When I speak here about changes that "occur naturally" I mean that the changes are not directed by an external entity (not directed by the hand of man, not directed by the hand of God and not directed by aliens).

     There are other fields that concern biological changes in living beings and I put them all in one framework that I call in the discussion here "biological engineering" (and denote this framework by BE). BE includes all changes that are made by the intention of a human hand. There are many areas that are included in BE (e.g. animal and plant domestication, e.g. changing strains, e.g. drug development, and other things I forgot to mention). What sets BE apart is the fact that they are all done by *the direction of a human hand*, this is different from ET where there is explicitly no human intervention.

     There is no doubt that when people who are experts in evolution talk about evolution they mean only ET. In all the books I have looked at or read that are devoted to the subject of evolution (at least 10) - only a tiny part of the book (less than XNUMX percent of the book) talks about BE. In books devoted to the subject of evolution, subjects from the field of BE are mentioned for explanations or footnotes for the purpose of understanding the main subject ET. I don't think any of the books gives a dictionary definition (in a few words) of what is meant by the term evolution, the definition is all the topics included in the book (and as mentioned ET only).

     The only place I have come across a blurring of boundaries between ET and BE are places where questions are raised about ET (eg is it a correct theory, or does it matter). Those who are in favor of ET sometimes find it difficult to give convincing answers regarding difficult questions about ET, some of them give demagogic answers by deliberately blurring the difference between ET and BE.

     The above blurring indicates a lack of understanding of the difficulty regarding ET or dishonesty in the debate. I already said in a previous response (in other words) that it is impossible to conclude from the processes that are carried out in BE regarding the feasibility of the same processes in ET (my words can be qualified if we talk about bacteria and viruses, I don't want to go into detail). I also said in a previous response that the development of areas included in BE do not use the insight that comes from knowing ET at all. The two examples I have given here refer to demagogic claims of ET supporters in which the difference between ET and BE is blurred in order to supposedly give answers to questions that are raised about ET.

     Regarding the Gopi fish experiment you mentioned (if you are the one who mentioned it). In the same experiment there was no evolutionary change in gopi fish (which is not surprising since there are no evolutionary changes within a few years). The fact that there was no evolutionary change (genetic change) is listed according to my memory at the end of the article. Your claim as if there was such an evolutionary change is wrong.

775. R.H.

     thanks for the detailed answer. I appreciate that you see yourself as a religious or traditional person and believe in the God of Israel in some way and if not then in the tradition of Israel or something similar. I say this on the basis that you tend to accept Leibovitz. I think this is why you don't understand or don't want to understand a large part of what I wrote. Leibovitz was an esteemed person with a very high intelligence, but the way he tried to reconcile religion and science does not respect him as a scientist. As a man of science, Leibovitz knew very well that the Torah was not given by God and did not want to think about where exactly it came from. The truth is that it is an invention of people who lived in the past. The fact that he chose to observe the commandments these people invented is in my view something undesirable. It doesn't make him any less smart, but it's kind of like I'll continue to engage in high-level software development but at the same time I'll start worshiping my cat... the assumption that "knowing the facts of reality cannot compel a person to take any action." Not acceptable to me. A religious or secular person who feels "embarrassed" should go and look for an answer until he doesn't feel embarrassed anymore and not try any hocus pocus.

776. buddha,
     2+1. My teacher of course presented evolution as a scientific fact for everything and not as a theory, within the rest of the biology studies (mainly ecology) I thought it was clear from the previous message. I find it very difficult to believe that she taught us as fact what she regards as mere theory. The vast majority of the religious people I know who have studied scientific subjects, will not treat the contents they learn as theory only, when they are not in line with the religious concept. If you already mentioned Leibovitz, then it is worth mentioning that he always said that the fact is forced upon those who know it, no matter how much it may not suit them, and the same is true of evolution.

     3+4. She did not settle the contradiction like Leibovitz, but more like Natan Aviezer (if you know)... I admit that in my eyes this approach holds much less water, but this is the way she personally sees things and this is her full right, because her approach to the matter did not affect the way where she taught evolution. To her credit, she certainly did not force us to see things as she sees them and in fact presented us with her view in just two or three sentences, as an answer to a question from someone in the class. I mean to say that her approach was quite matter-of-fact, and she never left out facts that were inappropriate in her eyes (again, these were forced on her...).

     5. I have the feeling that she fell on a rather comfortable audience, which was ready to happily adopt her point of view - which she did not try to do, as I mentioned. In my personal opinion, as I said, her perception does not really hold water (I lean more in Leibovitz's direction). But again - it is none of my business how she interprets evolution and how she treats it, as long as she makes sure to teach it as a fact, without overlapping. Her religious view on the matter is her personal matter, and has nothing to do with the quality of her teaching.

     6. I don't understand what you mean, or more precisely - I understand and prefer to shut up. Simply because I don't understand how it is relevant.

     A religious person in modern times (who left the religious society and was exposed to the general culture, it is important to note), is what is called "embarrassed". He is embarrassed by the contradiction between the religious view and the scientific, rational, modern, etc. view. In order to overcome this embarrassment, he usually tries to do all kinds of hocus pocus so that religion and science/modernity/rationality will coexist. Sometimes it holds water, sometimes it doesn't, sometimes it's something completely different (Leibovitz again) You may be right that it is impossible to reconcile this deep contradiction. A religious person will usually tell you no, simply because religion, in itself, is dear to him and he is not ready to give it up for anything else. But none of this should be relevant to the rest of society. To the extent that person does not allow religion to interfere with him when he fulfills his role in society, such as a science teacher, the rest of society should not concern itself with the personal views of the religious person.

     I would appreciate it if you could explain to me how evolution "goes far beyond the field of biology". The evolution we are discussing is a process studied within the framework of biological science and nothing else. It may raise different philosophical questions which, like any philosophical question, can be answered with different answers. It does not (!), as too many ignorant scientists claim, establishes facts in a framework that goes beyond biology. With all the great appreciation I have for Dawkins' math, this is all theory and not fact. It is certainly not a fact that evolution is relevant to her, but rather a theory whose development was influenced by the model of evolution.
     I didn't understand what you said about citizenship and critical thinking, and brain research is a field of biology. Regarding the "meaning of science" - it seems to me that this is included in what I said about philosophy: evolution raises philosophical questions, and of course also questions concerning the philosophy of science. There are different answers to these questions, none of which is a scientific fact.

     Evolution is nothing more than a scientific fact, as I said. It is not relevant to civil and certainly not ethical issues (remind you what was the most acute expression of social Darwinism in the 20th century?). The usual attempt to turn it into a kind of supreme principle that directs everything that happens in reality is truly pathetic. I assume you mean that the principle of natural selection is also embodied in other aspects of reality, and not only in biology. In this you may be right, but you must remember that this is not evolution, and there is no connection between the question of whether a person declares that he accepts evolution as a fact and the principle of natural selection embodied in other levels, such as, for example, the free market. The principle of natural selection (in biology!) was taught by Darwin, but this does not mean that it is deduced from evolution directly to any other field of human reality. Again, Social Darwinism is an expression of such an inference, and it resulted (in part) in the most terrible event known to mankind.
     And sorry for the demagoguery used in Social Darwinism...

     With your permission, I prefer not to refer to your last paragraph.

777. to R.H.

     If your teacher was religious, you would be asked to ask her, in a respectful manner of course, how she resolves the internal contradiction.

     1. Does she agree that evolution is a scientific fact and not a theory?
     2. Did she teach you that evolution is a scientific fact?
     3. Assuming she agrees to this, does she believe in the Jewish religion and what is written in the Torah?
     4. How does she resolve the contradiction? Like Isaiah Leibovitz?
     5. Does her explanation pass the reasonable logic test of you and the other students in the class?
     6. Is it really "good to die for our country"?

     There is no real possibility of reconciling the above two views and this is a war of "days" over the image of society in Israel in particular and in the Western world in general.

     Evolution goes far beyond the realm of biology. It is no less relevant to the field of philosophy, citizenship, brain research, critical thinking, a true understanding of what science means, and more. It explains how we were created and why we are here and refutes many other explanations. There is no problem if most students don't study biology and are content with understanding that life is a kind of elaborate machines as long as they understand how these machines were created and especially what they are not. In Israel and the USA, about 80% of the population believes in God... and there are those who see this as a kind of problem. This leads us to the question of what interests this party wishes to serve.

     The above discussion is an evolutionary discussion in itself. The structure of the human brain contains defense systems that oppose, among other things, the acceptance of the theory of evolution. Also, a large part of the social structures that exist at the moment (which developed in my opinion as an evolutionary product) contain defense systems against the "water" evolution as part of their survival mechanism. What we see here is a kind of ideological "arms race". In the end, natural selection will decide whether the idea of ​​evolution will become a dominant idea in the population...

778. Avi Blizovsky
     I did not understand what you were saying.
     In secular schools they do not learn that God created the world.
     Even in Tanakh classes, this is not taught as a fact - there is an investigation - there is a comparison, there is reference to slaps and the numerical structure - at least while I was studying the Bible.

     Shmulik
     There is no connection between belief and disbelief in creationism and success in the scientific field - many scientists over the years progressed and discovered things even though they believed in all kinds of miracles and wonders.
     I don't know the statistics, but I don't think there are more secular and traditional than religious and ultra-Orthodox, maybe at the age of first grade it's different. I would appreciate it if you could direct me to this statistic.
     In any case, do you intend to teach evolution even in communities that would reject the idea outright?
     It's not that simple, there's a difference between teaching a student who will believe everything you tell him and teaching a student who will deny what you're trying to convey outright.- Given this possible problem- is it still to teach evolution on a large scale?

779. What a wild exaggeration.
     As someone who graduated from high school last year, majoring in biology, I can testify that although we did not deal with evolution intensively, we certainly studied it. We did not choose to study evolution as part of the elective subjects in the twelfth grade, and this was not due to any religious view, but simply because there were much more interesting elective subjects, if I may. By the way, my teacher was religious. This did not prevent her from presenting evolution to us impartially, and certainly not from a creationist point of view. It is worth noting by the way that she did not choose the subjects of choice, but we the students.
     This whole attempt to examine science studies in the State of Israel through the prism of evolution studies seems to me to be simply evil. So there are high school students who finish high school and have not studied evolution. Big deal. If they haven't studied evolution, then it's even more likely that they haven't studied mechanics at a basic level either, which should be just as disturbing. Not to mention that a much larger share of high school students in this country graduate without knowing who Kant, Spinoza or Freud were.
     I do not underestimate the study of evolution, of course I think that they are a very, very important component of the study of biology (and I am proof of this - I learned about evolution as part of my biology studies, even though we did not deal with it regularly), but it seems ridiculous to me to place this vast field entirely on the study of evolution . Biology is not history - it is impossible to study only one field in it, without reference to another field, and in this way it is impossible to study cell biology, microbiology and genetics without knowing what evolution is, and at least knowing its basic principles.

     There is a lot to complain about in the Ministry of Education in Israel, and there is even more to complain about regarding science studies in Israel, in high schools in general, but the issue with evolution is a small, very small part of the picture. The truth is that science studies in this country are a disgrace for all intents and purposes, and I would have expected this site to deal more with this matter, and to put a little less emphasis on evolution, even though it's a lot of fun to bash the religious.

780. It is of course your right to think so, but in the spirit of your words of "giving tools", evolution is a model of gathering evidence and building a Torah that was completely opposite to the Christian example that dominated until then, and the intellectual revolution that this Torah brought about is enormous and I do not see why the history of the State of Israel provides more tools than studying the theory of evolution.

     The eye also caught your sentence that it is a free country but it is not exactly a free country and you are welcome to read the article that deals with exactly the same topic.
     http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/332/531.html

     Now, if you told me that there is a subject in history that teachers are unwilling to teach because it "hurts" them, all my senses would light up and I would demand to understand what it is about, why they are not ready, who is not ready, etc. This is of course not the case in the subject of history (as far as I know), but it is the case in Israel (and also in the world) in the subject of evolution. Since there is no dispute about the science behind evolution (I mean the issues I detailed earlier and it is possible to emphasize in lessons what the facts are and what the theory is) the insistence on not teaching stems from religious ideology and the hiding of facts that undermine that religious ideology (even if you insist that there is no contradiction, then according to most of the concealers, there is a contradiction )
     Just as it is unthinkable not to teach the theory of relativity because of the insanity of the Newtonian sect (my invention), so arguments outside of science have no influence on what to teach. And this is a total catastrophe and this is the country we live in and it is not going to change since most first graders are not secular and next year, the number of seculars will decrease even more.

     Therefore, if you think that this subject is not important to study on its own, please consider the fact that most of those who hide it do so for foreign, self-interested, cowardly and religious reasons, and this is another reason why it should be studied

781. For another, it is really important to learn that God created the world but not the truth…..

782. Shmulik-
     It is a free country with freedom of expression and there is internet, television, and books.
     No one "hides" the theory of evolution from anyone.
     Deciding what will be taught in the public system is a matter of a complicated and convoluted government mechanism that applies all kinds of considerations - including how not to create too many unnecessary problems.
     The role of the state education system is not to teach the students everything they need - but to give them tools for studying (in an ideal situation) - or to be an expensive babysitter (in a less ideal situation) - there are limited resources and there are many different opinions about what should be studied and what not .
     In my opinion, it is more important that they learn more about the history of the State of Israel before and after its establishment - than to expand specifically on biology.

783. If they don't accept that e = mc2 after they have studied the subject and have corrections to this equation, I will be the happiest person. If they don't accept the equation because they don't want to accept it, because they weren't taught (let's say because it insults the members of the Newtonian sect) then yes, it would bother me a lot

784. We've already talked a thousand times about not telling me I'm exaggerating
     Now I will actually learn them. because of you

785. "A supreme effort to tell my children about the subject.."

     Good thing you didn't exaggerate.. Let them read what they want.

786. I explained why I think evolution should be taught to students and I am not interested in entering whether evolution contradicts or does not contradict the Torah. If you think she's not contradicting herself, great.
     It is important to know the facts (dinosaurs, fossils, carbon 14 records, DNA, the tremendous closeness of man to the world of animals and plants, generations, bacteria and everything that those who know better than me will suggest on the subject) and the theory that explains these facts and, as I have already written, basic recognition of the subject and recognition An in-depth study of the subject in the major itself is critical to an intelligent life in the 21st century

     Anything I say beyond that would be repeating myself and I'm sorry if you think that this subject should not be taught to all Israeli students. I will make a supreme effort to tell my children about the issue and you are welcome to hide the issue from them

787. "
     Because this is the way we were created. Because what Darwin did was to shatter the Christian dogma, that creation is from heaven and provided a scientific explanation based on evidence and this intellectual achievement must not be hidden from students in the 21st century.

     If there is anything that needs to be told to students, this is it.
     "

     Why is it so important to tell students this? Suppose they don't accept that E=MC^2 does it also bother you so much?

788. will present = will achieve

789. Shmulik
     Why do you think the theory of evolution contradicts religion?
     It is true that it bothers many religious people, but not many.
     And as I said - it is not hidden - there is no censorship - everything is available in many places and most of those who can understand what evolution is - have already heard about it somewhere - most of the population has already heard about the idea that the origin of man is the monkey species.
     But those who choose not to be interested or not to believe - do you want to forcibly force a few hours of evolution studies on them? What do you think it will show?
     (By the way, I'm completely secular)

790. another one,
     Because this is the way we were created. Because what Darwin did was to shatter the Christian dogma, that creation is from heaven and provided a scientific explanation based on evidence and this intellectual achievement must not be hidden from students in the 21st century.

     If there is anything that needs to be told to students, this is it.

791. Shmulik
     There is such a thing as status quo.
     In principle, there is not too much of a problem if we start teaching in secular state schools the theory of evolution in Shauria biology is compulsory in the XNUMXth grade. Maybe a certain percentage of biology teachers will object - but this is a small problem - but there is not too much of a problem to simply teach something else during those hours.
     It's not that important! Those who do not expand biology - do not need to know too much biology.
     What is so important that the entire population learn evolution?

792. another one,
     There is a difference between available information and information that is important for children to learn. In my opinion, evolution studies should be in the core studies (the basics and principles). A basic understanding of this topic is more important than many other things.

     Woe betide us if we don't learn science because someone is hurt by it. What exactly was he hurt by? From the truth? Christians for ages did not want to accept the work that God is not at the center. They are not proud of it and indeed in 1992 the Christian Church apologized (this does not happen every day or every decade) and science won. Here too, it is to be hoped that science and logic will prevail. The principles of evolution should be taught in schools as well.
     Indeed, truly woe betide us and our education system is ranked much lower than we would like it to be

793. Shmulik
     I didn't learn about evolution and I didn't expand on biology - therefore I can't know how true what you say is regarding the importance of what you say about evolution to the life sciences.
     But those who don't study life sciences don't need this foundation either, so why does it matter?
     Second thing
     No one hides - the information is available - the child's parents can refer him to books and the Internet, there are programs on TV, there is YouTube. - The school is not the only source of knowledge.

     There are practical problems with evolutionary studies-
     Secular Tanach studies will be taught by secular teachers who studied the subject in a secular way -
     But no one made this separation in biology - do you want to force religious teachers to teach evolution? (Even if you limit yourself to only secular schools, you don't know what the level of religiosity of each teacher is) - sometimes it is better not to start a war.

794. another one,
     It is important to learn about evolution because it is the only scientific explanation that exists that explains our existence here. As already written, the whole science of biology, medicine, medicine does not work without evolution. Students should be introduced to Darwin, the topic of fossils, DNA, etc. because we are in the 21st century and it is unthinkable to hide such basic information from children. Such concealment is actually a lie.

     Just as they teach Newton in school, including in the XNUMXth grade, before dividing into majors (he is accurate enough to be taught in school, but of course I would not be opposed to telling the students a little about the theory of relativity) this is how evolution should be taught. It is so basic and important.

795. By the way, the late Prof. Yuval Neman had an idea in which he tried to explain that there are two taps in evolution. A small faucet that drips all the time, and a large faucet that occasionally bursts in a flood. I think it's an excellent combination of both approaches.

796. Father, who spoke about creationism? The discussion here in the comments was about what evolution is. That is, there is a consensus that evolution happened, but not exactly how it happened.

797. I have read all of Steven J. Gold's books published in Hebrew. He was an evolutionist and wrote it clearly, so hey, the nonsense has enough other sites.
     If you want to understand in your language, it's like saying why it took the Israelites 40 years to cross several hundred kilometers of desert, if they moved 10 centimeters every day? No, it is written that they traveled and camped. According to Gold, this also happens in evolution.
     Long periods of relative silence and sudden changes - mainly due to environmental changes and the opening of niches or the formation of new niches (for example, herbivores when grass suddenly appeared on Earth).
     Bringing up Stephen Gould as an example of creation is like bringing up Obama as an example of a white Republican.

798. A skeptic, Prof. Stephen J. Gould I think summed it up elegantly:

     Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

     Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in. . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power. . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in helping to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.”

     http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

799. to the doubter,

     For the record I checked your claim. In most of the sources I found, evolution is defined as the change of genes and the development of the species over time without mentioning natural selection, but at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evolution it is indeed defined as the result of natural selection:

     Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

     It seems to me that the discussion is only semantic and therefore less interesting.

     By the way, there are several experiments in evolution that are difficult to define whether it is natural or artificial selection. For example, Lensky's experiment or John Adler's experiment with gopi fish. In my opinion, this is natural selection occurring in an artificial process:

     http://www.snakes.co.il/Joomlasnakes/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=148:2009-06-15-09-40-23&catid=52:2009-05-19-10-05-36&Itemid=67

     I personally think that a deep understanding of the idea of ​​evolution and its acceptance as the most logical explanation of how man was created is of enormous importance in every area of ​​our lives regardless of religious conflicts. It is important for our understanding of ourselves, for morality, psychology, medicine and is also very useful in computer science, etc.

800. Dear Skeptic,

     The definition brought by Buddha appears in the best textbooks (for example, "The uniformity and diversity of life") and is taught at the university (in the "Evolution" course at the Hebrew University, for example).
     Your definition is clearly incorrect because it does not include mechanisms other than natural selection, such as genetic drift, which may be an important mechanism in many, many cases.

     I would appreciate it if you provided references for your definition.

801. Buddha

     Your mistake is that you rely on definitions that are in Wikipedia as if they are "correct" definitions, therefore when I say something contrary to what is written in Wikipedia I am supposedly wrong. There are many mistakes in Wikipedia, especially the Hebrew Wikipedia. Probably the definitions you quoted are more mistakes of this kind.

     Evolution is defined as a process done *solely* by natural selection. All the debates about whether there is evolution or no evolution were and still are about what happens in natural selection.

     There have never been "religious" disagreements about what happens in artificial selection. Techniques of artificial selection were before the theory of evolution and new techniques in artificial selection will be developed regardless of the theory of evolution.

     The whole attempt to subjugate artificial selection as something inspired by the theory of evolution (=natural selection) is demagoguery aimed at inflating the importance of the theory of evolution (=natural selection).

802. It is important to note that the basics of the theory of evolution are part of the biology curriculum as part of the mandatory ecology chapter.
     Every 3-5 biology student should be familiar with the main points of the Torah even if he did not study the expansion chapter on evolution, where more in-depth issues are discussed. In the mandatory chapters in biology, thousands of students are tested each year, also in the religious sector.

803. to the gatekeeper,

     1. I wrote that evolution is a process.
     2. I brought Lamarck as an example of a wrong attempt to explain the process before they really understood it.
     3. I know of only one explanation for evolution and that is a random change in the DNA that creates a residual advantage of the phenotype. I would appreciate it if you could tell me about another explanation.
     4. Today there is a certain return to some of Lamarck's ideas in the field of epigenetics (although I personally do not see the significant difference between epigenetics and genetics). See for example: http://www.hakaveret.org/2012/02/5.html
     5. I think that much like "evolution", Wikipedia is a fairly good source of information because if a central entry contains significant errors, it will be corrected quickly in light of the large number of responses... in an evolutionary way. If you found an error in the "evolution" entry on Wikipedia, I would appreciate it if you shared.

804. Again and again they repeat a mistake in the definition, a mistake in the definition that leads
     for many mistakes in addressing the subject,
     Evolution is a process (not a theory) it is possible to develop theory(s).
     On how the evolution process happens, there are two leading theories that are not
     contradict each other, both explain the process of evolution,
     Of course, there are also "wise men" who claim that the process does not exist, their "wisdom" is based on faith,
     Therefore it is important to separate faith from knowledge/science.
     By the way
     to Buddha
     Mark was the one who clipped tails to mice and expected their young to be born without tails....
     Therefore, not Mark and certainly not Wikipedia can be a reliable source of reliable information.

805. Dear Skeptic,

     I think the mistake is yours. Evolution is defined in Wikipedia for example as "biological evolution is the process of genetic change in a population of organisms over generations." Evolution can happen as a result of natural selection or artificial selection. Before they understood how evolution really works, it was actually used by artificial selection (Lamarck for example).

806. Spring.

     You are wrong and misleading. There are two areas: natural selection (=evolution) and artificial selection (=non-evolution).

     The subject of artificial selection is ancient: at least 12 thousand years since the domestication of animals and plants began, the subject of artificial selection *is not at all* based on the theory of evolution (since Darwin was not born 12 thousand years ago). The opposite is true: the results of artificial selection are used to strengthen evidence for the theory of evolution.

     Any attempt to say that without understanding the theory of evolution it is impossible to understand or advance the theories of artificial selection is demagoguery aimed at inflating the importance of the theory of evolution.

807. The article should explain why a situation where only those who expand biology study the theory of evolution is a bad situation.
     After all, the majority of the population does not study biology - and this may even cause conflict with certain segments of the population - the information is available - the books exist, the internet is old and there are occasional series on Channel Eight.
     What is so important that he learns in a compulsory subject?
     Evolution is a scientific theory and not a weapon against religion. Most of the people do not know many things in science - why is it so urgent that they know evolution? What is so basic about it? Maybe for biology - but for science in general? How much science should be taught as compulsory?
     Why is it so surprising that a charged topic like evolution is not taught as a compulsory subject in the whole country?

     (As you can understand from the time and date I am sending this message - I am really not religious)

808. Evolution is taught like any other subject. I took biology as an extended subject in high school (5 units) and we were taught evolution very nicely, without glosses and nonsense, within the broader context of the adaptation of the organism to its environment, genetics and heredity, etc.
     It's true that I would be happy if there was less ignorance about it, but the motivation to teach evolution to everyone stems only from the faith-religious implications of the subject and not from real pedagogical reasons, that is, from a pure educational point of view, there is no point in teaching evolution in the lower grades than any other subject that is studied Only later in high school.

809. It is sad that this is the case in the study of evolution
     Happy New Year
     And a good signature finish for everyone
     Yehuda

810. Skeptic, every clinical trial with measures against bacteria or viruses is an experiment in evolution. And how there is a practical implication.

811. Buddha

     Are you surprised that evolution is not taught in medical studies?
     You will be more surprised if I tell you that in most universities (including those in Israel) evolution studies within the life sciences (biology, etc.) is not a compulsory course.

     All this why? Because the theory of evolution has almost no practical use. In the life sciences, we deal with what is happening now, with short-term biological processes (minutes, hours, days, weeks, single years, etc.), not at all with processes that take tens of thousands of years (as in evolution). They also deal with intentional processes (artificial selection, not natural selection which is the basis of evolution).

     Regarding short-lived biological processes there are independent theories that do not need evolution at all. The same goes for directed biological processes.
     Did Louis Pasteur use evolution for his discoveries? No.
     Did the discovery of penicillin use knowledge of evolution? No.
     Does the use of stem cells use evolution? No.

     Giving the knowledge of evolution an inflated importance. Evolution gives a reasonable explanation for the historical development of life forms, but nothing beyond that. People who are engaged in actual research in the life sciences (not philosophers of science) do not have too much time to bother with explanations about the history of life forms, if these explanations are not practically useful.

     Philosophers of science wage wars against religion, because they do not deal with real science. About this it is said: He who knows how to do *does* and he who does not know how to do teaches *what should be done*. Who cares what religion thinks? Religious people have not sabotaged science since the days of Galileo, at most they ignore it, they have no influence on secular studies. All wars against religion through evolution is a waste of time.

     In my previous response I gave estimates regarding the time that should be allocated for evolution studies, for the purpose of general education.
     General education is a good thing, but you shouldn't overdo it, because there are priorities.

812. Father, later we also talk about evolution.

813. From the few minutes I saw, I understood that this is again the well-worn argument that mixes abiogenesis - that is, the formation of life with evolution - the development of life after it was created. Although there are various kinds of hypotheses about how life was created and there are also interesting experiments that try to recreate the conditions at that time, there is no doubt in the scientific community that since life was created, evolution has been working on it continuously. These reactions illustrate that it is necessary to explain to the public what evolution is, and that not every rabbi/priest/kadi will invent his own evolution and attack it and think that he has attacked the real evolution.

814. If evolution is required to be taught, intelligent planning or creationism should also be taught, and the student should decide for himself. Unless evolutionists have something to hide, as seen in this video:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD0N2tiodlk

815. According to some of the responses, it can be assumed that much more than evolution studies is needed,
     Those who do not understand what is called will not be able to understand evolution,
     Those who do not know how to count from one to three will not understand evolution,
     Those who do not know the difference between faith and science will not understand evolution,
     Unfortunately, more and more students finish their studies under pressure
     in a huge amount of... holes,
     Ignorant people do not seek knowledge but faith,
     So what are we complaining about?

816. I completely disagree with you, the theory of evolution is so simple to explain and understand that it can be easily explained even to a 5-year-old child.

     The problem is that when children are not taught evolution at a young age, then instead of this important knowledge, nonsense enters their heads, when they do not have a real scientific explanation for how we evolved and how we got here, then the explanation "God" sounds very logical to them, then it is very difficult to get this nonsense out of their heads.

     Every bit of scientific knowledge about our world is important, because when there is no real scientific knowledge, a vacuum is created that quickly fills with nonsense and gibberish, it is no longer healthy and contains many dangers (for example, the very realistic possibility that in 15-20 years a halachic state will be established here in the style of Iran and Afghanistan ).

817. The comments here are more amazing than the article.
     Some time ago I spoke with a good friend who is a doctor and also has a very high IQ in my opinion and I asked her something about evolution because I assumed that she studied the subject at the university as part of the biology studies which are part of the medical studies. She told me that she never learned anything about evolution at university and has no special knowledge on the subject...

818. There is no need to teach evolution in elementary school, the students will not understand anything and it is better not to know anything than to understand "as if".

     In middle school, it is enough to teach basic concepts of evolution in 10 hours of study.

     In biology for the upper division (for all courses) it is enough to teach 20 hours for a biological major, say 30 hours is enough.

     The studies of evolution have no useful consequences, just like the study of Kant's philosophy is not useful and therefore there is no point in wasting time on them. I haven't heard any complaints about not studying philosophy in high schools, even though the benefit of studying philosophy is no less than studying evolution (both are worthless to 99 percent of students).

     Evolution studies should not be confused with biological engineering studies (or whatever you call it) which are studies with useful value. Biological engineering is a subject that was developed already 12 thousand years ago or more, it is the one that made it possible to domesticate animals and plants. It is clear that those who lived 12 thousand years ago knew nothing about Darwinian evolution and it did not hinder them at all from developing "products", which shows how useless Darwinian evolution is. (Without useful value just like Kant's theory in philosophy has no useful value).

     It is not certain that biological engineering can be taught in high school, because it requires a laboratory or a similar biological facility and it is not as if in high school. (To chatter in the air without a laboratory is the worst and most harmful education, not helpful at all, from chattering only one learns that chattering supposedly has value).

819. And if someone really insists on understanding what evolution is and not just talking nonsense about it,
     They know evolution in action

820. According to most of the comments here, one gets the feeling that the readers' level of knowledge is deteriorating...
     Or the serious guys haven't woken up yet.
     The fact is that the failure to study evolution even in a basic way as a compulsory subject for every student means that a significant part of the young people in Israel have no idea what evolution is and the only thing they know about it is that it is "a theory that says man came from monkeys", at best.
     Unfortunately, a number of religious people I know express a huge disdain for evolution, simply because they have no idea what it really means, and out of disdain they won't even bother to spend half an hour to read for themselves and understand what it is.

821. I completely agree with the article, it is enough to read the comments here to understand how true the things are and what a sad situation it has brought us to.

     It's 2012 and people still insist that the world is flat and that we were created in hocus pocus by an invisible god.

     Just sad.

822. I'd rather they teach creationism in school than evolution. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than in God's creation.

823. It turns out that there is an example (a dream comes) everywhere, even among scientists.

824. Whoever disagrees with the principles that the earth is warming as a result of human gas emissions and whoever disagrees with the holy theory of evolution should be put in a torture stake until he repents of his sins and repents

825. Dr. Gabi Avital also rules out warming up. He could easily find a place as a Republican congressman.

826. Nonsense, the fragmented equilibrium speaks of the rate of evolution, not its very existence, the fact that Zamir Cohen misleads you does not mean that he is right.

827. It's fine - the students of Israel don't learn anything... not only don't they learn evolution, but within the general Israel Bluff, they barely know what's going on around them, barely know how to read (I'm not talking about the written word) and most of them have never bothered to open a book.

     So what else is new in the Holy Land?

828. Leave creationism, it is not science and there is no debate.
     But evolution is not a science like Newton's laws either

     "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution."
     (Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University.)
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

     People like Dawkins push classical evolution as a counter to creationists even though it is not empirical itself.

829. Really just a joke.
     The theory of evolution is indeed very important and every biology student should study it, just as every physics student studies Newton's laws. But from here until demanding that all Israeli students learn it in elementary or high school?!!
     There are many very important things that not all Israeli students learn, and they precede evolution despite all its importance.

830. So there are more basic things that not everyone studies like genetics and the immune system...many basic subjects are not mandatory and are much more useful than evolution..If ​​anything the problem is why are there elective subjects at all when in the US half of the school hours are enough for everything...albeit in exchange for giving up zoology yes teaches in Israel

831. this is how it should be.
     Selling the theory of ovulation to children, without giving them the opportunity to test things with proper tools and decide if the things are true, is an inappropriate act in itself.
     To remind you of Dr. Gabi Avital, the chief scientist of the Ministry of Education, who treated evolution as another theory out of several possibilities.

832. The main problem is that not every student learns it in elementary school, not only in high school as an elective.

833. Just a wrong exit...I was tested in biology...you will be tested on about five subjects out of a possible fifteen..you have to study the most practical ones and choose according to that...in any case, in each field you touch on the subject, in short, just an angry exit