Comprehensive coverage

Genetics and evolution - far beyond a reasonable doubt

While the opponents of evolution continue to spread the legend as if it cannot be scientifically substantiated, the researchers of biology and genetics continue to provide countless proofs of its validity. Evolution researcher Dr. Guy Sela presents the development of the tree of life and explains how the evidence for evolution is recorded along and across the genes

Figure 1: Phylogenetic tree.
Figure 1: Phylogenetic tree.

by Guy Sela.

(This article is dedicated to the memory of Prof. Itamar Pitovsky, who embodied for me, in his work and his ways, the good and the beautiful in science and the man of science)

For one moment at the end of February, the newspapers were filled with articles, columns, letters and editorials surrounding the question of the scientific status of evolutionary biology. The polemic was sparked by the words of the chief scientist of the Ministry of Education, who doubted the scientific validity of the evolutionary theory and called this knowledge in the language of the derogatory "religion of evolution". He added that if they learn in schools that man descends from apes, he will demand that they learn other opinions at the same time. These words echoed the rhetoric of certain religious groups, among them the creationists in the United States, who spread the claim that the evolutionary theory is nothing more than a belief that does not meet accepted scientific criteria.

The very idea of ​​importing ignorance and anti-scientific propaganda from the other side of the ocean, when the importer is none other than the science "ambassador" at the Ministry of Education, shocked many scientists, from the individual researchers to the National Academy of Sciences. Their quick and strong response led the Minister of Education to disavow the words from the stage of the Knesset. This mobilization was for many, myself among them, a source of pride.

But without a choice, the scientists' answer left quite a few questions concerning the substance of the matter, with them pending without an answer. The standards that a scientific work must meet are very different from those of a journalistic article. The newspaper, by its very nature, requires short, authoritative and concise responses, while the ideas in science are judged according to their ability to explain evidence and according to their standing up to a systematic and in-depth examination, and not according to the identity of the scientist or his reputation (although these may also sometimes have an effect) . What was denied, in this case, from the general public, apart from the clarification of common misunderstandings regarding the evolutionary theory, is the possibility to be impressed by the abundance of the many beautiful evidences for evolution and to enjoy the way in which they align with the theory.

A common misunderstanding, which originates specifically with the philosopher of science Karl Popper, is that the evolutionary theory differs from other scientific theories in that its claims cannot be "refuted" (Popper retracted this criticism later). In order to dispel this mistake and at the same time offer a taste, even if on the tip of a fork, of the many evidences for evolution, we will concentrate here on one of the basic claims of evolution, which is that any group of animal and plant species that live today, or that lived in the past and became extinct, share historical relationships of common descent.

Pairs of species such as horses and zebras, lions and tigers, humans and chimpanzees split from a common origin a relatively short time ago (see Figure 1). At an earlier stage, the kangaroos and koalas split and before them the ancestor of horses and zebras and the ancestor of lions and tigers split from each other. In the more distant past, this common ancestor (for horses, zebras, lions and tigers) split from the ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, and finally, about 180 million years ago, the species that was the ancestor of all eight lived. These historical "family relationships" between species, based on the splitting of an ancestral species over and over again, can be represented in terms of a "phylogenetic tree". The basic claim we will focus on is that for each group of species there is a single phylogenetic tree, which represents the evolutionary history of the group.

The phylogenetic tree of a group of species is usually difficult to reconstruct directly (eg, using intermediate fossils), but it can be inferred in other ways. If species change gradually over the generations, then we will observe that the similarity between species that diverged from a common ancestor in the recent past will be greater than the similarity between species that diverged from an ancestor in the more distant past. In general, one can learn about the degree of evolutionary closeness between species based on the degree of similarity between them. This principle underlies most methods for reconstructing phylogenetic trees.

Like many fields in biology, the work of phylogenetic reconstruction also underwent a revolution with the development of the ability to read the sequence of "letters" in DNA. We will focus on a particular and most important part of DNA - the genes that encode the instructions for building proteins. Since genes and proteins will play a key role in our story, we will first say a few words about them: proteins are large molecules that participate in all the key processes in the cell. Many of them are enzymes - which carry out building and breaking down processes in the cell. Others play a structural role, such as the proteins that make up muscle fibers and allow them to contract and expand. Other proteins are used to calculate and transfer information, for example the opsins in the nerve cells in our retina, which change their shape and start the process of creating a nerve signal when they are hit by a light particle of the appropriate wavelength. In a certain generalization, it can be said that most of the specific molecules - the "professionals" of the cell - are proteins.

The number of genes ranges from 2,000 to 5,000 in bacteria, about 6,000 in baker's yeast, about 15,000 in the fruit fly, between 20,000 and 25,000 in fish, mice and humans, and for those who are comforted by the fact that we are at the top of the list, we will add that the Arabidopsis plant, a relative of The mustard and the cabbage, there are about 26,000 gardens.

The way genes are translated into proteins is almost exactly the same in the entire animal world. Proteins are made of 20 types of molecular building blocks called amino acids, which are arranged in a chain. Such a specific sequence, with an average length of 400 amino acids, determines the function of the protein. Each such amino acid is coded by a three-letter "word" in DNA (ACT, GAA, etc.), when the translation of a gene into a protein is done word by word, until the "translation machine" reaches the word that marks the end of the chain - like Period at the end of a sentence. This translation table - from the words to the amino acids - is the same (with very slight variations) in all organisms on Earth.

Figure 2: A fragment of an immortal protein (which participates in the work of translation). Each letter represents one of the 20 amino acids. The protein segment from the different species stands in a way that demonstrates where there is a difference in the amino acid.
Figure 2: A fragment of an immortal protein (which participates in the work of translation). Each letter represents one of the 20 amino acids. The protein segment from the different species stands in a way that demonstrates where there is a difference in the amino acid.

Even the "machines" that carry out the work of translation, centered on the ribosome (which has been in the news recently, thanks to the work of Prof. Ada Yonat), are strikingly similar to all organisms on earth. Moreover, a systematic comparison between the genomes - all DNA - of species of archaea, bacteria, fungi, plants and animals revealed about 500 highly similar proteins (see Figure 2), which are related to the core functions of all cells. All DNA-based life forms since the dawn of Earth's history have relied on the action of these proteins, and so they have been preserved with only minor changes since the ancestor of all living organisms lived more than 2.5 billion years ago.

And what about the other proteins? The closer the species we compare will be, the more common genes/proteins will be found (in order to avoid even the appearance of circularity, we note that the degree of closeness between species can be studied in other ways that do not rely on genes, such as anatomical comparisons and analysis of paleontological findings, such as fossils). If we compare, for example, the genome of a human and the Abu-Nafha fish, which split from a common ancestor about 450 million years ago, we find that they have at least 7,350 genes in common. And if we turn to a pair of species that split quite recently, the human and the chimpanzee - who shared an ancestor until 5-8 million years ago - it was found that close to 100% of the proteins are in common, with 29% of them being completely identical, and the average degree of similarity between their amino acid chains is high from 99%

Sometimes it is precisely the absence of a protein in a certain species that is the strongest evidence for an evolutionary event. The coelacanth is a large fish (about 2 meters long) that lives in the depths (under 100 meters), whose skeletal structure, and in particular its four limb-like fins, place its ancestors from about 360 million years ago as the "missing link" between The fish is a terrestrial quadruped (tetrapod), and the similarity between its skeleton and that of those ancestors also qualifies it as a "living fossil". We will be interested in him precisely because of seeing his color, or in fact, because of its lack.

Figure 3: A fragment of the SWS opsin pseudogene in dolphin and its alignment with the normal gene in cow. Deletion mutations of bases (which are marked with *) in the dolphin disrupt the production of a normal protein.
Figure 3: A fragment of the SWS opsin pseudogene in dolphin and its alignment with the normal gene in cow. Deletion mutations of bases (which are marked with *) in the dolphin disrupt the production of a normal protein.

Unlike fish, mammals and most other vertebrates, Silocanth does not have the SWS opsin, which is sensitive to short wavelengths of visible light (Short Wavelength Sensitive). A search of the siloxane's DNA reveals that the gene that codes for the opsin actually exists, but its text is disrupted in a way that does not allow the production of a normal protein. For example, in the middle of the kindergarten, after 67 words, a word that indicates a stop appears. A search for the same gene in dolphins and whales reveals a similar finding: while in the hippopotamus and the cow, relatives with whom they shared an ancestor about 55 million years ago, there is a normal protein, in the dolphins and whales there is a "fossil gene" or pseudo-gene, which does not allow the production the protein (see Figure 3).

You must have guessed the explanation for these findings: the coelocan, dolphins and whales spend most of their time in the depths, where only a narrow area of ​​the visible light range reaches, at wavelengths of about 480 nanometers, which we see as blue. In the dolphins and whales, another opsin - the one we use for night vision - underwent several changes that directed it along this wavelength. The other opsins don't use the depths, so they slowly degenerate as a result of repeated hits by mutations, and sometimes we manage to catch them in the genome before they disappear completely.

The same principle explains countless other known pseudo-genes - what is not used degenerates and finally disappears. Pseudogenes are an example of an even larger group of degenerate organs, which includes our appendix and coccyx, pelvic remains in snakes and whales, and more. All of these are living evidence of organs that had a use in an ancestor. It is very difficult to imagine another explanation for the existence of those degenerate, useless and useless organs, which bear a distinct resemblance to functioning organs in other species.

If you begin to get the impression that it is not possible to "turn a stone" in DNA without encountering the signs of evolution, and that not only is there no difficulty in finding them, but it is impossible to avoid them - then you got the right impression. Moreover, countless evidences of evolution can also be found in a wide variety of other places, such as in basic cellular systems (in energy metabolism or photosynthesis in plants, for example), in anatomy, in geographic distribution patterns of species, in the fossil record, and much more.

In any case, it is possible that the skeptics among you (and in science we encourage skepticism) will argue with a large degree of justice, that many of the facts we have described so far have been explained in the light of evolution, and not formulated as a test for the theory itself. Although, one of the main signs of a good scientific explanation is the ability to easily reconcile large classes of facts, but the ability to predict is also an important touchstone. That is why it is important to understand that even the evolutionary theory does not lack predictive tests.

In order to present these tests, we will return to the question of the existence of a phylogenetic tree, which represents the evolutionary kinship relationships in a group of species. This time we will compare different occurrences of the same protein (or gene) in different species, and use the degree of similarity found to reconstruct the tree. To measure the distance between the proteins of two different species, we will place them one below the other (as described in Figure 2), and count the differences in the amino acids between the two. If we repeat the same process for each pair of species, we will get a table of distances, and from the table it will be possible to build the tree according to the following algorithm:

  1. We will find the pair of species that the distance between them is the smallest in the table. Since it is likely that these species still shared an ancestor after they diverged from their common ancestors with each of the other species - we will connect the pair to a common ancestor.
  2. We will update the distance table by merging this pair into one species, from which the distance of the remaining species is the average of the distances from the two merged species. Later, when a "mixed" species will connect with another species - we will simply connect the ancestor that fits the pair to the other species.
  3. We will repeat these steps until we reach the ancestor of all species (the number of steps will be smaller in one of the number of species).

In fact, there are many smarter methods for restoring trees, but for our purposes, it is enough to understand the principle.

What makes the ability to build trees a powerful test of evolutionary theory is the possibility of repeating this construction based on different proteins (or genes): a.The distance between proteins in different species reflects the evolutionary kinship between these species, so the trees that will be built on the basis of different proteins will necessarily be similar.

In 1982, David Penny, a computational biologist from New Zealand, and his colleagues put this prediction to the test. They chose five proteins and compared their sequences in 11 species of mammals: cockroach monkey, sheep, horse, kangaroo, mouse, rabbit, dog, pig, human, cow and chimpanzee. In the next step, they built phylogenetic trees of the 11 species based on each of the five proteins and examined the similarity between the different trees.

Why should the trees be similar and not identical? There are several reasons why the reconstruction based on comparisons between proteins will not be completely accurate: sometimes the same amino acid change occurs in two different branches and as a result the distance measured between the species is small. In other cases, there will be no changes at all in a certain branch, which will make it difficult for us to restore, etc. However, giving up absolute identity is far from making the test limited or weak. There are over 34 million possible trees of the 11 species, so the probability that two trees will be similar by chance is very small.

Figure 4a: The phylogenetic tree of the 11 species of Penny. The red dots mark ancestors that define "kinship groups" of daughter species. Figure 4b: When we change the subtree described in the blue ellipse, we will get a new tree whose distance to the original tree is 2
Figure 4a: The phylogenetic tree of the 11 species of Penny. The red dots mark ancestors that define "kinship groups" of daughter species. Figure 4b: When we change the subtree described in the blue ellipse, we will get a new tree whose distance to the original tree is 2

Penny and his group quantified the probability as follows: First, they defined a measure of the distance between trees. Each ancestor in a particular tree (red nodes in Figure 4a) defines a group of species that are its descendants; Thus, a tree of 11 species defines 10 groups, each of which includes species of a certain degree of kinship. Penny and his group measured the distance between a pair of trees as the number of "proximity groups" defined by one of the trees and not by the other. If, for example, we leave the entire tree in Figure 4a intact, except for the subtree that includes the cow, the sheep and the pig, which we change as described in Figure 4b, then the distance between the original tree and the new tree will be 2, since in one tree the cow and the sheep will appear as a group, in the second the sheep and the pig are the ones that will appear as a group, with all other groups being the same. After measuring the distance between a pair of trees, Penny and his group calculated the probability of finding an equal or smaller distance between randomly selected trees.

They found an astonishing similarity between the trees built based on the different proteins. The probability that such a similarity, or a greater one, will be obtained by chance is less than one in 1012(million millions). This result corresponds to our expectations according to the evolutionary theory, according to which the similarity between the different proteins reflects a tree A single phylogenetic, which describes the historical kinship between the species. When Penney and his group used the five proteins together, they got the same tree that systematists found based on anatomical comparisons between species and paleontological findings long before the age of DNA.

When the study was published - in 1982, the total number of DNA sequences that were known from all species amounted to less than a million letters. This is the number of letters in a book of medium length. Today, this number has increased a hundred thousand times (> 1011). If we were to write the letters in the books and place the books on top of each other, the height of the stack would be twice the depth of the Grand Canyon. That number doubles every 18 months or so. Within this ocean of sequences, the matches between trees of the type that Penny and his group found, repeat themselves time and time again - with many more than five proteins, and in groups of species from all over the world of flora and fauna. Also, for the most part, the DNA-based trees are very similar to those reconstructed by systematists. If we were to perform a calculation like the one described above based on the sequences that are known today, we would need many zeros to describe the tiny size of the probability that these matches are obtained by chance. On the other hand, this is exactly what we would expect to see according to evolutionary theory.

The principle possibility of an observation that will change our perception, or of an idea that has disappeared from our eyes until now, is the lifeblood of scientific practice, and therefore there is a tendency to avoid declarations of certainty in the natural sciences. However, it can be said that our confidence in the basic claims of evolutionary theory does not fall short of that which we have in the successful scientific theories, such as those of physics or chemistry.

It can certainly also be said that these claims are well founded beyond reasonable doubt. The choice of legal terminology in this context is not accidental. DNA-based evidence has revolutionized criminal justice, since the identification of DNA residues at a crime scene is incomparably more reliable and accurate than the identification based on fabric residues or the analysis of fingerprints, for example. The use of such evidence has already led to retrospective acquittals in hundreds of murder cases around the world. Also, DNA tests are decisive evidence regarding the question of paternity. In medicine, genetic tests to determine carriers of genetic diseases are already commonplace, and at the forefront of biomedical research, analyzing the links between differences in DNA and diseases has become a central field. In other words, testimonies like the ones we have described here, play an ever-increasing and sometimes even fateful role in many and expanding areas of our lives. The difference is that the amount of evidence that confirms the claims of the evolutionary theory is infinitely greater than that used in law and medicine. The evolutionary theory was in the scientific consensus long before the age of DNA and especially since the XNUMXs, when the modern synthesis of genetics and Darwinism sat between the evolutionary changes we see in nature and agriculture and Mendel's laws of genetics. The evidence I have described here are only a few of many examples, which come from a wide variety of fields, starting with zoology and ending with molecular and computational biology, and continue to establish this consensus. Today, collecting evidence for evolution is mainly used for a pedagogical purpose and is not a major research topic in itself. It goes without saying that tools of evolutionary analysis play a central role today in many fields in the life sciences and medicine.

This does not mean that the study of evolution is a settled and closed field. On the contrary. Questions about the way the processes of evolution work, which enable the formation of wonderful biological systems, from viruses to the human brain, are the subject of fascinating, intensive and fruitful research than ever before. The access to DNA sequences caused, and still causes, a revolution in evolutionary research, because the traces of the processes of evolution are written along the length and breadth of the genes, and they are just waiting for us to come and read them.

Want to know more?

There are a variety of excellent popular books on the evidence for evolution. In particular, we recommend:

The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of (אEvolution / Sean Carroll (2006

(Why Evolution is True / Jerry Coyne (2009

The Greatest Show on Earth : The Evidence for Evolution / Richard Dawkins (2009

The first emphasizes what we have learned about evolution in the DNA era. The last two were released last year in honor of "Darwin's Year" (150 years since the publication of "The Origin of Species" and 200 years since his birth), and gather a wealth of evidence for evolution.

410 תגובות

  1. Evolution is just and unjust

    You are right that there is a development of ancestors
    She is not right - point out that it is not one ancestor but several, simple and easy.

  2. withering:
    I agree with you and you know I do the same.
    I just think that we should also give some thought to the question of how to identify someone who is not persuasive and what to do about him.
    I have no doubt, for example, that the positive reaction of T.M. Towards you is a result, in part, of the fact that I argued towards him that he is not ready to be convinced.

  3. Mr. (404)
    Although I agree with you in principle, I also know that people's trust is often acquired precisely because of the willingness to invest that precious time in them. Sometimes nonsense that a creationist says can be a good opportunity to give an orderly answer that clarifies a lack of understanding that exists in many other people. Sometimes I decide to spend a few minutes like this knowing in advance that it might be a waste. I hope this effort is not always lost. I think everyone should try to give something of themselves in such cases and that's what I try to do. For the avoidance of doubt, I know that you dedicate yourself above and beyond on this site and it is a shame that there are some here who have not yet learned to read your comments carefully and do a thorough check themselves before continuing to comment. May the variation in our responses bring the best results.

  4. T.M. (403)
    Read the link I attached in the 402 response and you will get an answer to your question.

    Correction to my response (402), I wrote by mistake:
    "It is amazing to see that even when this anxiety is disproven in an experiment, since there are quite a few like them who do indeed commit acts that even they themselves define as criminal, and on the other hand there are many who are not like them who lead exemplary moral lives, they still cannot attribute to them as a single public moral or intellectual superiority over other human beings.”
    It should be: "... they still insist on presenting themselves as one public with moral and intellectual superiority over all other human beings."

  5. R.H. and Kamila and T.M.:

    Response 400 is based on a false statement: "When you point to a bird like an ostrich that is unable to fly and say that this is proof of evolution"
    This is not true at all!
    This is simply a refutation of the intelligence of the intelligent designer.
    It is true that, as I said in another discussion - the refutation of the alternatives confirms the theories that have not been disproved, but the serious confirmations for evolution are received from completely different sources (such as, for example, what is explained so well in the current article - an article in which anyone who continues to argue about evolution after he understands it - it is clear in advance that his arguments are not relevant).
    The matter of the "missing links" as I have already said - is the refuge of the Creator who decided in advance not to be convinced and I explained why it will never be possible to give him an answer that will satisfy his will.
    Those who rely on such arguments will also not accept any explanation of scales without proof (in fossils) of intermediate stages.
    In one of the discussions I even did the following experiment.
    I told one of the creationists that if - as he claims - he is a descendant of Abraham our father - I demand, in order to believe him, that he show me the graves of all the people in the chain connecting Abraham our father and him.

    It's a shame to waste time on such people.

  6. Thank you both for the answers, they seem good and satisfactory to me.

    By the way, according to evolution, could the ancestors of the ostrich fly and did this ability simply decline over the years, for example due to predatory maidens from the habitat? Or is the ostrich part of a branch in the evolution of winged animals that never knew how to fly?

  7. T.M. (400)

    I apologize for the "block", there is no doubt that division into paragraphs is an important thing for a text to be easy to read and understand.

    I don't quite understand what argument you were referring to, therefore I also don't quite understand why it falls into the case of the ostrich... The case of the ostrich does not prove evolution, but it gains understanding and meaning when it is foiled through the glasses of evolution. Any other way of trying to understand the fact of the ostrich's existence, especially if you involve a miraculous flying and intelligent piglet, requires making so many stupid assumptions (some of which can't even be tested) that doesn't even come close to the understanding obtained through the glasses of evolution. Of course, in addition, you can ask and receive interesting answers on topics related to the ostrich and evolution, as here for example:

    There is a big difference between the statement: "wings do not function" and the statement: a wing-like structure whose purpose is unknown. With the ostrich it is known that the wings are not used for flight and that they are used to stabilize the body while running, to make sharp turns as well as to stop suddenly (in a certain sense like the tail of other animals such as the tiger for example). Also, the feathers are used for communication between the pairs, especially in the male and most likely also for the needs of isolation and mechanical protection in the harsh environmental conditions in which ostriches live. There are many cases in which it is evident that an organ/protein currently performs a different activity than its early versions, it is even possible to cause such changes under laboratory conditions, especially in bacteria where it is easy to "speed up" evolution thanks to a short generation time or inspiration of random mutations, and relatively easy control of the selection regime .

    Regarding questions of the type you asked in one of your previous responses: "And how do you know that the degenerated wings are not used for another function, for example for heating?" After all, these are particularly good questions because they are scientific in the sense that they can be presented as research questions, formulate hypotheses and derive from them an experiment that will test the proposed hypothesis. I'm sure you can think of an experiment that would test whether the ostrich's wings/feathers are used for functions other than flying. By the way, note that the following wording is not successful: "Do the ostrich's wings/feathers have no role?", but a wording similar to what you suggested, for example: "Are the ostrich's wings/feathers involved in insulating the body's heat?" will be more successful.

    Note that when you argue with a creationist, sooner or later the stage will come when you (as a representative of science for that matter) will not have a full answer to any question (not that this is anything unusual, this is the common situation on the entire front of research, in all fields, even within well-founded theories between If it is quantum mechanics, the theory of relativity or evolution) then that savant will jump on it as a source of great spoils and state decisively that here is conclusive proof that Simon, the wonderful flying and intelligent piglet, he and no one else, is responsible for everything that exists here. let him say In general, it is not anecdotes of one kind or another, such as the case of the ostrich, that change something in the perception of various creationists, but the principled resistance to giving up their unnecessary piglet, probably because of their anxiety that if there is no one to decide for them what is good and what is not good and what they should do , they will inevitably be very bad people. It is amazing to see that even when this anxiety is disproven in an experiment, since there are quite a few like them who actually do acts that even they themselves define as crimes, and on the other hand there are many who are not like them who lead exemplary moral lives, they still cannot attribute to them as a single public moral or intellectual superiority over my sons other person

  8. circular arguments,

    According to the creationist theory there is no such thing as organs without use. Have you ever seen a part in a car that has no function? Have you ever seen a screw that was just inserted and "degenerated"?
    On the other hand, according to evolution, it is very easy to explain our tailbone, the degenerated eyes of the rat or the limbs of whales and snakes. If you think there was a creator, would he have created the ostrich with the remains of wings? True, one can always be smart and say that we do not understand the Creator's intention. But maybe there is actually no intention and everything was created by chance and found out by non-random selection?
    When you think like this, suddenly a lot of things work out that creationists have to twist and quibble in order to explain. How is it that animals became extinct? What, the creator created animals destined for extinction? How is it that new species appear today? Does creation continue? How come two year olds get cancer? Or are Mongoloids born? What is a "defect" in creation? All of these, as you surely know, have a very simple explanation in evolutionary theory.

  9. Kamila, thanks for the answer, although dividing it into paragraphs would have made it a little easier to read.

    Regarding the term "degenerate wings", the explanation you wrote is exactly what I meant, obviously I do not attribute consciousness or purpose to evolution.

    "It is certainly possible that the advantage that elongated scales had in the first place was as sense organs (which can be found in abundance in the living world today) and only after the above-mentioned structures had already formed and some of them received changes in the form of splits, for example, then the advantage in isolation became apparent and only later after a kind of primitive feathers had already been received, this benefited the male The life that was carried by the possibility of jumping from a high place (for example, in a crazy escape or hunting) without crashing like a stone"

    This is clear to me, the question was different, when you point to a bird like an ostrich that is unable to fly and say that this is proof of evolution because we have here a bird with non-functioning wings, then a creationist can come along and say that according to evolution there was a stage when birds had "non-functioning" wings ” Just like the ostrich, but as you mentioned they were probably there for some reason (as you mentioned: for more efficient sensing, for heating, etc.) so similarly it is very possible that the wings of today's ostrich are also used for the same function (again - heating, insulation, sensing and so on) and therefore it cannot be said that they are "useless" and therefore this argument fails.

    I just wish I had an answer to such an argument.

  10. Circular arguments (hereafter T.M.)
    I would like to address one of the problematic sentences you wrote in response 389 and later answer your question on the subject. You wrote:
    "The first dinosaurs that began to develop feathers (=degenerate wings) developed them for some use other than flight"

    Note that feathers evolved from scales derived from skin tissue. We don't know exactly when enough changes accumulated until a form was obtained that we can now all agree to call it a feather and not just an elongated and split scale, but note that in those early stages those structures were not wings, therefore when you call the primitive feathers "degenerate wings" it is implied as if those abnormal scales knew In some mysterious way they have a future purpose to develop into wings one day and this is of course completely wrong. I assume you used the term degeneration because at that time that organ still did not allow real flight as we know it today. We call those limbs primitive wings or pre-wings because of the knowledge in retrospect that evolution moved in this direction, but of course we do not attribute any awareness or planning or purpose to the process. Regarding the question of what led to such a development, there are several hypotheses, the most powerful of which, in my opinion, is the connection to regulating body heat through insulation. Whether this is indeed the initial advantage that allowed the accelerated development of feathers or whether other hypotheses are consistent with what happened in the past (eg better insulation against moisture or physical protection or camouflage or sexual communication) we will probably never know what the exact evolutionary path was. We do know that the evolutionary changes always occur on the basis of what existed before, from here it is possible to propose hypotheses for development trajectories that are consistent with evidence and evidence that can be obtained about the living conditions that prevailed at the same time in the same areas, including sources of nutrition, other species and climatic conditions that may support (or rule out) such hypotheses "To. It is quite possible, as happens many times during evolution, that only after a change occurs in a certain direction due to reason A, the possibility of a further change, this time due to reason B, will arise. Reasons here are in the sense of semi-selection, so for example it is quite possible that the advantage that elongated scales had from the beginning is as sense organs (which can be found in abundance in the living world today) and only after the above-mentioned structures had already formed and some of them underwent changes in the form of splits, for example, then the advantage in isolation became apparent and only later after A kind of primitive feathers had already been obtained, which gave the animal that carried them the possibility to jump from a high place (for example, when escaping from a madman or hunting) without crashing like a stone. The trick is not to think about possible solutions to this ultimate Hamitzer puzzle, the trick is to find support for such a possible solution whether in the evidence that is revealed or whether in the simulations that can testify to the programming and the degree of plausibility, for example it is easy to see how even a single cell that is sensitive to light can give a very large advantage to the organism therefore it will be It is absurd to think that a structure like an eye developed within a generation, but it is very reasonable to assume that it gradually developed from a primitive light-sensitive organ that was perfected (caution! During evolution, things are not always perfected, many times they actually degenerate or undergo "regression" such as the digestive system in parasites, loss of fitness the evidence in rats, etc.). It's easiest to say that there was some wonderful flying pig that created everything, the problem begins when you compare this idea with the facts on the ground. I purposely do not call this idea a hypothesis because at the very least there is no way to test it scientifically (hint - the fact that evolution does not make sense to someone because he is too ignorant and lazy to use his intellect and therefore it is proof for him both about the existence of that miraculous piglet and that that piglet is An explanation for anything at all, does not meet the criteria of a scientific test).
    The important thing is that as soon as there is variation in organisms and as soon as there is competition (for food and/or living space and/or mates, etc.) that is, under selection pressure, which leads to the fact that not everyone passes on to future generations their genetic load and their traits to the same extent, then necessarily There will be a change in the prevalence of the traits in the population and that is exactly what evolution is all about. In truth, such changes can and are accepted in practice even without selection pressures, but only because of genetic drift. In the laboratory, evolutionary processes are accelerated precisely by manipulating the same basic conditions, i.e. by increasing diversity (for example, by inducing mutations proactively) and by establishing a selection regime (for example, the presence of antibiotics in the growth medium of bacterial colonies).

  11. Circular arguments:
    The method of operation of the evolution deniers (at least in part) is exactly your method: try to point out "missing links".
    This is a nonsensical method because there is no one in the world who has recorded every single moment in every single point on the planet from the day it was created until today.
    That's why we don't have a complete record of the events of the past and until a time machine is invented (and I don't think it will ever be invented) we won't have such a description either.
    In other words - all your questions deal with my or someone else's speculations and as such have no interest in them for those who want to know what happened and the only interest they can have is the exhaustion of the other side.

    When someone asks such questions - but it is natural to conclude that their goal is - indeed - exhaustion - and this goal is also repeated and expressed in your last response which defines the collection of factual responses you received (about things you do know) as the absence of a factual answer.

  12. circular arguments,
    The central religious argument is that all creatures were created in the six days of Genesis and since then there is no creation and no change. Therefore your example of a manufacturer who builds something and then releases its second and third generation does not reflect the religious argument.
    It is interesting that an article by a rabbi who claimed that there are "small" but not "big" changes was presented here not long ago, but he did not define what a big change is and whether a collection of small changes does not ultimately constitute a big change. But at least this article shows that the scientific results are slowly seeping in and as they finally admitted without a choice that the world is round, they are now trying to find a "halachic" solution through all kinds of twists and turns and interpretations in order to prove that no matter what the Sages were right. And it's not that I don't appreciate the Sages, on the contrary, but in science I wouldn't rely on them.

  13. Forgive me but I do ask to understand and it really doesn't hurt me that evolution works. If you don't have an answer to the matter, just say so and don't just get angry.

    I asked a simple and clear question, if you don't have a factual answer I will wait for the answer of another commenter.

  14. Circular arguments:
    Stop pretending to be someone who wants to understand.
    You just want to bully.
    It hurts you that evolution works and that the evidence for this is abundant, but I have no intention of serving as a wall of your tears and steam.

  15. I read your answer but I don't see how it answers my question.

    When the front legs began to grow feathers and slowly develop into functional wings, I imagine there was a certain stage where they still did not allow the animal to fly or crawl.

    In this interim stage, what were they used for?

    For beauty?

  16. There is a difference between the direction of development of the wings and the degeneration of the wings:
    When soaring, even the lightest, such as jumping from branch to branch to find nutritious fruit, gives an advantage to the better wing, they will gradually develop wings.
    The degeneration will come when there is a supply of food on the ground and there are no enemies threatening your existence, you have no reason to invest unnecessary energy in flying. And so the wings will degenerate.

  17. "Because as I said - the lack of the ability to fly does not contribute anything"

    If degenerated wings contribute nothing to the animal that carries them then why did they start developing in the first place? I'm talking about the stage where they still didn't allow flying or flying.

  18. Because as I said - the lack of the ability to fly does not contribute anything.
    After all, if the Creator did not know how to build flying wings - but he does - then why did he do it?

    In terms of evolution, which does not boast of intelligence - there is no problem.
    The wings evolved from front legs that gradually acquired the ability to glide and fly after the animal stood on its hind legs.

  19. thanks for the answers.

    Regarding wings, from the beginning they were used for a different function (so I assume) because the first dinosaurs that started to develop feathers (=degenerate wings) developed them for some use other than flight, didn't they?

    Why is it not possible that the same function is also used today by those with feathers who are unable to fly?

  20. There are many ways to check if a creature sees or not, which are exactly the ways to make sure that an animal sees.
    There are even ways to check if a seeing animal - sees colors - and even which colors.
    I don't think this is the place for a course on the subject. If you come across some idiot who claims that it is impossible to test him - I'm sure you will know what to answer.

    Regarding alternative roles for wings - this is a funny question.
    How can you tell that a paralyzed person is not doing something with his legs?
    He may be doing something to you! It may be that he uses them as weights to prevent the newspaper from flying in the wind - but that is clearly not why he was equipped with them.
    There is nothing an ostrich can do with its wings just because they don't fly.

    All this, of course, does not belong to the article at all.
    There are enough idiots who ask such questions and there is no need for those who believe that evolution is true to ask them as well.

  21. How can one know for sure that any creature with eyes does not see?

    How do you check it out?

    And how do you know that the degenerated wings are not used for another function, for example for heating?

    (By the way, it's completely clear to me that evolution is true, I'm just trying to examine things from the point of view of a believer)

  22. Circular arguments:
    Your words are simply not true.
    The findings described in the article are conclusive evidence that the various creatures evolved from a common source.
    This is a claim that is denied by most believers in creation and mountains of ink have been written by them to spread the lies that "microevolution is yes but macroevolution is not".
    The thing with the degenerate limbs is funny.
    If there is a plan - what is the problem (and for someone who can create a life as he wishes - there is nothing) to give up the unnecessary organs? Why equip animals with wings that don't fly and eyes that don't see? Why - after creating billions of different chromosomes - suddenly - in order to produce a human - does he actually take two existing chromosomes of a chimpanzee and glue them together without removing the unnecessary parts?

    The nickname you chose for yourself certainly matches your arguments.

  23. Something is not really clear to me, from the point of view of a believer the arguments in the article are also circular, after all if we examine a collection of certain products over the years (for example computer chips, cars, airplanes...) we can see that they go through a process of "evolution", right? A product of a certain company slowly improves over the years, both in its external structure, which is derived from its internal structure and architecture (which is equivalent to the identity between the genes) and in the way it functions - but despite this we know that the products did not evolve from each other but were simply created by the same manufacturer, Which explains the similarity between them.

    Why can't it be claimed in a similar way that even creatures that were created by the same manufacturer ("God") are similar to each other in both the external structure and the internal structure only because the same manufacturer designed them?

    What is the difference between the arguments?

    And regarding degenerate organs, it can be argued that this is similar to programming a computer that uses existing software code as a basis for a new project, even there there may be unusable pieces of code that remain as remnants of the original code, and this does not indicate evolution.

  24. For number 2 if all humans were made of your DNA, no doubt
    That we would still eat bananas from the trees!
    And for the subject, even if there are holes in the theory of evolution
    There is no doubt for any educated scientist that there is some truth in it!!!
    But you must believe that we were created from sand and rib (-:

  25. R.H.:
    The examples you gave are examples of a connection between sciences, but also knowledge of legends really allows one to identify connections between cultures (of course - if you know, beyond the legend, also something about its origins).
    But knowledge of fairy tales will not allow solving a mathematical or physical problem.
    By the way - to the question you asked Matrix - I'm amazed at you: he inflated long before he started responding on the science website.

  26. Matrix:

    When you were here we talked to Lumpa.
    Good riddance.
    Thank you, by the way, for the help you gave us in proving the emptiness behind your braggadocio.

  27. God,

    You never know where essential knowledge will come from and you must not underestimate anything. Knowledge of fairy tales can also be useful in another field. I know an example, for example, of an Israeli snail researcher who brought about a breakthrough in historical research when he showed that snails embedded in jewelry had to come from a distant area. This showed trade between regions that had not previously been known to have any connection between them.

    What are you angry about, I seriously asked about your solution and even wrote that the question you raised was interesting. So what is a starling and a crow here? Did you even read 377 before you got bloated?

  28. Mr. Rah Rothschild
    Why did the starling go to the crow because he was his own kind.
    DLL Talk to Lumpa
    I walked

  29. R.H.:
    In my opinion, there are no shortage of cases where knowledge from one direction contributes to the ability to deal with another field.
    This is clear with regard to mathematics, which occupies an important role in all fields of science and also develops because of it (according to string theory).
    There is also a type of puzzles that I particularly like in which actual physical principles are used - ones that no one would try to think about if it weren't for physics - for the solution of pure mathematical problems.
    But this is not true for every kind of knowledge.
    Knowledge of children's fairy tales, for example, will contribute nothing to the understanding of mathematics and neither will knowledge of adult fairy tales.
    So it's true, sometimes the controversy surrounding fairy tales for adults makes use of logic and logic is an important part of mathematics, but arithmetic is also an important part of mathematics and no one would argue that the cashiers in the grocery store in the period before calculating machines became mathematicians because of this.
    More than that - the desire to defend the claims expressed in the Holy Scriptures despite all the evidence to the contrary - requires a person to turn off his true mechanism of criticism and judgment and thus also harms his ability to contribute to science and mathematics.
    Kamila was right when she compared practicing Gemara to practicing law. The similarity here is not only external but also in essence because a lawyer should also be prepared to defend false claims.

  30. matrix,

    Sorry but I didn't understand your solution. Perhaps you could give it in an orderly manner and detail how you got from 7.5 (the sum of all the inverses between 1-1000) to 3.5 and why do you then filter out all the numbers divisible by 2, 3, and 5?

    matrix and the others,
    The point that Matrix brought up regarding the training of Gemara students angered the people here, in my opinion, because of the decisiveness with which it was stated and the one-sidedness with which he ruled that secular people cannot study Gemara like religious ones. I think that if he had brought it up in a less angry way, this is indeed an interesting question, what and whether it could be Contribution of studying in one area regarding solving problems in another area?. I do agree that sometimes knowledge from a certain field can help in a creative solution in another field, but only after you have studied the other field in its entirety. Several examples I can think of are, for example, that many of the breakthroughs in molecular biology at the beginning of its journey in the 50s and 60s were made by physicists moved to biology. Part of the mathematical chaos theory came from Lorenz who was a weather researcher. Lots of calculations in technical analysis in the stock market are based on the golden ratio and Fibonacci numbers and much more.
    I'm sure that mathematical knowledge can help a lawyer or a Gemara student, and do not let the religious and Mr. Matrix underestimate this.
    I believe that knowledge is always good, everything a person learns including can benefit him and no body of knowledge should be underestimated.

  31. The last Camilla:
    Have you looked at the problem itself? Did you look at the solution I presented in 373 I don't think so.
    I didn't like this solution but it reaches a score of 1.5.
    It is based on two principles.
    1. That the immediate maximum for the conditions of the problem is 3.5.
    2. That the rest of the half numbers that are divisible by 2, 3, and 5 should be sifted out in order to subtract 2 from the total amount and reach 1.5.
    I presented the above method of calculation (although I shortened it) in the comments before this and especially in 373
    If you have a more elegant way I'd love to see it.
    A nest mask is a nice example of presenting and solving a number of problems in probability and number theory. I am personally interested in groups and number theory. The swelling of the gentleman who presented the question is not acceptable at all in the way in which he refers to this matter in a spin around his tail. It looks so pathetic and pitiful.
    In short, you wrote in your previous comment that I made a mistake in the solution. I guess you have another solution, please present it and don't chatter around.

  32. Matrix:
    In short: you screwed up.
    You agreed to accept the challenge and failing that you decided to evade and hide under "lack of interest".
    You found an "interesting" reasoning for your lack of interest: "There are a lot of different types of functions that touch on the matter".
    How exactly do they touch on the matter if they don't allow you to prove it?
    All your false attempts to prove the claim are based on hand waving, some of which are nothing more than false claims.
    There was the example of the mistake you try to cover up with the sum of the initial inverses (yes, you got off of it, but if I didn't insist that it was a mistake you wouldn't get off of it and you would be left with the claim that I didn't understand anything. What does that say about your independent thought?) and there are many examples More (like the very claim that at all one should refer only to the primaries - a claim that has not been proven and is disproved by examples).
    Then you wave your hands about 3.5, make sure to forget that I explained to you that this is something that is true for any number and not just for 1000 (but that's not interesting!) and babble something about how by some debugging it is possible to do what you failed to show how to do (I'm interested in how You know that you can do something that you have not been able to do and that you have not seen anyone else do).
    Do you interpret pointing out your gross errors as arrogance and puffery?
    Do you really think there is any mathematician who would consider your words a proof?
    All you are trying to do is throw sand in people's eyes.

    And I say again: even though the claim of lack of interest seems to me to be a transparent evasion and even though an honest person would not resort to evasion even if he did not find interest in the question, I still left you the option of uniting weaknesses with A and helping him in solving the probability problem (immediately tell me that you are not interested either But beyond the fact that all you will see is that you are serially disinterested when you are faced with challenges that you are unable to face, this challenge involves a lot of real money which of course - you are also not interested in).

    That's why we received here another confirmation (experimentally) for the theory which says that the claim of the ultra-Orthodox as if studying the Gemara makes it possible to deal with mathematical challenges with ease is nothing but a lie.

  33. Matrix (374)

    The problem that Michael presented to you was given not because of any special interest it arouses, but to test your ability to do what you arrogantly and condescendingly claimed that "a person who has the ability to study and analyze an issue in Gemara can easily analyze and solve mathematical problems, but not the other way around (unless it is studying the academic Gemara of the nations of )"
    Analyzing and solving mathematical problems is based on the ability to provide a proof and thus fails (if we refer to Michael's original question).

    And if you already complained about the interest (or lack thereof) in the problem that was presented to you, I don't really understand what interest you find in the Kenin treatise, which is exactly an excellent example of wasting time on instructions that are not relevant, are not well defined and give rise to arguments upon arguments when each of the arguers reaches different conclusions. If you compare it to problems in mathematics (even the most boring of them) then it is clear that you do not understand at all the power of mathematics and the fields that rely on it. At most these squabbles can be compared to the profession of lawyers. After all, if there are no fowls available for sacrifice for the next temple restoration, then there will already be some Rabbi who will determine that this bird is actually a sheep and this is a perfect solution to the "problems" presented in this treatise. This will not be the first time that such "patents" have been invented.

    The bottom line is that those who want to make claims about science should at least do so under the rules of thinking of science and not under other rules of thinking that are irrelevant. On the other hand, anyone can ask, even those who are not familiar with the way of scientific thinking. This is one of the main reasons this site exists. There is no place on this site for forms of thought that do not conform to the rules of science and this includes claims about aliens or metaphysical claims (including the version of God). Do you choose to believe those things? Your right but they are not relevant here. There are enough good questions that can be asked within the scientific way of thinking both in terms of clarifying known but unclear issues and regarding open questions that are still at the forefront of research.

  34. splendor
    I don't know if you looked and were interested in the puzzle. It's not a particularly interesting puzzle because there are a lot of different types of functions involved. I thought the mathematical peacock would present an elegant and useful calculation but he just spread a big tail.
    In an inelegant calculation, the maximum amount is 3.5 as mentioned.
    From this you have to subtract the sum of the inverse pairs according to the conditions of the riddle. The sum of the evens is equal to
    In the same way, do the inverses that are divisible by 3 and 5. In a rough calculation, it ends up being about 1.5
    But since arrogance and inflated egos guide him, it's a pity for the confusion of the mind.

  35. For the matrix:
    I will take your sentence "You are not the only one who likes math in the world but everyone is interested in other fields." This is a key sentence for me, because it proves that you understand that for especially complex achievements, such as a Nobel Prize, or solving a difficult puzzle, you must first be interested and it is not enough that:
    "A person who has the ability to study and analyze an issue in Gemara can easily analyze and solve mathematical problems
    But not the other way around (unless it's an academic Gemara study of the nations of the world)" as you said..
    Apparently you have to study and work to know.. and you don't get anywhere with innate ability..
    I, for example, didn't even bother to get to the bottom of the mathematical problem, it's clear to me that it's possible but it doesn't interest me enough, and the same is probably true even without Jews throughout the Elam.
    The same thing is clear to me regarding issues in the Gemara "not of the peoples of the lands" as you say, and I think it's nonsense, that if you delve into something, and want enough, you can understand everything...
    I am much more impressed by those ultra-Orthodox who also prove that it is possible to get out of the box and connect to another world, and thereby also possibly upgrade the depth of their understanding of the Gemara, (such as the Rabbi Maimonides I mentioned, the Rabbi of Lubiwitz, and many others) than those who just sit in their rooms and are afraid to look reality in the eyes and face it With their faith in the face of reality and not only in the greenhouse that hides them from the real world they created...
    Take down the screen...

    And for me**:
    Well done for the challenge you set.. You see, I also know how to praise, not just sting (in my opinion, rightfully so)

  36. Machel
    It is not clear why you are repeatedly wagging around the tail.
    The first attempt was in the direction of this formula. I skipped a step and didn't explain myself properly and then I got off it.
    But after that in all my responses I repeated the number 3.5 as the maximum that should be reduced to 1.5 by sifting. If you're not willing to address it just to show how smart you are then go find another tree.
    You make this idiotic puzzle as if there were at least the secrets of the reactor in Dimona.
    I want to clarify well, I don't want well either.
    I'm not really into puzzles. Although I'm interested in mathematics and I don't care about competitions of this kind. I also saw somewhere an integral that calculates such a problem.
    So I don't understand what the noise and ringing is about.

  37. Matrix:
    So you switched to lies?
    You said that even for ten billion and in fact for any number - your "proof" which was based simply on calculating the sum of the initial inverses - is correct - and you "proved" that this sum is always


    I'm not making this up. That's what you said (and when I said it wasn't true, you claimed I didn't understand anything!)
    It is a quantity that tends to 1 as N increases, while the sum of the initial inverses tends to infinity.

    I say again. You are also wasting my time with your other hand-waving and I will not be a party to that.

    I won't show you the solution to the puzzle because I use it more than once to expose charlatans like you.
    If you want, I'm ready to show the solution to someone among the commenters here who seems to me to be able to understand the solution and who I'm sure I won't have to use the riddle to expose his lies because he doesn't lie.
    For me it could be Roy Cezana, R.H., Ehud, or Zvi (if he gives me his email).
    Then you will ask this person to confirm to you that he received proof.

    You "don't feel like it" simply because you can't.

    For the same reason you also ignore my proposal to combine weaknesses between you and A.

  38. Machel
    I didn't say anything like that about the initial ones, you just get caught up in it. I admit I thought about using their scatter feature but I skipped a step in the explanation and you keep referring to it. I have no patience for this nonsense.
    In response 364 I referred to the maximum calculated according to the conditions equal to > 3.5. If you are trying to say that this is a mistake then continue with your rants I have nothing more to say. I'll admit the truth that I didn't feel like continuing the analysis because as far as I remember I saw an integral that could be used to calculate the problem. It belongs to a whole family of such problems.
    If you want without waving your hands, explain how you reach the maximum of 1.5. If you want to show off and wave, I'm not interested. You are not the only one who likes math in the world but everyone is interested in other fields.

  39. Matrix:
    I'm done chatting with you.
    You gave what seemed to you to be a proof in which you "proved" something that was clearly false and that is that the sum of the initial inverses is less than 1.5
    Then you continued with all kinds of hand waving.
    It's a waste of time and I've already explained that explaining to you where you're wrong (in a way that you understand the explanation) will be impossible.
    I admit that the conclusion is correct. I wouldn't tell you to prove it if it wasn't true.
    I'm just saying that your "proof" is not proof.
    I'm interested to see what integral you saw. I'm pretty sure you haven't seen anything relevant but I'd appreciate it if you could tell me what you're talking about.
    As mentioned - I understood that there is nothing to explain to you about your errors and your responses, after all I tried to point out some of them to you, they only strengthened this understanding.
    He who can "prove" things that are not true is unconvincing.
    That's why I only have the path of practical challenges left.
    I'm not asking you to prove anything. Just arrange for us the game that I suggested to A in response to response 52.
    Are you ready?

  40. Machel
    Besides, I think I saw somewhere some kind of integral for this calculation, so it seems to me that the question is not the most interesting in the world to begin with.

  41. Machel
    Let's check from the beginning, the maximum amount according to the conditions is 3.5, right?
    Because it is the sum of all the inverses between 31 and 1000 right?
    Because the sum of inverses from 1 to 1000 is according to the calculation -> ln1000+0.577=~7.5
    The sum of inverses from 1 to the root of 1000 is -> =~4
    Therefore the difference = 3.5
    It's enough to roughly calculate all the numbers from this field that are divisible by 2,3,4. It seems to me quite simple that the final number will come from 3.5 to 1.5
    So what are you talking about here that doesn't fit the terms of the question?

  42. Addendum to response 361: Not only did you not provide proof of what was requested, but you also provided what you consider to be proof……………
    For an incorrect claim!

  43. And in short - what you say you can do easily turns out to be something you cannot do at all.

  44. Matrix:
    I see that while I was writing the last comment I was talking more and more.
    Insufficient proof, of course.

  45. Another interesting thing about the Matrix:
    From your words up to response 352 (before you thought about the root matter but after you already thought you had proved it) it appears as if the sum of the initial inverses up to N is always less than 1.5.
    This is also nonsense, of course, because the sum of the initial inverses is infinite.
    For a million, for example, the sum of the initial inverses is greater than 2.128091684
    For 10 billion, the sum of the initial inverses is greater than 2.53355672

  46. Machel
    It is enough that we wave all the numbers divisible by 2,3,4 in the area between the root of N and 1000 and we will get from 3.5 to 1.5. It doesn't seem too complicated to show it

  47. Machel
    So you admit that the maximum amount is not greater than 3.5 which is the inverse of the root of N and 1000.
    I estimated that in order to filter out all of these reverses according to the condition, you need to check the number of initials that exist in this field.
    Of course, it is possible that I did not analyze well enough, I estimated that it is necessary to multiply 3.5 by the number of initials in the field. Thank you, the ratio is about 0.42 to reach the result you asked for.
    That's why I don't think it's difficult to reach the number you asked for. Because the sifting is of this order of magnitude 0.42X3.5=1.5
    It seems to me that it is easy to adapt to the given conditions. If you want, tell me how you sift.

  48. It is possible to divide the people in the world into several groups - according to their mathematical ability.
    1. The group of the most talented is able to solve difficult problems
    2. The group of the talented is less able to solve medium problems and understand the solution of the difficult problems.
    3. The bad mathematicians are not able to solve problems but they are able to distinguish when a collection of statements is a proof and when it is not.
    4. Those who have no mathematical understanding at all are not capable of even this.

  49. Matrix:
    Some interesting facts:
    1. It is clear that the sum of the prime inverses is irrelevant because it is impossible to take two small numbers from the root of N whether they are prime or not.
    2. The primality has no importance in the matter and it is easy to see this if you look at small numbers. For example, if you replace 1000 with 6, the largest sum is obtained by the number 1, the initial inverses are not relevant because you cannot take 2 and 3 together, therefore the largest sum of the initial inverses that can be taken is the sum of the inverses of 2 and 5, on the other hand, it is possible Take the 3,4 and 5 that are not all prime and get a larger amount than you get with the primes.
    3. For 4 instead of 1000, your formula gives 5.083

    All these are just facts that demonstrate the depth of the delusion in your answer. As mentioned - explaining to you where you went wrong requires you to have much more understanding than you demonstrated.

  50. Machel
    Hope you know Euler Mascaroni's constant and the calculation for prime numbers which I think was discovered by Gauss. n/lnN-1

  51. Machel
    Anyone who rattles is you.
    Note 0.5^1000 ~ 32 so according to the conditions there cannot be 2 numbers from 1-31
    Therefore the sum of the inverses from 32 to 1000 ~ 7.5-4=~3.5 and since in my opinion (I haven't analyzed to the end only the first ones should be used) in the worst calculation it came out less than 1.5

  52. Matrix:
    Your answer is simply wrong and has not the slightest grip on reality.
    It's always a problem when you let someone prove something right and he gives a wrong and even delusional proof, to show him that he's wrong and that's because to show him that he needs to have some idea and it seems yours doesn't have a clue.
    That is why I sometimes use a question such as the one I referred to A in question 52.
    You are completely wrong about the question I gave you, but instead of arguing with you and teaching you second grade math, I also refer you to the question I asked A in response 52.
    The advantage of this question is that you have to believe in the result you got enough to bet your money, regardless of the proof.
    I do this without any choice because, as mentioned, in what you wrote you made it clear to me beyond any doubt that there is no chance that you will understand that you are as far from proof as the distance between east and west.

  53. Machel
    Apparently you didn't read and didn't understand anything. And this is true for any number because of the dependence on the ln of that number. which is a direct function of the sum of the inverses for each N
    and the number of primes for each N
    So maybe the analysis is not meticulous and it can be done in other ways, but the principle of using the solution is correct. So don't talk about it.

  54. By the way, this is the first time I've heard from someone a reasoning like "because I think so and so"
    It's especially funny when that someone's opinion is wrong.

  55. Matrix:
    Let me give you a hint.
    The sentence is true even if you replace 1000 with ten billion

  56. Machel
    To your mathematical question, a fairly simple analysis reveals that:
    ln1000+Gamma const=~ 7.5
    The maximum sum of all reverses up to 1000
    Because in my opinion only the initial numbers between them should be added
    Divide it by –> ln1000-1 = 5.9
    It is possible to analyze in other ways but it leads to the same conclusion.
    You are still welcome to study and explain the Tract of Kenim.

  57. Reform Dos:
    Reformed? Or just with the country?
    THB have always followed the Talmud and the Shu'a and not according to your stories and stories.
    In the chapters of Avot it is said in 48 midods of the Nicene Torah. The partial list below
    indicates that the material world is not considered for them.
    , with little goods, with little country road, with little pleasure, with little sleep, with little conversation, with little wear, with long noses, with a good heart, with the faith of the wise, with the acceptance of the sea Sorin, who knows his place, and is happy in his part,
    And they also obey the rule to marry women of XNUMX years of age and not of the people of other countries, even if they are rich.
    In the tractate Pesachim it is said:

    "Let my rabbi never sell everything he has and marry the daughter of a scholar. He did not find a daughter of a scholar. He did not find a daughter of the greats of the generation. He did not find a daughter of the elders of the generation. And he will not carry the daughter of the people of the land, because they are shaktz and their wives who run, and to their daughters he says, "Cursed is lying with every animal"... Then Rabbi Meir would say that all the daughters of the people of the land are as if they were folded and placed before a lion, what a lion devours and eats, and he is not ashamed of his face, even with the land he strikes and blows. And he has no shame" (Matt:

  58. Matrix (322)
    Before making announcements about finger sucking, it is advisable to know what you are talking about.

    The marriage of the town's noble's daughter with the wise student is a fact part of the life of the Jewish town. This theme appears in the Jewish literature of that time (see for example the Wintel obsession). We know that famous rabbis married daughters of the wealthy of the community (see Rabbi Nachman of Breslav and three other links)

    From the research of Professor Yaakov Katz:

    and conversations with people who came from the world of the towns of Eastern Europe.

    I suggest you check the topic before you make another embarrassing comment

  59. Camila, what will happen?

    After all, you were talking about logical fallacies. I showed you that according to the above thought, it is not possible to prove that the earth is round. For several reasons:

    a) It is possible that the curvature seen from a great height originates from an optical illusion.
    b) If someone circles the earth and reaches the starting point, it is possible that he simply made a mistake on the way, or that he is lying, or that he suffers from a hallucination caused by the "circumference" of the flat earth.

    In short - many possibilities can be raised for logical failures in deducing the sphericity of the earth. Hence it is not possible to know whether the earth is flat or not.

    Logical fallacy - that's the whole story...

  60. A. (342)
    No lies, no distortion of other people's words and no attempts at cheap manipulation will change the collection of failures you presented in your comments above. This behavior only cements your bad image here. If in the future you would like a factual reference to your words, you will have to pass the hurdle of understanding those failures, which currently seems more insurmountable for you than ever. If those "innocents" you are addressing share your blindness, then they are invited, like you, to go to other places and spew their nonsense there. We will all benefit from this.

  61. Camilla- to claim that the earth is round is a logical fallacy?

    Well, I learned something. They will look innocent and take a lesson...

  62. withering:
    Another word about evolution at the level of groups:
    I also think, of course, that these explanations are generally bad (I can think of some scenarios where this would work but it's not worth expanding in that direction right now).
    What I claimed (and I suggest you check the existing theories) is that for some reason, all the explanations given until I wrote my words - on the subject of empathy and on the subject of language are actually based on the evolution of groups (and that is why they are bad).
    In addition to this - I intended to make it clear that the reason why group evolution is generally rejected is precisely the reason for non-segregation (corresponding changes must occur in many individuals at the same time because a change in a single individual - which is the only thing that mutations know how to do - does not confer the claimed advantage).

  63. charming:
    You are adorable. I learned a lot from your response. Thanks!

    R.H. answered you
    In your response you proved that you do not understand even basic logic.
    If this is the logic you use in your Gemara studies, it is no wonder that nothing practical has yet come out of these studies.
    As said by R.H. I didn't say at all that mathematics qualifies me as an expert in nonsense. You, on the other hand, claimed that studying Gemara allows you to deal with mathematical challenges with ease.

    By the way - in my opinion, many things that the Sages said are complete nonsense that there is no point in trying to interpret.
    For example - they believed in very interesting types of evolution.
    You are welcome, if you feel like it, to try to interpret for yourself (but please - don't bother us with your conclusions because it's not interesting) the following claims:

    "The Erod can be created as a result of the pairing of a snake with a turtle: "Rabbi Huna Bar Torta said: Once I went to a council and saw a snake that was wrapped around the turtle, later an Erod [a type of snake] came out from among them", Chulin Kakhz p.a.

    "The tiger is a bold-faced goat because he is a bastard like the mule [!] which [the tiger] is the son of the wild boar and the son of a lioness. Because when the lions are in heat, the female puts her head in the thickets of the forest and growls and demands the male, and the pig hears her voice and chases her, etc. And since he is a bastard, he has a fierce face" Tractate Avot Chapter XNUMX Mishna XNUMX

  64. withering,
    I received your comment about my slip of the tongue, and Makhal actually answered you and maybe he also meant the ones I commented on, I don't want to continue this.
    Regarding my main claim, that scientific articles contain errors of various types, including logical ones - the example I gave in 288 stands.
    The explanation that there is a relation of dependence and causation between nutrition and the growth of the human brain has become more accepted in recent years than any other explanation in scientific and popular articles, and it is not true.
    Those who read the posts whose addresses are in 310 have seen many examples of brain growth in animals that have not fundamentally changed their diet. And likewise, until cooking began, the brains of the hominids grew, and before them the apes and the apes in very large proportions. The growth that has occurred since the beginning of cooking (if indeed there was cooking in Homo erectus, there are differences of opinion on this) is small in proportion compared to what preceded it.
    Those who claim that the change in the energy balance between the operation of the digestive system (thanks to cooking) and the operation of the brain is what made brain growth possible, have not shown that there is a problem at all!
    If a brain of two percent of the body's weight is problematic and requires cooking, what will small bats say whose brain is 5% of their weight, or birds whose brain is 8% of their weight?
    If indeed there is a problem of energy, large animals may have solved it by general growth, while the small ones may have solved it by short life.
    Large animals with small brains suggest that there is probably no correlation between brain size and energy availability.
    I repeat the colossal sentence I invented, the brain does not process food, but processes data.
    Accordingly, what may cause the brain to grow are the demands for processing data, just as what causes the hand to develop into its forms are the demands for the employment of the hand.
    The above explanation is factually and logically false, in the sense that it claims wheat and solves corn.

  65. matrix,
    Read 332 again. It's not a duel, it's a single combat. You claimed that studying Gemara prepares you to solve mathematical problems, so the burden of proof is on you. On the other hand, no one here, including Michal, claimed that because of knowledge he has in another field, he is qualified to solve problems from the Gemara, so it is not two-sided.
    And by the way, if you really wanted someone to look at what you asked, you could at least attach a link and not send the readers to search websites.

  66. Michael (329)

    In contrast to the other components of the sentence you wrote about the scientific method which were stated in a general way, the particular case of observation as implied by the example of the crows was not mentioned as such and therefore one may get the impression as if it does not belong to the scientific method. I've highlighted this for those who may not have noticed this general cluelessness (I'm pretty sure I haven't updated you on this).

    In response 268 I wrote that science is based on the rules/principles of logic, I don't think that one is obliged to understand from this that science progresses from proof to proof. In fact, my opinion on the subject of confirmations as opposed to proofs is the same as yours and I even wrote it explicitly in at least one of my comments above.

    And about the main purpose of your comment 🙂
    I think the popular opinion is that natural selection works at most on the level of the individual or even the gene (there are a few cases of natural selection that looks like group selection, but they are exceptional and may exist under very certain conditions), therefore any evolutionary explanation must refer to the advantage that the change in the trait gives at the level of the individual . Therefore the very idea that language development and altruism must be based on an advantage that this behavior confers at most on the individual level is not surprising. I liked your original idea regarding the development of empathy.
    Another explanation that I like for altruism is Prof. Amots Zahavi's principle of respect. The principle, which if summed up in one sentence he says: the liver as the best way to convey a reliable message, is applied in his flocks of tailed deer and I was fortunate to witness his action with my own eyes. The tail-enders clearly read his articles carefully 🙂

    Regarding my comments on Yair's words, I have no doubt that he and many others who use similar non-standard expressions do so not because of a lack of understanding but because of ease of speaking and from the assumption that the person in front of you understands enough and knows how to make the distinction and identify the intention even when the phrasing is not precise. When you publish a comment or a book intended for the general public (and even for scientists from other fields not related to evolution) there is a real fear that avoiding the awkwardness involved in standard statements will result in a severe misunderstanding that will be passed on and then you hear shockingly incorrect sentences that have spread (without any bad intention) into the public discourse and even For school teachers and in general for those who do not know what the essential difference is between the wrong wording and the correct wording. I try to avoid the easier expressions for saying/writing knowing that use makes a habit and I should get used to the correct form so that I don't mislead (unintentionally) those who don't know and ask me to get a "professional" answer. On a site like this site, the care should be twofold since naturally it is a point of contact between those who know how to differentiate and those who do not know how to differentiate. Since at least some of them know how to think and it is likely that at some point they will realize that there is a serious problem with imprecise wording, we should be more careful because I think we prefer to avoid sending messengers after us to explain what we actually meant by our unfortunate statement.

  67. paste
    If he is interested in Dokarb to prove something please.
    I accept the challenge provided it is balanced.

  68. A. (318)
    The real discussion is over once you have refused to take responsibility for your logical fallacies and have been given more than enough opportunities to demonstrate it and have chosen not to. The last sentence in response 268 answers all your questions and there would be no point in adding anything to it at this stage.

  69. matrix,
    Not that Mechael needs any help from me, but it was you who claimed that studying the Talmud helps in mathematics, and therefore he challenged you. I did not see that he claimed that studying mathematics prepares you to understand the Talmud, therefore your challenge is irrelevant.

  70. Machel
    I have chosen a passage in the Talmud for you. It will surely be easy for you because it has mathematical calculations.
    It is about 3 chapters of a treatise on nests totaling less than 1000 words.
    Use an interpretation called an explicit nest. You will find online at HEBREWBOOKS

  71. Machel
    Why not, but for the sake of balance, would you be willing to study and explain (according to the various first and last interpretation methods) an issue that I will choose in the Gemara.

  72. Matrix:
    Enough with the rants.
    Knows what?
    I assume you studied Talmud. Although you refused to answer my question on this matter, your words indicate that.
    Well - let's examine your statement.
    I studied very little Talmud (a large part of the relevant years I was in a gentile school - may God have mercy - and in Germany!).
    Come and I'll give you a math question (one that I solved) and we'll see you solve it.
    You say that "one who has the ability to study and analyze an issue in Gemara can easily analyze and solve mathematical problems".
    It has been proven that given a group of natural numbers between 1 and a thousand whose least common multiple of any two of them is greater than a thousand - the sum of the inverses of the numbers in the group (the inverse of a number is one of the parts of the number) will be less than 1.5

    I'm sure you won't solve and I'm sure you're not honest enough not to try to go to your friends who may understand more and ask them to solve for you so instead of there being any doubt whether you acted honestly or not - I allow you in advance to ask whoever you want.

    1, 2, 3, get out!

    Why are you missing the word observation? Is there really a difference between "seeing crows" and "watching crows"?
    I did not try to write the things in a legal formulation but to convey an idea.
    In my reservation about the idea of ​​proofs, I meant what you wrote in response 268, but if you agree with me that science is not built on proofs but on confirmations - mine - why is A again harassing.
    I'll just add that I don't know if A said that evolution is impossible. After all, all his claims are based on the matter of probability and with probability - even a very improbable thing is possible - that is - he also only talks about probability (but the problem is that he does not understand anything about it).

    Anyway - the entire response was written to present the idea at the end - an idea that I am very proud of and you did not address this part at all.

    Regarding your words to Yair, I must say that the use of the "purposive" wording regarding evolution does not always come from a lack of attention or from a mistake.
    When conversing among experts and knowing that such phrasing will not mislead them (and they will interpret "evolved to" as meaning "turned out by natural selection because of" - just as the speaker intended) it is common to use such phrasing just to simplify the sentences. It seems legit to me.

  73. Matrix - Wilson and Penzias did not discover the background radiation when they went looking for three ions on the antennas. But - when they discovered the background radiation and still didn't know what it was coming from, they thought it might be from tripping (so according to the story which is probably a legend. They were enough experts in radio to know that a little dirt on the antenna does not produce radio signals).

  74. paste
    It's probably true if you buy a stock or option and don't find penicillin
    And if you clean for three birds, you don't always get a Nobel Prize

  75. matrix,

    The Jews do not have any kind of genius and not studying the Talmud brought them the Nobel Prizes. Neither Einstein nor Freud were great in Torah. The reason for the high level of education is probably social. Jews, unlike other minorities, sanctified education (religious and non-religious) and in many cases were willing to spare the most important thing for the sons to receive an education. An example of this is the immigrants to America. They all came poor, the blacks the slaves, the Irish from the Great Famine, the Italians and the Jews from the pogroms. However, the Jews who insisted on sending the second and third generations to study integrated themselves into science on Wall Street and Hollywood.

    Regarding Fleming, correcting a common mistake. His discovery was accidental, but he fell to the right person at the right time. Note that several years before penicillin, Fleming published the protein lysosome as a bacteria killer, meaning that he was looking for substances that kill bacteria and it was not just a lottery that he saw that the fungus was exactly what he was looking for. A more correct comparison is to a correct investment in the stock market that combines understanding with luck.

  76. The last lady Camilla:
    The numerical ratio between the inhabitants of the earth and the Jews is.... You guessed correctly before, per mille 1 or 1.5. If the ratio was higher, most of the winners would have been Jewish, so you were talking nonsense.
    In the matter of Fleming, each according to the inclination of his heart.
    You should just remember that Fleming found the antibiotic by chance/accidentally anyone can win the lottery in the same way.
    Einstein built his discovery proactively from start to finish.
    A large part of the inventions were discovered by accident.
    Wilson and Penzias discovered the background radiation when they went looking for bird holes in their antennas. And they got a Nobel Prize for it.

  77. Reform Dos:
    Interesting theories but out of hand.
    The majority of Torah learners in all generations were poor. Israel preferred to marry a poor Israelite girl rather than a rich country girl. The greats of Tel Aviv were poor and destitute.
    If you take the time to look at the genealogies of ancestors, you will understand that the morals of the XNUMXth century are renouncing the life of this world. As it is written on the land, you shall sleep and eat a mouthful of salt, these are part of the forty-eight measures in which the Torah was bought.
    And therefore all your nonsense is nonsense. Although it is true that rich people courted the bridegroom from their home in Tel Aviv, but surely they did not marry a rich girl with a finished land. Because the Talmud warns against marrying them. Below is a quote:
    The Gemara (Pesachim Matt. XNUMX) forbids a man to marry the daughter of the people of the land, and this is learned from the verse "Cursed is lying with every animal" (Deuteronomy XNUMX:XNUMX). Rashi explained in the Passovers, that the daughters of the people of the land "are like beasts that do not have the heart to understand". So what will a woman do if both her brother and her father are not of the highest order?
    The solution is precisely in the XNUMXth chapter (Aha XNUMX:XNUMX) from the words of Rashi: "They are like beasts that do not have the heart to understand that your life is long" - that is, this is a daughter who does not understand the value of learning the Torah, and prefers that her husband deal with goods that provide a living In this world, and not in the Torah that promises only the world to come. And so the XNUMXth concludes: "If we find a daughter of the people of the land who is wise and understands the matter we have mentioned" [that the Torah is your life in this world, and the length of your days in the whole world is long], there is no prohibition to marry her.

  78. To Anonymous, Karl Popper later apologized for his assertion that evolution is not science. People are allowed to make mistakes, with you they are all angels, with us they are only human.
    And again, we are already tired of repeating the words of the American creationists, they are not the smartest people in the world, to put it mildly, and if not only Israel is going to collapse but also the USA, it is because of these people.

  79. Matrix (313)

    You wrote: "Those who know how to study in the traditional yeshiva method can easily master and understand theoretical material of any kind. Every child in Haider knows that."

    Surely every child in Haydar knows this, after all the rabbi said it was so... and if this is not an example of babies who were captured, then what is?

    In addition, despite the high percentage of Nobel Prize winners among the Jews, there are still absolutely more Nobel Prize winners who are not Jews, so it is quite clear that the contribution of the "Gentiles" to the understanding of this world is absolutely greater than the contribution of the Jews (judging by numbers). It is understood that it is more difficult to judge what the actual contribution is, there is no doubt that Einstein alone made a tremendous contribution in several fields of physics. Alexander Fleming, who was not "only" Jewish, discovered antibiotics. If I had to choose, I would prefer Fleming over Einstein (and this is without even considering the misuse that man made of the knowledge that Einstein provided). And in the same way, examples of other "Gentiles" can also be given from the field of physics (practical and theoretical).

    And in general if there is a group of 100 people of which 10 percent are geniuses, still 90 percent can be complete idiots, while even one per thousand of geniuses out of a group of eight million people is still a hundred thousand geniuses. Therefore, if the scientific future needed hundreds of genius scientists to continue the momentum of the past hundreds of years, it is a shame that Judaism is wasting some of its geniuses, who to begin with are not very many in absolute terms. Even if there are indeed geniuses out there in such yeshivas, they are in terms of racing engines that work at full throttle in neutral in the garage when outside the race is in full swing and progress is measured only by who moves on the race track. So yes, maybe you can enjoy the engine noise that same engine makes in the garage but it doesn't advance anything even by a millimeter. The only example you gave (and there are a few more examples like this and even more impressive) show that such an engine that has gone to the track can indeed achieve the results and therefore the battle for your minds is not lost yet.

  80. Yair (311)
    I prefer to respond here both because this is where the discussion began and because the discussion here is more central and "live", however I definitely recommend that those interested in these questions read those posts, there are definitely interesting arguments there and most of them are well constructed.
    I'll start with a general comment - you write in the first post:
    "I don't know if the readers have noticed the mistake that is very common, which contains the definition of the theory, as quoted... I suggest to read this passage once more, and understand that the authors are actually saying: brains have grown to allow...
    That is, they attribute to evolution a purpose. But no organ of any organism develops because it confers some advantage, but organs always develop, always without exception, because of the circumstances of the actual time of development, and not because of any future advantages.
    And it should be noted: when the owners of the theory say that brains grew because of the size advantage, they attribute to the beginning of the process knowledge of its end! But "evolution" or "natural selection" are nothing more than generic names for natural processes."
    You even emphasized in the second post: "Evolution is always "because" and never "in order to".

    Of course, I absolutely agree with these things, which is why I was annoyed by some statements (in the very same post) such as this one: "Since the nose has already become a small trunk, and the head with a relatively large brain is growing, the entire elephant needs to grow, to allow for the weight of the head and trunk." - What is going on here? After all, this is purposeful, after all, it is within the scope of 'in order' and not 'because'? 🙂
    I present this to show that even a person like you who from most of the things written there clearly understand how evolution works and usually recognizes problematic or incorrect wording in relation to it, may use a similarly incorrect wording in the heat of writing. It is absolutely clear to me that these errors do not reflect in your case a lack of understanding but only a momentary lack of attention. It was important for me to show this because many people, even those who understand science and evolution in particular, intend to say something that is true and use a wording absentmindedly that they would surely be very opposed to if they saw it in others. When most of the words of the person in front of me seem coherent and logical, I tend to attribute such mistakes to distraction rather than a lack of understanding and I recommend everyone to adopt such an approach in any field. In such cases it is enough to comment on the problematic in the wording, there is a high chance that that person will immediately realize his mistake and correct it.

    Regarding your review, the main question addressed in the article we talked about is not what caused the brain to grow, but what allowed its growth from metabolic and energetic considerations. It is claimed that the changes in the diet allowed the marrow to grow at the expense of the stomach and not that it was the improvement in nutrition that directly caused the growth of the marrow (which would really be a very strange claim if that were the claim) even if sometimes their formulations are not perfect, from reading the entire article this matter is completely clear. Therefore, even after reading your interesting posts, I do not find a fundamental flaw in that study.

    One last note, note that you also have a few leaps in your claims that can definitely be debated, maybe you could suggest to the editors of the science to add an article or two on the subject as you see it (if it hasn't already been done) and then I'm sure they'll point out some of the points I talked about. In any case, I have no doubt that the things you wrote there can also be suitable for this site.

  81. Camila, you touched on several important points and it's a shame that they were missed-

    For example, when you say: "I do not take seriously other possible directions that are also inelegant, conflict with the known facts and cannot be tested experimentally" - after showing you an experiment that supports the designer's hypothesis (that is, that at least 2 sites in globin are required for binding and releasing oxygen), I would be happy to question the scientificity of a theory Evolution. As we know, since Karl Popper, objections have been heard that evolution is not scientific. This is because there is no attempt to disprove it. Do you agree with the above claim?

    If so, evolution is not scientific.

    A No - please show how the claim of common origin can be disproved experimentally.

    "A tried to rule out an entire research direction using logical arguments that were fundamentally wrong. This is not done in the natural sciences. This must not be done in science." - Apparently you have not heard of the science of archaeology. Please tell me - how does an archaeologist know that any object he found was designed? In your opinion, there is a logical fallacy here. The Ahalma stone, for example, looks as if it was designed. So how does an archaeologist know that any object was designed ?

    Doing him a great and unwarranted favor since he did not claim that this is logical but that this is obligatory and the difference between the two things is abysmal" - let's throw this at the fact that the earth is round. Isn't the fact that the earth is round an obligatory fact?

    "If he was satisfied with arguing about considerations of logic, it would be possible to be satisfied only with pointing out his other failures, such as the failure in the "statistical calculations" - and if I show you that evolutionary scientists also calculate probabilities, will you claim that they are not scientific?

    "Regarding the term inextricable complexity, the whole point is that nature surprises us with its ability to find ways, sometimes very "creative", - the quotation marks are out of place. Have you ever tried to design a cat? Leave a cat, a cat's tail? Leave a cat's tail, a cat's tail hair Leave even that, I'll settle for the system that synthesizes the cat's tail hair. The truth is that even that is too much, because you also need an appropriate differentiation system, which requires thousands of genetic letters, each of which is as precise as a strand of hair, literally.

    "Is it, for example, a simple solution in which the situation you describe is a late situation in which the objects that were present there before and which may have supported and even directed the knives to the final configuration have been diluted? "-Try to create a clock gradually, when each step is effective in itself.

  82. Correction to the previous comment (316):
    The words "the problematic about" at the beginning of the third paragraph should be removed.
    Sorry for the glitch.

  83. Michael (298)

    I don't agree with you on some things.
    You wrote: "The basis of the scientific method is not evidence but the findings of experiments.
    Science really embraces the claim that if I have seen a lot of crows and they are all black then until it is proven (in an experiment, usually) otherwise - all the crows are black."

    I really miss the word 'observations', which is the most important step in science, since most research questions arise from observations (not all of them, of course, some arise from thought experiments, but in my opinion they are also ultimately based on observations or at least on experiences). Darwinian evolution is exactly a beautiful example of how observations form the basis of a scientific theory (which can then be further confirmed by additional independent observations and by experiments that verify predictions that emerge from the theory). To the best of my recollection, I did not claim that science (except in mathematics and some other fields that are based on mathematical models) deals with proofs and I completely agree with you.

    The problematic regarding the use of the pure logical argument such as the example of the crows for example is in practice quite rare. Usually the observations are varied and the scientists focus their research on a few possible explanations when there is almost a gentleman's agreement that these directions are now sufficient. In my opinion, this is how good science is done (if only from technical considerations), that is, concentrating on directions that seem promising and trying to exhaust them. There is no point in shooting in all directions just because theoretically all directions are possible, it is wasteful and it does not allow concentration of effort and a rigorous examination of the direction. If this direction turns out to be wrong or unsatisfactory then that is also fine because rejecting directions that seem good is also progress. Therefore, although I know that I cannot with proof deny the existence of a creator of the universe or an intelligent planner, the existing evidence makes me (and most scientists in the world) not take seriously this possibility just as I do not take seriously other possible directions that are also inelegant, conflict with the known facts and can be tested experimentally. Therefore, I do not agree with you that this is the most common type of argument in science. The only reason I insisted so much on pure logic is that. Tried to rule out an entire research direction using logical arguments that are fundamentally wrong. This is not done in the natural sciences. This cannot be done in science. There is a huge difference between focusing on certain directions and accepting an ad hoc assumption (for example, that all crows are black) while giving up or ignoring other directions (and this is not in a capricious way, but in directions that seem promising and are supported by good evidence compared to other directions that on the surface do not seem so successful) and between a denial of These directions through seemingly logical claims. Because that's what I am. tried to do I had to refer to the logical fallacy in his words and I insist that his words constitute a logical fallacy precisely because of this difference in his intention which was to claim that he was showing what the real truth is, bound by reality. All of this meanwhile only refers to the one fallacy out of a line that says in its general form that if we don't know something then it necessarily doesn't exist. I don't know any scientist who has ever used such an argument. Therefore, what you wrote: "His claim that it makes sense to claim that if we have never seen a clock with hands that was created by itself, and we cannot even imagine a process in which a clock was created without a creator while we have seen many clocks with hands that were created by an intelligent creator, is similar to most of our scientific claims."
    He is doing him a great and unwarranted favor since he did not claim that this is logical but that this is obligatory and the difference between the two things is abysmal. If he had been content with arguing about considerations of logic, it would have been possible to content himself only with pointing out his other failures, such as the failure in the statistical "calculations" or in the attempts to create an identity between objects designed by humans with things that were clearly not designed by humans.

    Regarding the term inextricable complexity, the whole point is that nature surprises us with its ability to find ways, sometimes very "creative", to qualify for peaks of order that at first glance (and sometimes with many more glances) seem unconquerable. Is the example you gave (the knives on the bottles) really fundamentally different from the structures we know from the world of biology? Is it, for example, a simple solution in which the situation you describe is a late situation in which the objects that were present there before and which may have supported and even directed the knives to the final configuration have been diluted? All that can be said is that, in the absence of another mechanism, the likelihood of this happening by chance is quite low, so we will prefer the simple explanation that someone created this structure. Regarding a clock in the desert there is no reason to look for another explanation.

  84. Matrix
    There is no doubt that the percentage of Jewish Nobel Prize winners is very high. But the conclusion that this high percentage stems directly from studying the Talmud is far-reaching. In order for this conclusion to hold water, you need to show that a significant number of Nobel Prize winners did study in rooms and meetings. From a casual look at the twenty names on the list of Nobel Prize winners of Jewish origin, most of them did not come from an Orthodox background (if you have statistics on the subject please let me know).

    In my opinion, a better explanation is that Talmud studies were actually used as a filter in order to identify the smartest children among the community. These children were guaranteed a high socio-economic status both through direct financial assistance and/or through a good match. In the pre-industrial world, a child had about a 50% chance of dying before producing offspring. People of higher socio-economic status had a higher chance of producing offspring (for example they could cope better with hunger and escape faster with the help of horses). Over dozens of generations in which the Jews kept the "Talmud filter" the percentage of children whose fathers were "wise" kept increasing. Because heredity determines at least 75% of intelligence (IQ)
    After all, the meaning is that over the years the Jews have become wiser and wiser.

    In contrast, most other cultures did not apply a similar filter or applied it to a small part of the population. If we take Christianity as an example, the absolute majority of the population was serfs or small farmers. Among this population your ability to survive depended more on the ability to work the field or fight and less on wisdom. Even if a poor Christian boy got lucky and was discovered to be wise, it was usually by a Catholic priest who took him under his wing and promised that his genes would be lost to the community.

    In summary, the difference between your argument and this argument is that your argument emphasizes the nature of the sieve (the studies of the Talmud), while "my" argument emphasizes the existence of the sieve.

  85. Matrix - it is impossible to explain how studying the Talmud raised the intelligence of the Jews; On the other hand, it is possible to explain how evolutionary processes did this.

  86. Ziv Machal
    The average IQ of Jews is higher than the rest because of the Talmud.
    The number of Nobel Prizes awarded to Jews (relative to the size) far exceeds the rest because of the Talmud.
    Those who know how to study in the traditional yeshiva method can easily master and understand theoretical material of any kind. Every child in Haider knows that.
    What the average secularist who has no idea what Talmud is doesn't know.
    Even those seculars who studied Talmud or secondary school for matriculation or university.
    This is not Talmud, but platitudes.

  87. Yair (310)

    If so,
    The brain is not a 'data processor' but, it would be more correct to say, in the context of your words - the body experiences reality and the brain translates reality into the body.
    Second thing, Kamila already explained to you in her response, about your words:
    "The addition of food probably led to obesity. Also, the brain grew long before anyone cooked."

    What she explained to you and you just didn't understand:

    The brain evolved not because of food, but because of a proper diet/nutrition of that organism. (Note that the difference between food and diet is a very subtle difference, but it is a difference that can differentiate a healthy person from a fat person)

  88. Camilla, 295, 294
    Here are the three relevant addresses:
    You can leave a comment there.
    Regarding Aiello Wheeler's article, it sounds convincing, but it contradicts the theory of evolution. In itself there is no problem with the claims against the theory, except that the authors are not at all aware of the contradiction of their words in relation to the theory.
    An organ develops because of its function. The brain processes data, it does not process food. The addition of food probably led to obesity. Also the brain grew long before anyone cooked. Read my words in detail in the above addresses.

  89. Ziv, well done for your adherence to the lofty goal of hitting me as hard as you (little) can.

  90. Matrix:
    Do you want a competition? By what measure did you decide that my father's or mine's level of surgery or even Michal's, for example, would not be better, obviously there is specialization and knowledge, but it is not related to the ability to perform surgery per se..
    And by the way, I don't hate ultra-orthodox people.. I just think that even among them there is unjustified arrogance...
    Da Vinci also controlled and led a number of sciences, mathematics and various arts...and he wasn't even Jewish...
    It says something about the culture he lived in other than that it allowed him to…
    If Haredim had listened to the advice of the Maimonides and other Torah greats (and true ones) we would still have the likes of Moshe Max to be proud of...

  91. Matrix:
    There is nothing to eat the heart.
    Nor are there any "Orthodox haters" in the general sense of the word. Some hate parasites, but Moshe Max is not a parasite.
    An ultra-Orthodox who works and served in the army is actually a source of joy for all of us.
    Admittedly, winning an award from the People and Computers organization at the age of 50 reminds me a bit of a XNUMXth grader who beats the Kindergarten kids in a run, but still a Brooke.

    Of course the nonsense you wrote about the connection between Gemara and mathematics is just nonsense.
    Do you know how to analyze an issue in Gemara?
    If not - then on what basis do you base your claim?

  92. Avi Blizovsky:
    Having the ability to study and analyze an issue in Gemara can easily analyze and solve mathematical problems
    But not the other way around (unless it's an academic Gemara study of the nations of the world)

  93. It just shows how bad it is that such geniuses waste their ability on teaching like a slob of a person less smart than them and just shows how many thousands of geniuses we lost because they didn't learn math beyond the fourth grade level.

  94. O Haredim haters, eat your heart
    Moshe Max, an ultra-Orthodox resident of Bnei Brak, won two prestigious awards in the Israel IT-Awards 2010 competition. He beat hundreds of candidates. Moshe Max is not only an outstanding computer scientist by world standards, but also a teacher of Halacha, for many years, according to the rulings of Rabbi A. Rabbi Moshe Levy.

  95. charming:
    I do not slander and I do not cry.
    I do not slander because saying something true cannot be considered slander.
    I don't cry because I have no reason to cry.
    I am telling about the personal attack that attacks me only as a response to baseless accusations like yours - as if I am attacking others for no reason and I am doing it to make the reason clear to them.

    A is a troll also according to the definition you brought from Wikipedia.

  96. Machel

    You slander others non-stop and after that cry why are you being attacked all the time

    A is not a troll.

    Troll according to Wikipedia:

    In Internet slang, a troll is a participant in an Internet forum (or chat), whose entire purpose is to harm by disrupting the course of the discussion.

    The troll causes damage by writing messages that harm other participants, violating the rules of conduct in the forum, flaming, impersonating others, and the like. Also, some trolls use hacker methods, such as identity theft, etc.

    Sometimes part of the trolls' occupation is "spamming", sending messages published by various websites. In some cases, trolling can endanger the very existence of the Internet community.

    A spoke to the matter and was slandered non-stop.

    In the long debate that took place here, he undoubtedly won.

  97. charming:
    A bullied like only trolls know how to bully - without paying any attention to all the answers he received.
    There is and never has been any scientist who behaves like this and it is clear why - one who behaves like this cannot be a scientist.

    It seems to me that you do not know the meaning of the word charlatan. Maybe you wanted to say something, but until you say it in Hebrew I won't be able to relate to it.
    I explained well why I did not support A:
    I didn't want to bias the discussion and I didn't want A to hang on my words to distort them to his needs. I knew there was no way he would treat them as they were.

  98. A bullied just as every leading scientist bullies the "consensus"

    This is charlatanism for the sake of Michael who did not support his position in front of Camila in the discussion about the "logic"

  99. withering:
    It seems that A has already stopped harassing, so I allow myself to comment on your words.
    The basis of the scientific method is not evidence but the findings of experiments.
    Science really embraces the claim that if I have seen a lot of crows and they are all black then until it is proven (in an experiment, usually) otherwise - all the crows are black.
    Therefore, his claim that it is logical to claim that if we have never seen a hand clock that was created by itself and we cannot even imagine a process in which a clock was created without a maker while we have seen many hand clocks created by an intelligent creator, is similar to most of our scientific claims.
    In my opinion, the term of "irreducible complexity" to which A was referring in his words is a meaningful term, even though, to the best of my knowledge, it is not possible to prove that this or that structure has this type of complexity, because all we can usually say is "I was not able to break down the complexity, but maybe Someone else will succeed."
    It is certainly probable that there are structures whose complexity is inextricable in the sense that there is no natural process without a planner that would lead to their formation.
    I tend to bring as an example of this matter the example of a table with three bottles on it, the distance between the three of which is greater than the size of a knife, and three knives, each of which is placed with a handle on one of the bottles, and the blades of all three are combined so that 1 is placed on 2, 2 is placed on 3, and 3 is placed on 1 and create a structure of a bridge over which you can move between the bottles.
    Of course, it is possible to describe the most bizarre processes that would lead to the formation of this structure, but even with this simple structure it would be only natural to conclude that there is a planner (among us - I'm pretty sure that if you see a clock with dials in the desert, you will conclude that someone lost it there after buying it from the person who created it, and not that it was created by itself).

    That is why the term "inextricable complexity" is in my view a significant term.

    It does not confirm the creationist argument because no one has ever pointed to any system that exists in nature that is similar to a clock in the sense that all the phenomena we have seen of it so far are known to us as having been produced by a creator and because beyond that - all the examples presented by the creationists as examples of non-decomposable systems have been proven to be decomposable - That is - as those whose development can be described by a sequence of steps each of which gives the organism an advantage (the commonly used examples are the eye and the whip) - but - the term is significant and even important because the reference to the breakdown of the complexity of a biological system always leads to new insights.

    A prominent example of natural phenomena that are inextricable at first glance are phenomena that I referred to in two of the articles on this website - systems in which the advantage that it is customary to point to derives from the fact that the system exists in many individuals in the population.
    I'm talking about language and empathy.
    Language is important in a population, but as a phenomenon of a population it has an inextricable complexity and the only way to understand its development has to start with the advantage it gives to the individual.
    The same goes for empathy. It gives the population an advantage due to considerations of game theory, but these considerations can only come into play after many individuals in the population have been endowed with empathy, and this question also cannot be answered, in my opinion, without going down to the level of the individual.
    When I say the things like this it seems quite clear but the fact is that I have not come across anyone who has said the things before and these are in interpretation the fruits of thinking about inextricable complexity.

    I suggest you read, if you haven't already, these two articles:

  100. splendor:
    You did well to get out of the discussion about who told whom because you shouldn't have started it in the first place.

    I also think that the question of the formation of the first replicator is an interesting question.
    Not that she has anything to do with proving the opposing side's arguments, but I tried to answer her already in response 35 and gave her a link to an article on the subject that appeared in Scientific American in Hebrew.
    I repeated this in response 220.
    What I didn't take into account - and it only became clear to me now - is that this link no longer works (I tried to use it and currently it only leads to the home page of the newspaper).
    While writing this comment I wrote them an email asking them to restore the article and I really hope they do because it was the only link to the subject I had in the Hebrew language.
    Also here on the site quite a few articles have appeared that present various aspects of dealing with the problem (such as, for example, זה ) but this article was quite comprehensive and it's a shame it was removed (for now)

    Be that as it may, no one ignored this question, and here too there are two types of references:
    There is the science that tries to solve it
    There is the religion that tries to prevent the solution and brainwash with the God of gaps.

    The subject of the probability of the formation of the proteins was also referred to.
    There is also a lack of knowledge here, but the only ones who base their claims precisely on a lack of knowledge are the creationists.
    One of the references to the nature of the argument that the creationists put forward in this discussion is my response 52 which was resoundingly ignored.
    There are many prerequisites before it is even allowed to use the probability tool and these conditions are not met here.

    You ignore the fact that the discussion on this topic has been going on on this site for many years.
    The subject of panspermia (which does not even refer to the problem of the formation of life but people love it for some reason) has been discussed on this site more than once.
    So luckily it was not brought up in the current discussion because like other things that did come up - it also does not belong to the topic of the article.
    Who exactly would you expect to make this argument and why would you expect them to make it?

    The debate about evolution here is always filled with anger because it is the only reason for its existence.
    Evolution has more confirmations than most scientific theories and the only reason why it is attacked is religious.
    That's why it also always happens while showing disdain for science and its supporters and that's why it never happened that someone really made a serious claim against evolution.

    In conclusion - you did not give any example of a subject that did not receive the proper attention - and this despite the fact that the subjects you raised are not at all relevant to the debate.

  101. Yair (288)

    You wrote: "If you want to know why the human brain and every brain really grew, enter my blog by clicking on my name, and read three non-scientific articles there, but without logical errors."

    I entered your blog. Write a name:
    "This blog is put up to bring to those more or less interested the solution to a question that has fascinated research for hundreds of years, how language came to be."

    I searched a bit (sorry, I don't have much time) and unfortunately I didn't find anything there that meets the promises you made.

  102. Yair (288)

    The article in question is:
    Aiello, LC and Wheeler, P. (1995). The Expensive Tissue Hypothesis: the brain and the digestive system in human and primate evolution. Curr. Anthropol. 36: 199-221.

    And skimming over things, it seems to me that it makes a lot of sense. The researchers wondered about the way in which a metabolically expensive organ like the human brain evolved while the overall basic metabolic activity did not change and corresponds to what is expected of a creature of the size and weight of a human. It turned out that the human stomach, an organ with serious metabolic activity in itself, is small in a way that is offset by the increase in the brain. Since energy production is still required to be sufficient for the needs of existence, this process can only be possible if the diet is of better quality. The article states the first reason for this (which is supported by evidence) is the increase in the amount of food that our ancestors obtained. The researchers also suggest the advantages of cooked food (as neutralizing toxins and as performing part of the digestive work externally) that may lead to the additional possibility of the stomach's work being reduced, something that can allow a parallel growth of the marrow and this without damaging the metabolic balance. I did not find, although I did not read in depth, a fundamental flaw in their words.

  103. Yair (288)

    Thanks for clarifying the matter. I extend the discussion with A. Not because I think there is any point in his words and not because I am trying to "save" him from himself. I do this because it reflects a fundamentally flawed way of thinking that is shared by many people, including some of the commenters on this site (the vast majority of whom are religious). I took advantage of these tiresome exchanges to expose some basic and essential logical failures that I noticed in other places as well but that were usually not answered thoroughly enough (because who has the strength and patience for people who talk nonsense at such a basic level). I think that at least some of those people who adopted views similar to those of A. They don't understand what fundamental failures the arguments are based on, and maybe now some will see this problem and abandon those arguments that don't align with common sense. It is likely that He himself will not change his arguments at all, and if to use a paraphrase that changes with the wind, then honestly, my dear, I do not like it.

    You wrote: "I said that your claim that a small logical error will invalidate an article is wrong, and I say this based on reading many articles in which there are many logical errors."
    Please, be careful when you add or change words that were not written in the original... I was not talking about a small mistake but a substantial mistake and the difference between them is quite large. I haven't read the article you mentioned and it is possible that you are right in your criticism (and it is also possible that you are not because honestly I don't really understand the meaning of the sentence you wrote: "organs develop due to their function" it sounds like a Marxist claim...) but I repeat the distinction between what I said and what you attribute to me. My argument was about the general guiding principle and not about the fact that mistakes creep into scientific works even in the most respected places. And just as I added in the matter, if there is indeed a fundamental logical error there, then that work is as exposed as a duck in the scope of criticism that does not become obsolete so quickly, and this should be spoken of in praise of science at every opportunity, especially when it is compared to other approaches.

  104. Well, at the time of my response that for whatever reason it has been waiting for 3 hours for approval,
    I will respond to Mich***'s words:
    I can go on and on about who is the mother to whom, but I will listen to your suggestion, and we will return to the main point of my main argument.
    I argued that a quick-tempered approach, based on the title (for example, "Creationist's statement") and not on the content, for example raising a question about how the first replicator was created, which in my opinion is a legitimate, fascinating question, and for which science does not have an unequivocal answer (although in my opinion this argument is weak as a creationist argument, and this is one of their best arguments) is a question that, due to bickering here, no real proposals are made here, but simply I said, you said... and this is not a discussion.
    Other points raised here talked about such and such proteins.. that the probability of their creation is low.. Again an interesting topic also on a scientific level and instead of treating the matter separately and discussing it, the stupid bickering is meaningless..
    There is also the theory of the arrival of organisms from space (meaning that the first replicator came from there, a favorite argument of all kinds of alien enthusiasts .. but one that became a legitimate possibility after years of being assigned as science fiction.

    I'm talking about a discourse, saturated with stings (by the way, so that they would listen to me, that's the only way it worked, that I raised non-controversial points, they ignored me, because it's not interesting enough) and slanders... something that strengthens my second claim about the natural tendency of scientists to argue and not to investigate themselves and correct Their theory..

    I noticed that this kind of argument comes up every time here in the discussion about evolution, and it is impossible to claim that only one side is "guilty" and it takes years for such a tango (this is true for every discussion and fight, I myself discovered this after, with great effort, I managed to make such a change in me, and now I try , listen especially to opinions that differ from mine..
    The more different they are and even though I don't agree with them, the more I learned.. it's still when and not always I succeed.. but I recommend

  105. splendor:
    "You claim you didn't understand me and yet I'm wrong, it's a talent you have to explain... I'd love to learn it..."
    After you learn this talent - you will teach me where I claimed that I did not understand you.

    I understood you well and also answered your claims.
    At first I thought that some of the things were self-evident and when I saw that you didn't understand - I expanded.

    I don't remember the cases in which you claim that I retracted my initial statements, but if they are similar to the current case, then there are none.
    In any case - it seems to me that you are actually providing proof that your claim is incorrect:
    You claim that I am not trying to understand the others and cite as proof of this the fact that I retract my words because I understood them.
    Very interesting logic.

    You should also understand the difference between understanding what is said and referring to what was understood.
    Sometimes - due to problems of response overload, confusing wording or all kinds of other reasons - a person does not understand the intention of the person who wrote the things.
    It has nothing and nothing to do with what you claim (to or towards others).

    But know what?
    Maybe get back to what we're dealing with?
    In your opinion, is there a reasonable claim by creationists or religious people that has not received an objective response or did you just decide to pounce and say that even the supporters of science do not want to examine their positions?

  106. R.H.

    Let's put it this way, to put it mildly, I didn't invent it... just write Bogol
    Genius and sanity and genius and see how many connections there are
    The largest study done in the field was written by Arnold M. Ludwig
    And you can read about it in his book
    The Price of Greatness
    Among other things, he found that: 28% of senior scientists suffered from at least one type of mental disorder. The rate reaches frightening proportions of 87% among the great poets.

    In addition of course to the millions of connections from the days of Plato to the present day to the subject...

    I'm talking about statistics and you bring me individual proofs.. How convenient, some say that Einstein also had a mild depressive episode, but that's really not the point, the idea is that this is common..
    Despite this, you mentioned Newton, so I must mention the well-publicized war between him and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, regarding who first developed the infinitesimal calculus, a war that caused, among other things, a delay in Newton's publications by almost 30 years, and a fight between him and the Swiss mathematician Nicolas Petteau de Viller, which caused Newton to collapse nerves.
    And regarding Euler: Quote from Wikipedia: Despite Euler's enormous contribution to the prestige of the academy, he had to leave Berlin, mainly because of a personal conflict with Frederick.
    And from there I also arrived at Bernoulli:
    Daniel Bernoulli grew up in a family of famous scientists. His father was Johann Bernoulli and his uncle was Jacob Bernoulli. Daniel had a murky relationship with his father Johan. When they both signed up for a scientific competition at the University of Paris, Johann could not bear the "shame" of being compared to his son and kicked him out of the house. He also tried to steal the book Hydrodynamica written by Daniel and change its name to Hydraulica. Despite Daniel's attempts to reconcile, his father held a grudge against him until the day he died.

    How many biographies have you read that did not mention a significant mental crisis or mental illness of one of the geniuses or a hysterical fight that caused suicide, death, employee's work and livelihood?

    I live in our world, and you will see that even a stupid argument on the Internet brings so many passions, so that prestige, money and self-confidence are involved.. It's hard to find peace in this noise...
    It wasn't just that they said "the envy of writers will increase wisdom" why should there be such a thing at all?
    I can also give several personal first-hand examples of fights between doctors
    And more examples of wars between scientists from different fields... but that's not the point

    In my opinion, not seeing this is simply blindness

    More examples:
    Grown up, schizophrenia
    Georg Cantor - Leopold Kroenker, a war that almost drove Cantor out of his mind, brought him to the brink of mental illness, and finally caused the cessation of his mathematical activity twenty years before his death.
    John Nash – Schizophrenia
    Paul Ardash - was completely psychotic, and he was told that he could not peel an orange (read "The Man Who Loved Only Numbers")

    You are also invited to read about the sociology of science:
    In short, as Newton said, I stand on the shoulders of giants, in this debate.. and do not bring anything unfounded in the data, but you have the right to ignore the data

  107. To Yair's framed comment - the first Camilla has the last word and that's fine because it's true. And yet everyone can add a word.

  108. withering,
    (You sound like the first to me, what's the last about you?)
    I did not refer to A's comments at all because as far as I understand he is wrong in every aspect of the discussion, and I agree with those of your comments that I read, most of them I do not. It is not at all clear to me why you are prolonging the discussion with him.
    I said that your claim that a small logical error will invalidate an article is wrong, and I say this based on reading many articles with many logical errors.
    An example of an article that gained circulation and popularity in science and popular science (also in science) is the article by Aiello-Wheeler who claim that the human brain grew due to eating cooked meat. A claim that is logically false because organs develop due to their function.
    I couldn't find the original article but at the address below is a laudatory review of it.
    (If you want to know why the human brain and every brain really grew, enter my blog by clicking on my name, and read three non-scientific articles there, but without logical errors.)

  109. Ziv 284,
    You say "I didn't say such a thing" and immediately repeat what you said...
    Where do you come from with such determination that genius is close to insanity? Do you know any statistics on this??? Einstein, Newton, Da Vinci, Aristotle, Wills, Euler, Darwin, Zakow and Mono, which of them was insane?

    And where do you get the statement that "conflicts between scientists are a very common thing and lead to boycott wars and the like, and in almost every biography of every scientist or mathematician, you will find a dirty and un"scientific" war between him and another scientist, about prestige when theories and their honesty are used to hit each other…”??
    How many biographies of scientists have you read? Do you know how many scientists and how many doctors there are in the world? Are they all fighting a dirty war against their peers? What bad movie are you living in? Then you come and accuse others of arrogance and shooting from the hip? Tol Cora is between your eyes.

  110. Yair (285)

    A single fundamental logical error is enough for an editor to reject the article. The fact that sometimes an article passes even though it contains a logical error that was missed by the authors/editor/reviewers does not change the correctness of what I wrote. If it bothers you that what I wrote seems to imply that scientific articles are all, without exception, free of any blemish and logical errors in particular, then Rini makes it clear that this is not the case. And yet this is the ambition and these are the criteria which unfortunately are not applied perfectly (after all we are talking about human beings here). There are not many works that are based on fundamental logical failures, certainly if you compare it to other bodies of knowledge such as the free press and certainly and certainly if you compare it to the religious writings. The "arrogance" relies here on the dizzying success of science in a very short period of time compared to the products of other approaches in the world and the fact that every scientific work is always exposed to criticism, so even if a mistake was made (or even fraud) and it was published in the article, it is always threatened by that one who will identify the mistake And point it out and there is almost no greater joy among scientists than to point out mistakes (sometimes with excessive enthusiasm) of their colleagues in the field.

    Do you think the reactions of A. Are the above approaching the minimum level required of a rational discussion (and especially when discussing science issues)? After all, this is the reason I wrote the same comment and not in order to glorify and praise the "perfection" of science or the scientist. I could equally give another example in which a. Talking to a professional in another field, let's say in makeup and nail design, and he "explains" to her how the field works when it is obvious that he has no green idea either in makeup or in nail design. In that case, I would detail my professional experience (if indeed it was my occupation) not to praise the field of cosmetics, but to detail some things that are required of professionals in the field.

    And one more thing about distances from truth. There aren't many comments here, no matter how invested they may be, whose distance from some absolute truth is zero and that's perfectly fine because it would be impossible to have a discussion on such a site if the minimum requirement were responses at the level of mathematical proofs. Therefore, what is decisive here is the relative distance from the truth determined, for example, by differences between substantial and numerous logical failures as presented by A. And between claims that also contain informed opinion or claims whose exact interpretation can be debated. Relatively not. My distance from the "truth" is negligible and yet it is understood that I do not think that this means that my words are absolute truth or that they are better by definition than any claim that someone else makes (it doesn't matter in which direction and from which side). I'm a bit surprised that you bothered to be "punctual" regarding the distance of my words, in your opinion, from the truth, but you didn't put what A said on the same distance scale. Because your words can be interpreted as if my words are far from the truth (the scientific one should be mentioned) to the same extent and who knows maybe even to a greater extent in relation to the words of A..

  111. Camila 277
    The paragraph below you wrote "(For your information, even a single fundamental logical error in an article submitted for publication in a self-respecting scientific journal causes the article to be thrown into the trash by the editor because in that case it is not even considered worthy of review by other scientists in the field)."
    Far from the truth.
    There are so many logical and other errors in scientific articles that it is better to lower the tone of arrogance that arises from it.

  112. R.H. what??? I did not say such a thing.. I said that the percentage of mentally ill among geniuses is high... I was not talking about your people (scientists, doctors, teachers and the other vegetables)....
    The distance between genius and insanity is short...
    And by the way, regarding morality... it's hard to say... I'm not sure there's a real way to check this…

    On the other hand, conflicts between scientists are a very common thing and lead to boycott wars and the like, and in almost every biography of every scientist or mathematician, you will find a dirty and not "scientific" war between him and another scientist, about prestige when using theories and their honesty to attack each other... and the reasons are Sociologies.. (as for the reasons for aligning the fatal line among doctors that we mentioned) when there is constant pressure to be (to write innovative articles and present breakthroughs) or to cease (as Paul Ardash called the settlers who stopped working in the field "dead") the pressure increases, because there is not always the possibility to renew .. and therefore find alternatives of failure, defense of past achievements (despite loss of relevance) and more and more... there are examples for most (again not all of them) but this is certainly not my invention
    Obviously, in the long run, science is progressing, but as the saying goes, which I don't remember who said it, "Science advances at the rate at which scientists die"

    You claim you didn't understand me and yet I'm wrong, it's a talent you have to explain... I'd love to learn it...
    My claim is that in your clarity, you judge too quickly even without understanding what the poet meant (as has happened to me with you at least 3 times in the past and one more now) probably in a split second (shorter than the time it takes to really read and examine the things.. and then you attack with harsh words and rejection, (like audacity, stupidity, nonsense.. ) really shooting from the hip.. and you're the one who pretends to say that you checked things in depth in the name of science??

    After all, in almost every argument between us, in the end you back down from your first words and only then did you decide to talk to the point

    I return to the concept of insolence you mentioned, I'm not sure you know what insolence is,
    Insolence is disobedience to authority" and since it is clear who is in authority here (which is me?? No .. ahhh maybe you..? :)) then I am probably really insolent.

    I don't know you and I can't judge you for your mastery of all the sciences mentioned here, but you don't know me either
    And I already knew what experience and knowledge I bring to the debate so that you think I'm arrogant, and judge my knowledge...
    This is impudence in my opinion, and also arrogance and in my opinion also stupidity... because you will not be able to learn new things with such an attitude..
    According to what I've seen on quite a bit of the site, I think I'm not the only one who thinks so.. and now the question is, will you, as a scientist, listen to the facts and really examine the data that is repeated and presented to you.. or ignore it and justify your opinion (because there is no chance that you are wrong - and thus of course you will once again prove your I argued that even among scientists, arrogance blinds and prevents new learning..
    Which way will you choose, to continue closing your eyes or jump into the water and risk the possibility that you were wrong? (I can guess what you will choose...)

  113. Max Power:
    A will not answer even later.
    After all, he never answered the claims made against his words.
    Maybe he will come back to harass and maybe not, but you won't see an answer from him.

  114. Rah:
    Not only do not commit suicide.
    If anyone has ever worked in a software development environment they can't help but notice the joy that grips a programmer who finds a bug that he himself made. It may go as far as dancing in the hallway.

  115. Not true Ziv.
    I understood your words and I still maintain that they are not true.
    Those arguing from the side of science do examine the opinion of the other side.
    Sometimes the other party's opinion is so stupid that the exam (and the failure) only last a fraction of a second, but the exam takes place for most of us.
    As I said - the mere reliance on information obtained in a serious way puts them in a completely different place from the opponents of science.
    Your symmetrical presentation of things is indeed a cheeky distortion.

  116. splendor,
    Scientists and doctors are human beings. I don't think that the percentage of the mentally ill or those with physical illnesses, as you say, is different from the general population. From my personal knowledge, I do think that their moral level is higher than average, certainly that of politicians or businessmen.
    There is competition, there are heated debates, but most of them are scientific without descending into personal lines. Even if there are other stories, I bet you that they are much less difficult than other sectors and they are the anecdotal minority.
    I know many cases of scientists who were wrong or who held on to a theory that was proven wrong and didn't commit suicide or go crazy over it. On the contrary, the method is such that you make comments, examine and find what is correct, that's how science works. We all know that until it is proven our hypothesis is a hypothesis and the truth is imposed on us regardless of feelings or desires.

  117. Container:
    I cited you as an example for two reasons,
    1) As an answer to my "impudent" claim, as you say, without first understanding my words, and now you agree with me, then you did not examine the facts...
    2) Because this is not the first time with you..
    Regarding all the cases, you do make the comments, but you respond with great and unjustified anger too many times..

    You will not only find this phenomenon among doctors, it is true that among doctors its amplification is due to a defensive factor, but also scientists, who are determined to defend their positions and many times, while renouncing the examination of the facts...
    Wars of honor between scientists and physicists, to the point of mental illness and physical illness... are already common (the story of Cantor, and his opponents, immediately came to my mind...)
    The cases where a regime intimidates are rarer.. After all, they are all human, and the geniuses are even more sensitive to mental problems...

  118. Mrs. Kamila A. who is a Dos Shomer Shabbat will not answer you until the Shabbat is over.

  119. A. (269)

    are you a scientist
    Do you do science every day like I do?
    Do you have a scientific education and training that includes at least a bachelor's degree, a doctorate, and post-doctoral studies in first-rate (or even "only" second-rate) academic institutions spanning a continuous period of about 13 years?
    How many peer-reviewed scientific articles by other professional scientists in the same field of research have you published already? (For your information, even a single fundamental logical error in an article submitted for publication in a self-respecting scientific journal causes the article to be thrown into the trash can by the editor because in that case it is not even considered worthy of review by other scientists in the field).

    I'm trying to understand where your arrogance comes from to redefine the foundations of the scientific method and in a way that is completely contrary to the way science is conducted and has been conducted in practice for the past hundreds of years, a way that has led to all the achievements that surround you from all sides and in all areas of life. Where the hell do you get the professional basis to write your stupid comments?

    you at frrindly,

  120. incidentally:
    Aligning the fatal line of the doctors is a special phenomenon that does not arise from the science or the character of the doctors but from the demanding environment (literally - the work demands a lot and in the end they risk a lawsuit) in which they are.
    Doctors are in this sense "brothers in trouble" and because they know that anyone - including them - may make a mistake and be sued for it - they have formulated a defensive (and unscientific) code of conduct for themselves.
    By the way - it goes without saying that therapeutic medicine in general is not science but its application. In scientific research, you will not find such phenomena except in the extreme cases where the political regime dictates to the scientists what they must say.

  121. splendor:
    With the general claim you made here - about the possibility that even a blind rooster sometimes finds a grain - I agree - but the blaming of the debaters here is not based at all (and I know this for sure because you mentioned me as an example and I know without a doubt that I am indeed looking into things).
    I can invite you to watch, for example, a debate I had with other science advocates on the subject of inextricable complexity - a debate that started with this response , made progress at first with some reasonable people and later reached harsh tones in an argument with Guy.
    Note that self-examination and examination of the other side's claims are actually the main characteristic of the vast majority of participants in the scientific debate (in fact, all except one)

  122. Container:
    It is clear that those who make a scientific claim, "stand on the shoulders of giants"... My claim is that they don't check the claims they make, my claim is that they don't listen to the mistakes that contradict the claims they make, thus losing a few things, firstly, the ability to answer properly (not that it helps in debates with fanatics) ,
    Second and much more important, to hear something that might even, if that's not what the commenter on the other side meant, to understand something new, scientific, and in the process develop a new angle for your thesis...that is, to develop, to think in the mode of "opposite turns out". And this is true only among scientists, it is also true for engineers, marketers, entrepreneurs, economists, medical historians, etc.

    A study that was recently published about doctors, talks about the bias of doctors who think that they give a second opinion to patients, so that it is very similar to the first opinion, that is, they read the first opinion and then repeat it with a slight change..
    Instead of saying, what my eyes see, they say what my eyes see that does not conflict with what others have seen, and this is a sabotage of the scientific method... a fatal line...

    I'm not claiming that there is literally 99% of the creationists' claims, I'm claiming that in the one percent we might have been able to find the next breakthrough..

  123. splendor:
    You just don't understand what I mean.
    When someone "represents the claims of science", as I wrote, he relies on all the testing and examination that science excels at.
    You can of course decide (without any basis) that he does not examine himself and his claims, but even in the event that your claim is true (and in my opinion it is not true in relation to most of the commenters who represent science) it does not change the fact that the responses that present scientific claims to Ashur are responses that have been examined in depth.
    The claim that the one who presents the claims of science does not examine his words to the same extent as the one who represents the claims of religion is similar to the claim that the one who uses GPS for navigation does not examine his path in the same way as someone who chose to follow a fly for the same purpose.

  124. Rotch*led:
    In your response number 220 you wrote:
    Although Kamila already answered you, I would like to clarify one thing:
    Your words are simply insolence!
    The entire scientific enterprise is nothing more than a repeated, ever-increasing examination of all theories.
    This is the strictest framework in the universe for examining attitudes.
    So now you come and argue against those who represented the position of science who do not examine their positions?!

    It seems to me that the one who did not examine his positions in this case was actually you!"

    According to this quote.. I have no idea why you defined my words as insolence in such a dramatic way, and even you don't know why you characterized it.. then you have example number one of killing commenters and gagging mouths

    You are probably the attribute to my response 205 in which I said, among other things, about the way of arguing here in the forum and in general:
    "Each time the arguments go to illusory directions, so it seems that neither side wants to examine their positions properly, and the debate is futile..."

    And I wasn't talking about science at all, but about the debaters (by the way, especially here on the forum) the scientists and creationists..

    My main argument is that you are in a hurry to respond without listening and in addition you respond with such brutality and an attitude of gagging and "I and nothing more". I said about your words to me and in general..

    It should be noted that such an attitude is not uncommon among scientists (and also among the Birathans), so my initial criticism was not to you but also to those other puffers.

  125. And I invite you, Ziv, to bring even one example of something I did or said that is against the scientific method.
    This claim of yours is devoid of any foundation and its purpose is slanderous.

  126. splendor:
    I just don't know what you mean by my words.
    It doesn't seem to me that what you say relates at all to what I said.
    I did not say that scientists are not sinners.
    I am even ready to increase and say that I assume that among the scientists there are also pedophiles and there were also Nazis among them (one of the well-known ones was Heisenberg).
    However - their bias is never the result of science but of things that come from outside of science.
    The example of Lysenko that you refer to was also distinctly like this.
    The government found him some court scientist who was ready to introduce the Marxist ideology under the title of science and suppressed all serious scientists.
    There are also cases where scientists "fall in love" with one theory or another, but the claim that one should always wait for scientists to die to replace the prevailing theory is as far from reality as East from West.

    When I said that your words were rude - I did not mean that you were rude to me.
    Your reading comprehension is probably not good either.

  127. Camila, I have no problem.

    But understand that according to this method, it is impossible to prove anything. For example:

    It is impossible to prove that the world is round (oval).
    A. It is possible to prove that a clock with dials/car/computer requires a manufacturer

    In other words - if I show you a dial clock, you will claim that it might not have had a maker, because it is a logical fallacy to claim that it did. This is exactly your claim.

    And with this scientific argument, it seems to me that we will part as friends. Each to his own way...

  128. A. (265):
    Honey, the statement I wrote is completely true and bound by the basic rules of logic (it seems that you don't even understand what a logical fallacy is - which really explains a few things). It's not a matter of whether it looks right to me, it's not some caprice that I developed specifically towards your watch, it's a matter of basic rules of logic that science for generations has been based on and mainly on. In your opinion, if all the hassidas you have seen so far are white, then you are bound by the fact that all the hassidas that exist at all are necessarily white. This is a very basic logical error, even if you don't like it very much. As I already wrote to you, if you don't trust my professional word, then it's really not difficult to check this matter with another professional who understands logic and science. All standard science is based on logical arguments in this style and look around you and you will see that this logic has led to countless successes. The ridiculous thing is that you still express your opinion on what you think is a scientific argument and what is not, when you fail to observe even the most basic logical rules. Your attempt to present the "logical fallacy" in me is also based on your gut feeling, however strong it may be, and the logical fallacy it entails. You don't even understand how to point out a logical fallacy, you're just trying to use those words to respond to the fallacies I pointed out in your comments.
    Until you see that you have understood what your failures are on a basic logical level, there is no point in continuing the exchange.

  129. And another thing,

    You're talking about the scientific method, I'm talking about the people who use (or are supposed to use) the scientific method is fine... (you can't say it's perfect because it contradicts the method itself) I claim and I think it's proven (in fact, you're a devil, one of the examples of this ) that there are scientists who do not use the scientific method many times but oppose it, and this is impudence because this weakens the strength of the science born of the detractors and damages the credibility of the ideas that were produced in a proper way... Sages said about teachers/sages - be careful with your words...

  130. Ratshil*d:
    I think you have sinned with excessive arrogance... My claim is that even among scientists there are misconceptions that they are "addicted to" despite the facts, hindering arrogance and coercion... and thus actually harming the scientific method itself, which they pretend to represent, and the examples are numerous (read the book "The Word of the Experts" ” from Glory Publishing

    Such an approach seriously harmed science education in Soviet Russia for decades, due to the "blind faith" of scientists in theories that contradict this evolution in contrast to the facts...
    Or the fixation of decades, which opposed the possibility of germs arriving from or into space.. which for years was described as nonsense of people with too much imagination, and today has become mainstream..
    Unfortunately, the scientific theory did not progress with the facts but with the deaths of the people who led the previous theories...
    And by the way, I don't understand the connection to insolence... why did you brag in front of the greatest of the generation?

  131. Camila, this is water grinding again.

    Understand something, if you want to claim that an hourglass does not involve a planner, because it is possible that somewhere in the universe there is a natural process that creates hourglasses from scratch, fine. But on the same weight, every proof originates from a logical fallacy.

    You actually come and claim - we don't know a natural process that creates dial clocks. Since we don't know it can't be equal to - non-existent, since we can't claim that a dial clock requires a watchmaker. That seems fine to you? Fine. But that's not a scientific argument.

    And another thing you said, which also contains a logical fallacy: "Using the very same logic, you could have told me that you don't know how to show me your intelligent planner, and therefore it leads to the inevitable conclusion that that intelligent planner cannot exist"

    Not really. Even if I find a dial clock in the desert, even without seeing its maker, I will know that it exists. It is possible to be even smarter and claim that even if we saw its maker putting it together in front of our eyes, it is possible that it is a mirage vision. Hence, even if we saw its maker it is a logical fallacy .

    And I say - there is a limit to every trick...

  132. A. (260):
    Ignorance is not belief to make you believe in anything special, ignorance simply does not mean impossibility. It is said to have nothing to do with watches or evolution or anything else specific. You don't see this fallacy in yours, which is a general logical fallacy. Using the very same logic you could tell me that you don't know how to show me your intelligent planner and therefore it leads to the inevitable conclusion that that intelligent planner cannot exist. The underlying logic is the same. Even if you were to make the last claim I gave here, I would draw your attention to the fact that it is a logical fallacy, because indeed that is what it is regardless of the identity of the object. In the same way it is possible to "prove" that God does not exist using the same failures you have presented so far. In your insistence on training the creep, you are shooting yourself (and only yourself) in the foot because the logical fallacy shows that you are not asserting anything that impairs evolution, but since you accept this logical fallacy, you open up to everyone the right to use that fallacy itself to "prove" that the things you believe in them do not exist. Your only way to get away with this is if you are willing for your logical framework to be false but that the logical framework of others must not be false. It becomes problematic when it comes to the very same framework. Therefore, as I wrote to you a long time ago, as long as you don't stop using broken logic (and this is not related to the specific content of your arguments, i.e. to watches and robots and evolution, it could just as well have been anything else) you will not be able to convey any claim. This is not my caprice, it is the basis of any rational discussion (and in particular a discussion about scientific issues). If you think your responses are free of logical fallacies, fine, don't trust me, ask someone else who has taken at least an introductory university logic course and ask them for a professional opinion. Until then, it's a waste of time for me to refer to the same failures over and over again, and besides, it's unpleasant, and even embarrassing to see how you disparage human thinking abilities.

  133. No'
    What is the connection between dedicated accessories that man creates and what nature creates without any initial intention and if it seems that there is one, it is only from the point of view of man that for some reason it seems to me that it is very difficult for you to detach yourself from it.

  134. Camila, close but far -

    "Ignorance does not entail impossibility." - again - there is no ignorance here. And even if it is - should ignorance of all the physical processes in the universe make me believe that there is a natural process that creates cars? In your opinion, yes, because nothing is absolute. Maybe on Distant planet is there a process that does this?

    "Programming for gradual formation is not necessarily related to complexity, but mainly to the properties of the object." - First, define the concept of "complexity". A pile of sand is also a complex thing. But obviously it does not require a creator.

    "A clock does not meet the minimum conditions for programming such a process" - and if the clock is made of DNA and proteins? Why not take this possibility into account? A logical fallacy.

    "They are not created by themselves, they are created because of natural reasons such as for example humidity conditions," - as far as I am concerned, as long as there is no planner in the matter.

    "You claim that if we saw that object A was created naturally but we did not see that object B was created naturally, then it logically follows that object B cannot be created naturally and this is obviously a wrong conclusion" - see above the process that creates cars.

  135. A. (258):

    1) There are two logical failures in your response from 255 (both of which you presented before): the first is that not knowing does not entail impossibility. This is a matter of principle, even if I do know how to present the possibility of a gradual and functional transition, it is important for me to clarify that even if I did not know how this could be done, and even if you claim that you "know" that this cannot be done, the conclusion that you have drawn is still a gross error since your argument He is still of the type - we do not know something and from this you conclude that that something cannot exist. If you were to prove that it could not be done (for example because it would violate a basic physical law) then it would be possible to discuss later, but your claim that it cannot be done is based at this stage solely on the fact that we do not have a mechanism that shows this. I will ask again - does the fact that we have no knowledge of a mechanism for creating a clock logically require in your opinion that such a mechanism does not exist?
    The second fallacy is that even if you were to prove that a watch cannot be produced gradually (which you have not proven at all), it cannot be logically deduced from this that other objects cannot be produced gradually, and therefore surely this cannot in any way damage the idea of ​​evolution as a mechanism for explaining the common origin of organisms and the creation of the tree of life. Do you stand behind this argument? That you could not create X logically requires that you also cannot create Y, Z, etc.?

    2) "You want to claim that a typhoon consists of a clock? Fine. Is that why a clock (with hands) can form by itself?"
    Obviously not, only you can offer such an argument that is based on another logical fallacy which says that if object A can be created "by itself" and is more complex than object B, then your conclusion is that object B can also be created by itself. Complete nonsense. The programming for gradual formation is not necessarily related to complexity but mainly to the properties of the bone. A clock does not fulfill the minimum conditions for programming such a process (and therefore it is also not surprising that clocks are not found in nature that were not created by humans).

    "Hurricanes and snowflakes form in nature on their own. Hence, the chance of their formation is 1. Now show me what the chance of a clock hands forming in nature is." They are not created by themselves, they are created due to natural reasons such as humidity conditions, temperature and air pressure on the one hand and the chemical and physical properties of water. And here is another logical fallacy of yours: you claim that if we saw that object A was created naturally but we did not see that object B was created naturally, then it logically follows that object B cannot be created naturally, which is obviously a wrong conclusion.

    Four fundamental logical fallacies. This is your power in the last response.

  136. Kamila, there is no logical fallacy here. We know that it is not possible to achieve a clock gradually. Proof of the matter - the activity of the clock depends on various components. Missing a critical part of it will impair its function (taking out the hands, for example). Hence, the gradual creation of the clock is not possible.

    Do you want to claim that a typhoon consists of a clock? Fine. Is that why a clock (hands) can form by itself?

    "How much more complicated is a watch than a snowflake or a hurricane or a nuclear explosion or the formation of uranium atoms. Give it to me in numbers, please, and not in hand and tongue waving" - hurricanes and snowflakes are formed in nature by themselves. Hence, the chance of their formation is 1. Now show me what the chance is of the formation of a clock face in nature.

  137. A. (250)

    You have an axiom about the superiority of planning over evolution, which if I understood you correctly you accept it.
    In planning, you produce a product and distribute it to the market, and if you make a mistake, you cannot correct it.
    In evolution there is an intergenerational mechanism that ensures the survival of the product and its adaptation to changes in the environment.
    When I look at your responses, I must admit that I have the feeling that you are the product of a planner.
    And unfortunately there are no perfect planners.

  138. A. (255):

    1) You wrote: "If you believe that such complexity can be reached, demonstrate it. If not, then it doesn't exist. And the whole argument of evolution has gone down the drain."
    Are you really claiming here that if it turns out that I don't know how to reach this complexity then it is bound by the fact that such complexity cannot be reached? (This is a critical question for understanding the logical structure of your argument that leads to your claim to deny evolution).

    2) Wow, electrical wiring, a rotor that spins on a free axis... it's terribly complex. Are you sure a hurricane isn't a little more complicated than a watch? And by the way, an atomic bomb... are the dynamics of a nuclear explosion more complex than a clock? And the process of the formation of the element uranium? Count it for me please. How many clocks are more complex than a snowflake or a hurricane or a nuclear explosion or the formation of uranium atoms. Give it to me in numbers please and not in hand and tongue waving.

  139. Camila, this looks a bit like evasion to me. If you believe that such complexity can be reached, demonstrate it. If not, then it doesn't exist. And the whole argument of evolution has gone down the drain.

    Do you really want me to expand on what is between the design of a watch and a snowflake? Does a snowflake have electrical wiring? Does a snowflake have a rotor that rotates on a built-in free axis approximately 280 times per second? Does a snowflake have instructions for building that rotor, which translate to the rotor parts in a process that includes dozens of different components, Which has no benefit and degree in their creation? Are you implying that a clock does not oblige a creator, just as a snowflake does not oblige?

  140. A slight correction to my unclear wording in response 252:

    I meant to ask A. A definition of what things are for which a comparison can be made with the design of a dial clock.

  141. A'

    You must be wearing a watch made of a robot, made of proteins that God took out of his ribs. Right?

    Chutsamza, your comment 250 is the most delusional so far. Did you even understand what you wrote?

    "that even by planning you cannot gradually create a clock with hands"?!?!?!?! WTF?

    So how have watches been made to this day? Hocus Pocus? God would divide them in a surprise egg??
    Do you want a watchmaker's address?
    He will explain to you how to plan the production of a watch that will then be built gradually, according to the design.

    By the way, if you are offended by the things that are written to you, it is because you deserve it.
    You deserve it for insulting the intelligence of the other readers here.

  142. A. (244)

    Why do you think the design of inorganic systems that look like they were designed can't be compared to the design of a dial clock? Or in other words, define with what a comparison of the design of a dial clock can be made.

  143. A. (250)
    Well... we're all waiting for you to see it already. Show that a dial clock cannot be produced incrementally when each step on the way to the clock is functional in itself.

  144. Uncle-

    I'm trying to show that, even by planning, you can't create a clock with hands gradually, when every step is on the way to a functional clock in itself. It's easy and material without planning, that is, evolution. And it's nice that we insisted on that...

  145. R.H. Refai.M (246)

    I'm not sure.. The point is that anything that is functionally used to measure time, not only theoretically but practically, can be called a clock (a term invented by us, of course, but does it matter? After all, we gave names to many things in nature that existed long before we came and called them as we defined them ) and the name given to biological clocks is precisely because of their functionality.
    In any case, I assume that we agree that this is not what A meant. Therefore this is not such an important point for discussion and therefore I also understand why you did not mention their existence in your response.

  146. L A. Response 244
    you say:
    "Let's also assume that we want, by natural selection + changes, to reach a final product: in our case - a clock with hands. Is it possible, in your opinion, to reach the final product, without intelligent intervention, by mutations + natural selection?"

    If you "want something" it is no longer a natural choice! It is intelligent planning, which is helped by the laws of evolution.
    Evolution in nature has no desire to reach a final product. Each product is unique and one-time.
    You cannot "reach something". It's not about evolution. It's about logic.

  147. Camila (239)

    The biological clock, for example, is not really a clock. but only mentions in his imagination (that is, 'in the cyclical process') the operation of the clock.
    In order to invent a concept like a 'biological clock', there needs to be a 'clock' in nature.
    I guess the concept of a biological clock was invented after a clock already existed in nature. And naturally the mechanism (biological clock) got its name based on the similarity that exists between the operation of the clock and the periodicity of that mechanism (and others that are similar).

    I deliberately did not want to expand things and write about a biological clock, for example, in response 238.
    (Let there be no misunderstandings between us, I agree with everything you have written so far)

  148. withering-

    You claim that "design/organization" can be obtained by natural selection + mutations? Nice. Let's see if this is possible on a theoretical level - let's assume for a moment that we have material that is capable of reproduction and change. Let's also assume that we want, by natural selection + changes, to reach For the final product: in our case - a clock with hands. In your opinion, is it possible to reach the final product, without intelligent intervention, by mutations + natural selection?

    If your answer is positive, please describe the route for this

    If your answer is negative, then you have agreed that the design of a dial clock cannot be obtained by mutations + natural selection. By the way, it does not have to be a clock. A robot can also be considered.

    "Furthermore, there are inorganic systems in nature that look as if they were designed" - true. But they cannot be compared to the design of a dial clock.

    And as for Dawkins - please look at the blind watchman on page 9. There he explains about the design in nature.

  149. A. (241)

    a) I ignored.

    b) Natural selection means that there is a survival advantage for those who are more adapted to their environment. If a certain organization that exhibits what you might call "design" causes the organism to be more adapted to its environment then it is likely that it will survive better and produce more offspring and pass (and even spread) this trait on. Where do you see a logical fallacy here? Furthermore, there are inorganic systems in nature that look as if they were designed (such as crystals, snowflakes, sand dunes and countless other examples) Does this mean in your opinion that a supernaturally intelligent being produces each snowflake separately in a special factory because according to you, the natural creation of a designed thing is not possible? The conclusion you mentioned in section b. Yours is indeed a logical fallacy (yours) because you tried to link here two different things (such as survivals and design) in contrasting relationships and this without any justification.

    Despite my fondness for Dawkins, since I am involved in research on a daily basis, what counts for me are the facts I know from the laboratory and the scientific literature (not popular) as well as thought structures that are based on logic. Your attempts to rely on Dawkins' popular book are not very important for two main reasons: 1) Dawkins is not a scholar and therefore he is not an authority for me in matters that I understand in depth and have direct knowledge of (and proof of this is that I do not agree with all of Dawkins's words but "only" with most of them ). 2) I believe that you are distorting what Dawkins tried to convey in his book, and in light of your responses so far, this does not surprise me at all, since you seem unable to understand even the most basic logical fallacies in your words, so how will you understand the words of others?

  150. Again the probabilistic nonsense from someone who is not willing to risk his money for his understanding of probability?

  151. Camila, whether it was said sarcastically or not.

    Let's assume for a moment, contrary to all of the above, that a protein can indeed be created gradually. Let's assume that all the protein sites were indeed not created at once, but one after the other, in gradual evolution. 2 problems:

    A) Even a single site in a protein usually consists of 30-50 genetic letters. This is still a jump of 50 x 20 different possibilities. And maybe there will be time for one site to form once in a billion years. So how do you explain the presence of thousands of enzymes in only 14.5 billion years? And if you insist again that this is the failed argument of probability, then ignore it and skip to the next difficulty -
    b) Why is there design in nature? After all, natural selection pushes for survival, not design. Hence, this is a logical fallacy and therefore we should not accept systems that look as if they were designed. And if you think there is no design in nature, I again refer you to Dawkins, in the blind watch.

  152. By the way a.
    Where is the line between a robot and the cloud? I don't understand why you think the cloud is not some kind of robot.

  153. R.H. Rafa.M (238)

    Molecular clocks do exist... of course they don't come with a strap or hands or gears, but there are definitely a number of natural mechanisms that produce cycles in time and according to which other processes are adjusted (such as diurnal cycles). These mechanisms have of course developed evolutionarily and it is possible to identify their origin according to their molecular proximity to other components that exist in the organism.

    Who created A. This is a really good question…

  154. A (which is an abbreviation of Ahbel)

    You claim that God created everything.
    Does that include the claim that he created you too? If according to you God made you, then what did your parents do? Look at God when He made you?

    You claim that even a clock made of proteins and DNA is still a clock.
    Have you ever seen a watch like this? In your opinion, a clock can be created from DNA?
    The fact is that during the evolution of DNA, a mechanism was never created - as a result of the DNA change - that would assemble something like a clock.
    To produce something like a watch, human evolution is necessary first. Only after man has developed to a certain level can he create something like a watch for example.

    A robot created from DNA or proteins or a loaf with corn, will still be a robot.

    It doesn't matter how retarded you are, a robot made out of any material will still count as a robot.

    I know one hospital that treats its patients well, if you want I will expand...

  155. A. (233)
    Of course I want you to expand, it must be fascinating, as usual. I'm just imagining what you're going to write and I'm already half convinced that you must be right. Actually when I think about it... you present things so well, so eloquently and persuasively, which makes me feel that my comments are unnecessary. So expand, sure, feel free 🙂

  156. A:

    Clouds, the solar system, humans are all examples of complexity created in nature and explained by simpler laws.
    "Ignorance of the process is not here" Please tell me where it is here 

  157. Guy, how did you come to the above conclusion?

    Are you comparing robots to clouds?

    There is no lack of knowledge of the process here. On the contrary - we know that robots require a planner. Do you think not? Explain why...

  158. A:

    Let's go back a few hundred years.
    The answer to questions such as how clouds are formed, how mountains were formed, why volcanoes erupt, how caves were formed, how the variety of animals and plants in nature was formed, how the solar system was formed and many more phenomena from the natural world, they would all receive the same answer from you:
    "We don't know, so the assumption is that they are the product of intelligent planning."
    Several hundred years later we know that this assumption of yours is wrong in all these cases.
    What makes your assumption that "ignorance of the process leads to creation by an intelligent being" a logical or even reasonable assumption?

  159. No'
    Regarding the same robot - we will call it B for the purpose of the discussion.
    Did someone plant a memory for him? That "someone" of course must be an alien and again you take it for granted that he must have a planner, I claim that he just popped out of nowhere
    Without any planner and no intentions of any "someone".
    "Emerged from nothing" - if you don't believe in evolution, then you have another option for intelligent planning
    Which of course, like you, I am not required to prove, but only obliged to accept as correct as long as you do not prove to me that it is not (your method?)

  160. Camila, where is the line between a robot and a human being? I don't understand why a human is not a type of robot. A robot can be made of DNA and proteins, but it is still a robot. Calling it an "organism" or a "human" will not change its level of complexity. Even a watch A clock may be made of DNA and proteins, but it is still a clock.

    In addition, the fact that you succeeded in creating a person in some way, does not rule out the possibility of his creation in another way (evolution, for example) "- very true. Therefore, if before a robot of any kind, I must examine whether there is a natural process capable of bringing about its creation. If I did not find it - the premise is that it was planned. until proven otherwise.

    "of logical failures that you have already managed to present here and thus established your being a shame to human intelligence" - so why are you so upset? If there is indeed no truth in what I said, what does your fear stem from?

    By the way, there is a statistical problem even with the assumption that a protein *yes* can be created in an evolutionary step. If you want, I will expand...

  161. withering,

    What I want to do is talk about what is worth talking about, and find the times when there is no point in talking.
    As a believer in science, I always want to examine different angles, even if they are illusory, but they are worth examining (or you can only understand with those who speak in open communication and an agreed "protocol", this is the nature of mediation, to find the common denominator, to find the differences thereby to bridge.
    My criticism of both the creationist "facts" they bring and the way of communicating with them, is that I agree with you and others, and most of the time it's a waste of time.
    I am critical of us "evolutionists" that by turning a blind eye to stupidity, we forget the rare cases where there is a smell of lies in the words of the opposing side, and the complete disqualification burns the opportunity to learn something new.
    In another note to us, who continue to engage in an argument, the signs I offered indicate that it is an idle argument...

  162. A. (224)

    If you have created something that is identical in every way to a human, then you have created a human (sit with yourself and think carefully why you are trying to rape the word robot on the human). If you succeeded in creating man, then all you have proven is that man can be created even without the need for supernatural intervention, which eliminates the need for God or another supernatural entity and also strengthens the evolutionary model which is still the only relevant explanation.
    In addition, the fact that you succeeded in creating a person in some way (for example in your theoretical laboratory) does not rule out the possibility of his creation in another way (evolution for example) just as a diamond can be created naturally or artificially in a factory and using devices designed by an intelligent creator (humans in this case). If you wanted to claim that the fact that you succeeded in creating a human being leads to the conclusion that all human beings were created in the same way, then you have added another logical fallacy to the "magnificent" list of logical fallacies that you have already managed to present here, thereby establishing your being a disgrace to human intelligence.

  163. A. This is another dodge. You can't ignore the consequences of your words in the Iztala of "a curious person who wants to show both sides of the coin". It is impossible to teach or apply molecular biology, genetics or indeed any field of biology today with reference to an intelligent creator. So, if your approach is accepted, God forbid, we will not compete with the research and medicine done at the Ivy League universities, but at Kabul University. Don't be fooled, this is not a purely scientific debate, we are not debating here which version of string theory is correct. 220 comments would not have been written about it.

  164. R.H
    The only reason I insisted on this point is because other readers might also have understood from your response that the pagans here presented real claims against evolution and it is clear to me that we both agree that there were no such claims here. I hope that even without the need for further reference it will already be clear to the average reader that this is not what you meant.
    And again, forgive me if it seemed like I was attacking you in a petty or even personal way, that's not what I meant.

  165. R.H-

    Remove worry from your heart. I am in favor of the scientific truth just as much as you are. And the scientific truth shows that nucleotides do not tend to form in nature, that RNA or DNA chains do not form in nature, that replicating molecules do not form in nature, that complex proteins do not form in nature, and so on and on, As for the other millions of "nature" wonders.

    Ignoring all of these is not scientific, and it is the one that should keep sleep from your eyes, not the other way around.

    On the contrary, I am in favor of them studying evolution, for the many problems with it that I presented above. Presenting only one side of the coin is not a scientific approach.

  166. Camila, you read one sentence and got caught up in it. Please look at the rest of the discussion and maybe my response won't bother you.

    A, maybe for you this discussion is light science. But for me and I assume for others who answered you, it is very significant. We are very concerned as parents that people who think like you are sitting in the Ministry of Education and determining our child's curriculum. We are very worried as scientists that people with opinions like yours will decide on research budgets and we are very worried as Israelis that ignorant people like you will degrade us from the advancement of science in the direction of the Taliban.

  167. R. H. (222)
    I certainly agree with you about the jarring lack of positive evidence for an intelligent designer.
    The correction you made from "proofs" to "arguments" is also very important because of what is implied in the first wording. However, I still do not think that relevant negative arguments have been presented here (those that do not include a fallacy on the logical level, for example) against evolution, so your response annoyed me and so did the revised version. Do you think any valid argument has been made here? (This is not a peevish question, I want to understand why you wrote what you wrote the way you wrote - that is, do you think such a negative argument exists).

  168. Camila, what and why are you upset? All in all, this is a light scientific discussion. Take everything in a good spirit.

    And for reconciliation. My last attempt to understand what the commotion is about:

    Pay attention to what you said in response 167:

    "We know that all robots are the product of intelligent planning, therefore a robot (and it doesn't matter which one at the moment) is necessarily a product of intelligent planning. "- Well. And if I create a robot that is identical to a human in everything (replicating, made of DNA, etc.). Won't you call it a robot? Why?

    The comparison you make between an organic creature and objects designed by man (such as urns, watches, cars and robots) is an illegitimate comparison because of the properties of the materials they are made of and hence the possibilities of their being formed naturally." Apart from a super complex replication system, the chances of which are zero.

    The fact that there is no physical chemical mechanism that enables such a natural formation regarding any individual component or complex in those objects is the one that proves the existence of their intelligent designer and creator." - There is also no known physical chemical mechanism for the formation of replicating DNA. So?"

    End of quote.

    Now show me where the lies and fraud are. I'm all ears. Maybe I missed something? I'd be happy if you put me on the spot.

    to Dan-

    "In my memory, a second ago I was an iron ore in the ground and suddenly I was assembled and received life"
    My question is: would you take his words seriously? If not, then you are contradicting your claim" - it's impossible to know. If the technology is so high, how come someone didn't implant his memory into it? I also didn't understand how this contradicts something I said.

  169. A small addition to the comment to wonder:
    I forgot, of course, to mention the fact that in nature matter and energy are created from nothing without interruption.
    This is a conclusion of quantum theory that has been verified by measurements.
    Casimir Effect, for example, is a consequence of this fact.
    The matter and energy created in this way are also usually ionized, but that does not change the fact that they were created.
    the hypothesis about it Hawking radiation based on a situation in which they may remain.

  170. withering,
    When I wrote that "apart from negative evidence against evolution, what positive evidence do you have for the intelligent designer?" I meant negative charges and not evidence. All the arguments raised here for an intelligent creator are by attempts to rule out evolution without any positive argument for the existence of the creator. As I wrote to A, an argument along the lines of "an intelligent creator exists because evolution is wrong" is a logical fallacy. Beyond that, of course, evolution has not been disproved.

    In any case, A. As far as I'm concerned, I've exhausted the discussion. Remain in your belief that man is a robot (how do you even define a robot? Why does a robot require planning and something as complex as the movement of currents in the ocean does not?)
    Also keep thinking that there is a creator who makes defective things (kids with cancer are his mistake? Defective software?) and good luck.

  171. No'
    A robot in the sense that humanity has defined as a robot is obviously a loving creator and we both know who the creator is, the human being and in no way would we imagine that some spirit created the robot, which is understandable because the human has already created robots and therefore the answer given.
    But, let's say we tested the robot and found that the technology from which it is built is dozens of meters away from human capabilities and at the same second the robot opens its mouth and in Hebrew Tzacha
    Says: "In my memory, a second ago I was an iron ore in the ground and suddenly I came together and got life" (familiar scenario?)
    My question is: would you take his words seriously? If not, then you contradict your claim.

  172. splendor:
    Although Kamila already answered you, I would like to clarify one thing:
    Your words are simply insolence!
    The entire scientific enterprise is nothing more than a repeated, ever-increasing examination of all theories.
    This is the strictest framework in the universe for examining attitudes.
    So now you come and argue against those who represented the position of science who do not examine their positions?!

    It seems to me that the one who did not examine his positions in this case was actually you!

    Here too - Kamila's answers are good and I just want to add a little, without repeating what has already been said and I agree with you:
    A. What is "being created by itself"? When two protons collide in a particle accelerator and their kinetic energy turns into matter - is it self-created matter? And if it happens inside the sun - is it self-created matter? In fact - so far we have no example at all that someone can even create matter! All the examples we have are of material that "created itself". Of course, the expression "by itself" is not appropriate because it is a matter of rolling back and forth between mass and energy and between chemical compounds and others.
    B. Molecules were not created by the method of evolution. Regarding the first living cells - no one knows and probably we will never know because we cannot move in time. All that can be done is to describe probable processes - that is - those that might have led to the formation of the first living cell, but there is probably no way to know that this is exactly what happened. Several such processes have indeed been described And here is one of them
    C. Don't you feel that there is an internal contradiction in your demand? How can someone cause something to form naturally? After all, his very intervention is defined by you as something unnatural. Right?
    What did happen - and not infrequently - was that scientists observed animals and observed the changes that occurred in them naturally.
    Beyond that - even when scientists change a gene artificially, they do so subject to the laws of nature

  173. Have you ever thought about the prophetic ability of the person who started using the marking 0A?

    Isn't it time to block this idiot?
    Look how much time this robot man wastes!

  174. A. (212) The swindler and the liar

    Man is not a robot of any kind. Only a rogue like you will try to present as if this is what I meant and will further increase and use this "assertion" of mine (which has never been given that man, and in fact every organism or part of an organism that exists, is by definition not a robot as is clearly evident from response 167) and this is to establish the crooked system of thinking your. Perhaps you can practice law, a profession in which the truth does not play an important role, but in everything related to philosophical discussion and related to science in particular, you are a shame to intelligence and a shame to the basic moral values ​​of discussion culture and human-friend relations. You're a crook and a liar, those are the only things you've been able to prove in your last comments to anyone who still had any doubts.

  175. The last Camilla:
    Logical loops do not indicate that you are wrong. Because the same loops can be applied to your arguments yourself respectively.
    Such loops indicate that there is a gap. You need faith to generalize many things that will always be found outside the bounds of what can be proven.
    In addition, proofs do not provide reasons, they simply indicate a factual relationship that exists between facts. But the paths of proof are like spider webs in a forest of branches. They are very thin and thin so that no one can see the whole picture.
    And so you need faith in the assumptions you draw from these web paths.
    So the main question is not existence or existence of a creator being.
    The main question is that you need faith in an order that is always much greater than it has proof of. You need faith to explain to yourself the questions about the nature of these disappearing spaces.

  176. wondering (209)

    Thanks. Beauty is in the eyes of the reader, I actually think Guy Sela writes not bad at all.

    a) As a rule, in the natural sciences there are no proofs (with the exception of proofs based on mathematics and statistics, for example in models). I think your question should be whether there is an observation of self-generated matter. I do not know such an observation. The closest thing to this is the spontaneous formation of pairs of subatomic particles and virtual particles, but I don't think that's what you mean... pay attention to the problematic premise of your words. You are asking if there is anything created without a creator and thereby assuming by default the existence of the creator. The creator himself is also something, therefore it is bound that even that creator should have a creator and God forbid it repeats ad infinitum. If this something (the creator you are referring to) does not have a creator and has always existed then there is no reason to assume that a similar mechanism is also relevant to other things apart from it and then the question arises as to why we would then prefer your something and not to other things. Currently, the Big Bang model is the most suitable for the observations and facts collected over the years both in terms of a mechanistic explanation for the development of things as they developed and in terms of predictions that arose from it and were verified. What happened before that "big bang" no one really knows. Does not knowing anything necessarily entail the existence of God? Not really. God is a legitimate "model" just as much as other models, which may sound far-fetched to you, are legitimate as long as they are not supported by evidence that can be tested using the scientific method.

    b) You mean the part called abiogenesis is the beginning of life from inanimate matter. There is currently no complete mechanism that can be reproduced in the laboratory to produce a living cell from an organic "broth". There are many observations and evidence that support the hypothesis that the process started spontaneously (the first replicating formations) and continued from there according to the principles of evolution. Does this prove there is no God? Of course not. Does not knowing the full mechanism at this moment necessitate the existence of God. Of course not.

    c) It starts to smell like a question that someone here asked before... I don't know what you mean when you write "change" but if the test for change is according to the definitions of evolution then definitely yes, this has been done in laboratories countless times especially in bacteria and yeasts as well as in industry (in the dairy sector for example) ) and also more generally in animal domestication. In all cases according to the principles of evolution, i.e. relying on genetic variation and a given selection regime.

    Science does not contradict God but, and this is an important point, God is inconsistent with science. The intelligent man can live in peace with science as his language and with some divine concept as long as he knows how to make a complete separation between the two fields (see for example Prof. Sompolinski). The attempt to present a synthesis between the two things is doomed to failure in advance and Michael here presented it beautifully more than once. Evolution does not claim or pretend to say anything about God, the fear (perhaps not yours) of most religions against evolution (and also from other parts of science throughout history and today) is from the process in which science narrows and pushes the field of validity of the concept of God. This is not done on purpose but is simply a direct consequence of the results. Of course God can do whatever he wants including "working" on us. Personally, I find this argument very, very inelegant. There are enough excellent explanations of this theory on the Internet and also a lot of answers to the questions that arise from it. Successfully.

  177. And simply:

    Today we know manufacturing processes for robots, so our first assumption would be that they were created in one of these processes - and that is where research investigating the question of where the robot came from will be directed.
    Regarding proteins - do you know a factory that produces proteins? The only process known today for the production of complexity in nature is evolution, so that is where the research aimed at answering the question of how proteins were created

  178. Camila, I may not have understood you correctly. You said:

    "We know that all robots are the product of intelligent planning, therefore a robot (and it doesn't matter which one at the moment) is necessarily the product of intelligent planning"

    And if man is a type of robot (an organic robot replicates for that matter), then you admit that man obliges a planner. And that's exactly what I argued. So there are no differences of opinion between us.

    to Guy-

    "Do you know of a single case of a robot that does not meet the first options I put up? Is there a robot that no one knows how it was created? I would love for you to refer me to such a robot" - yes. The person. But as Camila insisted, a robot, of any kind, requires a creator.

    So let's conclude:

    a) We demonstrated that a person is a type of robot. And a robot, as we know, requires a creator.
    b) We demonstrated that certain proteins could not have been created in an evolutionary process.
    c) I showed that there is an experiment that supports these claims.

    And what have we seen that the counter theory has to offer?

    Phrases like: "We don't know exactly how the process happened" or "We'll probably never know". Blessed is the believer...

  179. A:

    You asked an excellent question that does require consideration - does a robot require a creator?
    And in this test we will think about what I would do if you showed me a robot and I had to tell you the origin of the robot and research the subject scientifically. Below is the order of raising the hypotheses and confirming/disproving them:
    First I would ask you where you got the robot. If you tell me "I am the person who built the robot" I would ask you the favor of showing me how you did it or at least explain to me schematically (meaning you must describe to me the model according to which this robot was built). If you tell me "I bought the robot at such and such a store or such and such a laboratory" I will go to the store and ask there where the robot came from and so on until I reach the engineer who designed it and the factory that produced the robot and he will explain to me how the robot was built.
    If you tell me "I found him in the middle of the desert". Here I will start investigating people who live in the area, if the people can direct me to the man who built the robot - Dino. If not, I will start looking for evidence that people lived in the area who once knew how to make robots - that is, I will look for evidence that some ancient culture had the knowledge to make robots (for example diagrams that show the plans).
    If I don't find any such evidence and the robot is a technology that is completely different from everything that humanity is known to produce - then we have a mystery here! We don't know how the robot arrived (in this case we might ask the robot itself?)
    Do you know of one case of a robot that does not meet the first options I put up? Is there a robot that no one knows how it was created? I would love for you to refer me to such a robot

  180. A. (208) You really are a lost cause. When you say you're rewording a question but asking the exact same question then it's not a new wording. An object that is the same as a robot can only be a robot, therefore you changed the question "Can a robot be created by itself" to the question "Can a robot be created by itself" and for that as mentioned you received an answer. I'm not trying to understand your logic anymore because it simply doesn't exist. You are disgusting.

  181. Kamila, well done for the explanations and knowledge. It's interesting to see someone who writes at such a high level (by the way, you write much better than the author of the article, maybe write one yourself?)
    A few small questions, because I'm really interested to know.
    A. Is there any proof of matter that can form by itself? Or at least without any creator?
    B. According to the method of evolution, how were the primary molecules and cells formed?
    third. As I understand from Guy Sala's article, he goes back and proves that there is a similarity in the development created by the proteins. Is there evidence to the contrary? Have scientists ever managed to develop or change any gene, by natural evolution? Is there any living cell that has changed over the years in which scientists study evolution?

    I will admit and I will not be ashamed, because I define myself among those who believe in God, and I do not think for a moment that this belief can be refuted by the theory of evolution, (if God is indeed not limited, he could create the world as he pleased. He could also create fossils hundreds of thousands of years and the like.) But I'm interested in understanding this theory.

  182. withering…

    "You received an answer in response 167.
    Don't you have an iota of self-respect?"-Here is my response to your response from 167:

    "We know that all robots are the product of intelligent planning, therefore a robot (and it doesn't matter which one at the moment) is necessarily a product of intelligent planning. It's a tautology for its own sake. "-No problem. I'll rephrase it without tautology: Can an object identical to a robot be created by itself? Your answer?...

    The comparison you make between an organic creature and objects designed by man (such as urns, watches, cars and robots) is an illegitimate comparison because of the properties of the materials they are made of and hence the possibilities of their being formed naturally." of humans?

    The fact that there is no physical chemical mechanism that enables such a natural formation regarding any individual component or complex in those objects is the one that proves the existence of their intelligent designer and creator." - There is also no known physical chemical mechanism for the formation of replicating DNA. So?"

    End of quote.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen answers to the above questions yet. So I'm the one being ignored here?

    And now we will wait for your answer. No evasions this time...

  183. Ziv (205)

    To create a common language with creationists of any kind you have to adopt patterns of thinking and behavior that include circular arguments, logical fallacies and ignoring known facts. I don't see why anyone would want to create a common language at such a poor level. Do you really recognize a symmetry here in the willingness of the commenters to address the substance of the matter? (This is at least what is implied by what you wrote, especially in the last sentence.
    Re-read all the comments and please show on what basis you compare the level of discussion for example at A. And mine.

  184. God is an invention of humans about 5000 years ago and since then we are stuck with this superstition, tired of it, it's time to invent something new and interesting.

  185. A. (202)
    "I repeatedly ask a simple question that gets kind of ignored - does a robot obligate a creator? Your answer?"

    You received an answer in response 167.
    Don't you have any self respect?
    It's a classic case of the scumbag in a scumbag. After ignoring specific questions that were presented to him time and time again and on the other hand he received answers to all his slanderous statements a. Continues the liar's tactics.

  186. It seems to me that the debate with the Biratani is not progressing because they don't speak a common language... (sometimes because they don't want to...)
    They do not define what they agree on, and what they don't (for example, is only the biological evidence unacceptable (fossils?) or the whole idea of ​​inheritance (genes, inheritance of traits, family ties?) Are the laws of physics/chemistry agreed upon by the parties, and what about mathematics and logic?
    , in what ways can the solutions found be examined, (is the solution scientific, or only philosophical (despite my love for philosophy, a scientific debate about the "non-period" of a scientific theory, must be examined in the rules of science, if it is assumed that the rules of science are wrong... I have nothing to add for discussion)…

    Every time the arguments go to the wrong corners, so it seems that neither side wants to examine their positions properly, and the debate is futile...

  187. Quite a treat! Did not you have enough?!
    A. (also known as "Puppy Treats" and ZIANGHUA) is one of the oldest diggers in the Atheism forum in Pozum, one who no matter how much certain topics are explained to him (the robot for example) comes back and asks them again and again in different situations and to different people.

    Have a good rest, have a rest.

  188. A,
    A robot requires a creator, life is not a robot.
    Broken software is sold, life is not software.
    Even if the chance of any protein being formed is low, it is formed anyway.
    The theory of protein chances does not know a huge and main part of the ancient conditions in which the chances were not low.
    The chance of hydrogen formation also does not exist today, and it is formed.
    What you are being told is to deal with the positive claims regarding evolution, and present positive claims, proofs of existence, of that intelligence.

  189. To R.H., Kamila and all the rest-

    I repeatedly ask a simple question that gets kind of ignored - does a robot obligate a creator? Your answer?

    And again I'll ask, have you seen a car manufacturer that produces something broken?" - haven't you heard of software sold with bugs? devices sold with defects?

    ” Why is there a tailbone? "-Why not? Have you tried going without her? Does she bother you?


    Again you claim logical fallacies, evidence that is not evidence and other claims that are not claims. I ask again (this time who-knows-how much) isn't a robot evidence of a planner? You probably understood that it is.

    "The conclusion is absurd from the point of view that the generalization of this argument implies that if we don't know how to explain something, then it inevitably proves something else that is not related to the first thing" - a planning towing robot. As long as you don't know how to explain how the robot was created, the premise that reason was involved. That's how it works Science. Don't you think so?

    ” He relies here on the obviously wrong assumption that the interactions between atoms and molecules are completely random just like in a blind draw of balls from a pocket. "-Very true. And scientists also claim that. Do you disagree with them? I suggest you look again at the book, The Blind Watchman" chapter three. There Dawkins explains at length what the chances are of the formation of the globin protein. Do you disagree with his explanation there? Can you explain why?

    "Of course, under the same statistical model that Abused It can be easily shown (reaction 66 for example) that a table salt crystal cannot be obtained from a solution of chlorine and sodium ions, simply because the number of possible arrangements of the atoms so that they do not produce the "legal" lattice of sodium-chlorine-sodium-chlorine are so many "The analogy is not correct. The salt crystal is formed from simple physical weights. You can repeat them over and over and get the same result. This is in complete contrast to a test tube or an ocean containing nucleotides and Xa. If you put Xa into a test tube (or an entire ocean from my side) and try to create What is a sequence of globin. You will have to wait about a trillion years squared. The reason - there are no physical constraints for the creation of the sequence of globin. Any amino acid can be considered. And this can be easily confirmed in the laboratory.

    "As for the last straw he is trying to cling to (the stupid robot argument) is another example of a poor attempt to create a distraction" - and here is another evasion...

  190. Thanks, but since I don't believe in God in any version they don't call him, I allow myself to devote my limited time to improving the site.
    Beyond that, thank you for your attention, any additional link will be considered an advertisement, and its place is not in the comments system.
    In any case, just so you know, I filtered advertisements of sects, including Christians, on Google AdSense, even though this causes me a financial loss, I believe that this is a site that calls for rationality, at least in the small part of God. (borrowed idiom of course) this, you can avoid these publications.
    my father

  191. Urantia, the system detected your comment as spam. And unfortunately it can be said that she was right. However, I released it so that the readers also understand what kind of spam it is. Another cult mumbo jumbo, it's a shame to even translate such a thing.

  192. To Kamila, to A. and others.
    I get the impression that a. He is a robot and not one of the sophisticated ones out there.
    Today there are robots that receive data and manage to respond accordingly and update themselves.
    At A. There is no development. There is a feeling that he has a bug in the logic settings and he is stuck in a loop.
    am I wrong ?

  193. Forget the Religion - Evolution conflict

    Read the Papers of Urantia
    And get your answers


    The Urantia Papers are a collection of transcribed sessions with extraterrestrial entities, mostly non-material, which describe the structure and organization of the Universe, it's various races and political structure as well as a detailed history of the creation and evolution of humans.

    Although they were written sometime before 1932, I first became aware of the Urantia Papers in 1971. Over the years I have read and re-read the material and always find it both comprehensive and thorough in its concept. In 1975 I was fortunate to have met and interviewed Emma Christensen, who was present during the transfer of knowledge and actually transcribed most of the material from its sources. I will try to recall my conversation with her to explain what I learned about the origins of this remarkable collection of information. Some of the minor details may be incorrect, but the actual story was unforgettable.

    The founder of the Kellogg business was a philanthropist named John Kellogg [below: right]. He and his wife took care of many orphan children, sometimes legally adopting them and often not. But most of the children were well cared for and inherited the family name. One of these children was Wilfred Kellogg.

    We know very little about Wilfred other than the fact that he was not well schooled and suffered from some mental peculiarities. John Kellogg sought help for Wilfred from a well known Mental Hygiene specialist in Chicago, Dr. William Sadler, who was married to his sister, Lena Kellogg Sadler, a prominent surgeon. As the story is told, Wilfred suffered from "spells" during which he would speak in a different voice and use language that apparently made no sense. Dr. Sadler was asked to intervene as a favor to the family.

    According to Emma Christensen, Wilfred appeared normal when he was not having these spells, although he was lacking in education and schooling. But once in the office of Dr. Sadler and frequently in Wilfred's bedroom as he slept, he had his peculiar spells and began to talk in a different voice, using excellent grammar and vocabulary — much to the surprise of his observers.

    Wilfred and Dr. Sadler had many conversations covering a myriad of topics which included science, philosophy and religion. Dr. Sadler attempted to explore the depth and scope of this "sleeping subject" and soon enlisted the assistance of other intellectuals, fluent in various disciplines and sciences, to query Wilfred during these spells. It should be mentioned that when Wilfred came out of these states he was totally ignorant of what had transpired and resumed his normal consciousness.

    Eventually there were many dozens of observers who were studying Wilfred. They would question him about such matters as physics, history, biology and astronomy and verified that his knowledge of these topics was complete and even futuristic. It was about this time that "Christy" (Emma Christensen), Dr. Sadler's adopted daughter and stenographer, was asked to transcribe the various inquisitions. Then it happened.


    Good luck

  194. R.H. (184)
    You wrote: "...besides negative evidence against evolution, what positive evidence do you have for the intelligent designer?"

    really? It is implied from your words that someone has shown proof against evolution here. I would appreciate it if you would point to the response in which such proof was presented. As far as I know so far, the main argument voiced here by those people is: It seems to me that the accepted explanation is illogical => it has been proven that there is an intelligent planner, sorry, God, sorry, the God of the Jews of course (when it is still not clear of which denomination and court).

  195. Dan (186):
    If you read the comments from the beginning, you must already know that you are a. Not interested in logic and scientific facts. His "proof" of the existence of an intelligent planner relies on the following failed set of arguments: 1) We don't know how something happened and it seems (to him) terribly strange and improbable, and from this he concludes -> there is intelligent planning (probably God, although he seems to be a little ashamed of it Because he avoids again and again avoids questions about the nature of that intelligent planner). The conclusion is absurd from the point of view that the generalization of this argument implies that if we do not know how to explain something then it inevitably proves something else that is not related to the first thing and is not supported by any evidence that can be examined by scientific method. Beyond the logical fallacy already at this stage, he adds fallacy upon fallacy by explaining why he thinks that the proposed explanations for the phenomena he is talking about cannot be relevant, and this while basing himself on an incredibly stupid statistical calculation that "proves" in the same breath that even trivial things that happen every day in the world cannot to occur. He relies here on the patently incorrect assumption that the interactions between atoms and molecules are completely random just like in a blind draw of marbles. He provides hair-raising numbers about the number of possibilities that can be arranged (amino acids or nucleotides) and he just ignores the scientific facts that show that he calculates his calculations using an incorrect statistical model (a fact that Michael drew his attention to several times and was, as usual, ignored). It is understood that under the same statistical model that Abused It can be easily shown (reaction 66 for example) that a table salt crystal cannot be obtained from a solution of chlorine and sodium ions, simply because the number of possible arrangements of the atoms so that they do not produce the "legal" lattice of sodium-chlorine-sodium-chlorine are so many In relation to the number of legal arrangements that the numbers a. presented pale in their smallness. In the same way, if we consider the chances of the trillions of water molecules arranging themselves exactly in the shape of a snowflake, we will find that for all practical purposes this is impossible. But wait, it does happen... on a daily basis... (I guess the good dwarf makes them one by one in his workshop somewhere where she is). The rest of the logical fallacies and ignorance of scientific facts are detailed in additional responses.
    In short, Dan, you probably understand by now that you don't need to expect Ma. To meet the minimum criteria for any discussion, especially in the discussion of scientific issues. There is no doubt that his cart is full, full of straw and stubble, so it doesn't matter how much we try to present him with a solid brick (like a logical argument system for example) there will be no room in his cart.
    As for the last straw he's trying to cling to (the stupid robot argument) it's another example of a poor attempt at distraction based on puns and the associations they conjure up. The logical and factual basis is not that different from this one (see response 167) and in fact it includes another logical fallacy that I am already tired of pointing out in light of the conduct of the discussion so far. If anyone is interested in addressing in a matter-of-fact way the criticism leveled at this series of failures, and all within the framework of the laws of logic and scientific facts, I would be happy to respond.

  196. By the way, Guy, there is no virus "created by us", at most there are viruses that we changed or copied, we haven't invented anything new yet. I agree with you that the diseases do not constitute conclusive evidence for the non-existence of a planner, but I have not yet read in this entire long discussion any evidence for his existence apart from the worn-out and mistaken argument which, like Camila's article, is a sharp logical fallacy "evolution cannot be true and therefore there is a planner".
    I brought up the matter of diseases and many other questions such as whether the mutations that are happening today are also the fruit of his planner to demonstrate that what evolution gives simple and clear answers to the "theory" of the planner has no answer, even a partial one.

  197. R. H. (184)

    You wrote: "...besides negative evidence against evolution, what positive evidence do you have for the intelligent designer?"

    really? Do you think there was a proof here (or even a "strong" argument) against evolution based on the laws of logic and verifiable scientific facts? Anna, please tell me where and in what response such proof was presented?

  198. A.
    As usual dodging.
    Don't say anything. Say what you do. How do you positively prove the existence of a planner? If I show (and I've already shown you countless times) that proteins are formed in a gradual way, it will not say anything about your planner. After all, even if you prove that all the proteins were created "at once" you still haven't proven that there was a designer's intention.

    And again I will ask, have you seen a car manufacturer that produces something broken? So why are there genetic diseases? And, why is there a tailbone? Have you seen a motorcycle manufacturer put a roof on a motorcycle?

  199. Guy and Dan-

    "In order to show planning you must present evidence to the planner. "-A robot is not evidence of a planner?

    "If you think there is no level in the creation of proteins, start by asking how they were created, think of ways to investigate, look for evidence, present a theory and an experiment that allows it to be confirmed." - Take globin and remove the active site from it. The globin will not be able to bind oxygen, nor release it. The experiment My claim is confirmed. Now let's see what kind of experiment supports your hypothesis.

  200. Dan Shamir:
    Intelligent planning would not have allowed A.

    By the way - in connection with the current discussion and in connection with recent cases - do you know why the Torah begins with the letter B?

    Because God knew in advance that it was forbidden to start with a

  201. To A. 186
    "In order to disprove the planning claim, you must show the degree in proteins that I proposed. A refutation that I have been waiting for since the beginning of the thread (Camila, have you disappeared?)

    Come on, you also know that there is a fallacy of a premise here
    Because there is really no need to refute at all what has not yet been proven.

  202. A:

    In order to show planning you must show evidence of planning. Who planned what, how did they plan? You can come up with countless stories that are worth as much as the skin of garlic.
    If you think there is no level in the creation of proteins, start with the question of how they were created, think of ways to investigate, look for evidence, present a theory and an experiment that allows it to be confirmed. Any layman is capable of jumping straight to conclusions, but this does not make the conclusions valid

  203. R.H-

    Guy gave you a good answer. The fact that there are diseases (coccyx? Come on...) does not disprove the designer's claim. Just as a broken down car does not disprove the fact that it was planned.

    In order to disprove the planning claim, you must show the degree in proteins that I proposed. A rebuttal that I have been waiting for since the beginning of the thread (Camila, have you disappeared?)

    And no, I did not grow up in a religious home...

  204. R.H.:
    I haven't followed the whole discussion, I hope I'm not recycling ideas.
    Intelligent planning does not require a world without diseases or animals that do not go extinct - see the artificial viruses and the atomic bomb. If a planner had previously planned something from the world we know, it might have been an experiment that got out of control. As you claim, there is no evidence of such a thing, so the assumption that it was so was tantamount to fairy tales.
    There is an interesting point (which is quite obvious but deserves attention) that the supporters of intelligent planning point out. There are many parallels between the complexity created in nature and that created by humans. These receipts do require an explanation. But unlike the supporters of intelligent design, I would say that what unites them is that both are the product of an evolutionary process and not that both are the product of intelligent design
    I think that the "intelligent design" of cars, for example, is much more blind and based on simple principles than it appears on the surface. I don't get the sharp distinction between human design and evolution

  205. A.
    This is not a theological question at all. I will return like a parrot again, because I received nothing from you except evasions. Do you think that if he had planned there would have been genetic diseases? Were there any extinct animals?

    By the way, you also did not answer the question of whether your planner is being created at the moment? If so where is he? If not, where do new varieties come from?

    Church of Wisdom and A,
    Apart from negative evidence against evolution, what positive evidence do you have for intelligent design?
    After all, your whole thesis is based on negation and not on facts. Don't forget that even if evolution is wrong it still doesn't prove its existence.
    Be honest with yourself, you just grew up in a religious home. After all, if you were raised in a Muslim home, you would passionately defend Islam. You came to the debate with a prejudice in the first place and you don't let the facts confuse you. Once, sit down with yourself and really look at the facts objectively, try to put the emotion aside and then you will understand, you are not stupid, just biased.

  206. The snoozer from the church is so rocking you will see this link so feel free to watch.
    Dr. Michael Shermer the evolutionist versus Dr. Kent Hobind the creationist in an organized public confrontation at the university:

    You are invited to read Hobind's various lies in the links already presented.

  207. It seems that A and his ilk are not even interested in trying to understand. I read all the comments and counter-comments from the beginning. All the questions are answered and he ignores what he is not comfortable with, and returns with his straw man arguments.

    At least in America they also lose in court.
    Attached is a fascinating lecture by Ken Miller about the last round...

  208. Sorry an error.
    For some reason I thought I saw that the first speaker was not Michael Shermer, but he actually was.

  209. By the way, if the church had looked at the link he himself brought he would have seen that there is no Michael Shermer there.

  210. Mercy on this hobind:

    And all this - even without referring to the very convincing article that appears here on the website:

    His reference to the ultraviolet light that the blood vessels supposedly protect against is especially ridiculous. For some reason he assumes that the blood vessels themselves will not be damaged by the ultraviolet light.

    There is a unit that goes like this:
    What animal barks with its tail?

    The answer is, of course, "dog" because the dog does not remove its tail to bark.

    I couldn't help but be reminded of this upon hearing Hovind's explanation of the role of the pelvic bones in the whale (as if there are no animals like fish that can mate without a pelvis)

    Those who want to see more evidence of evolution from entanglements are invited to read Dawkins' book - The greatest Show on Earth or the wonderful book about Abu Davre called Endless Forms. Most Beautiful

  211. R.H

    ” Would a planner have created a tailbone for us? Would a designer have created degenerate limbs for whales? "

    It is simply a lie and you are shooting yourself in the foot by repeating these lies:

    This point receives specific reference in the televised confrontation with the evolutionist Michael Shermer

  212. to R.H-

    You again ask theological questions (why are there diseases in the world, etc.). Try to stay in empirical science.

    , I could add another 100 of these here, but you know, I hope that all these questions have a simple and clear answer in evolution. On the other hand, the creationists will evade and say "the Creator's intentions are hidden" - who told you this nonsense?

    ” What if I prove to you that a random + selection process can write War and Peace in a few minutes and then change it to the Bible in a few more minutes? Will it be a big enough change for you?" - come on. First you must determine what is the minimum number of letters from which the selection starts. And here is the problem - one or two letters will not give anything, if the selection is supposed to start from 100 letters or more.

    Let's take a protein like globin to understand the problem. Globin contains 2 necessary sites: an active site and an inner pocket that protects it.

    If you changed some 50-60 genetic letters (a jump of 50^20), natural selection still won't apply to it, you haven't created the second site yet.

    And hence the analogy to selection by each addition of a letter does not simulate the real world.

    to the wonderful pharynx-

    No one claimed that a whole cell was created in a blow. It was intentional for Camila, who apparently thinks that no one calculates chances.

    "There are no mutations in a robot. In organisms, yes" - you probably didn't see what I wrote down. I said in the interpretation that it is a robot composed of DNA and proteins, and a mechanism for replication and inheritance. That means that the robot also has mutations in it at my direction.

  213. The wonderful A.

    No one claimed that a cell was "created in Mecca". It is clear that this is a mechanism that requires fine tuning.
    It seems that your "refutations" are clearly unscientific.
    Mutations do not occur in a robot. In organisms yes.
    Mutations occur randomly….

    I started thinking about whether to address all your stuff, but you are so irrelevant it would just be ridiculous to continue. Your answers are not really to the problems you are facing. You are deceiving on a whim.
    I would appreciate it if you would stop commenting here.

  214. A.
    Again you dodge. If you assume the existence of a planner, this has much more difficult consequences and questions, what if I see a robot in the desert?"
    . Would a planner have created a tailbone for us? Would a designer have created degenerate limbs for whales? Would he have created extinct animals? Does he take an animal whose entire systems are carnivorous and make it eat a rare species of bamboo? By the way, her name is Panda and she is almost extinct. A creator would have created the dodo chicken that lived in Tasmania until people and dogs arrived and it was exterminated within a few years. Would an intelligent creator create viruses that would destroy the creatures he created?

    I could add another 100 of these here, but it is clear to you, I hope that all these questions have a simple and clear answer in evolution. On the other hand, the creationists will evade and say "the Creator's intentions are hidden" or in other words we have no clue.

    Second point, are you saying that random changes + selection can't make big changes? What if I prove to you that a random + selection process can write War and Peace in a few minutes and then change it to the Bible in a few more minutes? Will this be a big enough change for you?
    What do you think is the chance that a book like the Bible will be written randomly?

  215. to Camila -

    You repeat the same sentences over and over again ("logical fallacies, logical fallacies") and in fact you are the one who ignores my detailed and reasoned explanations.

    I ask again, in the most obvious way - can an object identical to a robot be created by itself? Your answer?

    On the subject of statistics, I gave you more than one example "-me too. And even though I sent you to the evolution books (the blind watchman - chapter three, climbing the improbable mountain) and I have not yet received an answer from you. Your ignoring betrays your answer.


    "No selection works on a car." - Not even on DNA, a complex that reproduces it has not yet been created. And even then no, a system for protein synthesis has not yet been created.

    "But if we were to produce car parts and change a little each time. Every time something came out that we liked, we would remove everything else. You would very quickly get a 1960 Beetle, a 2010 Ferrari, and even an airplane if you wait long enough." - Are you sure of your words? Refutation - an airplane engine is not a car engine. If you try to go from a car to an airplane You will have to change the engine, propellers, wings, propeller supports, various connections to both the engine and the propellers, screws, different wiring and what not. In short - you cannot change from a car to an airplane, even if they were duplicated and subject to natural selection.

    "Look what a change man has created by the selection of wolves until the creation of the Chihuahua" - first of all, in my opinion, you are making the mistake that the dog species are indeed from the wolf family. But even if so, as far as I know there are no different genes between the dog species, only Different alleles. All dogs (both poodle and wolf) carry the same genes.

    But the changes in the dogs happened in an A-K-R-A-Y way! You and many of the creationists miss the power of the combination of random change + non-random selection that can in a relatively short time create wonders" - again, depends on the size of the required change.

    "As for the competing theory, you are evasive again. What is the nature of the planner? Why are things not perfect? Why are animals extinct? Have you ever seen a car manufacturer selling wooden wheels? So why did your designer create an animal like the extinct dinosaurs? "-Irrelevant to the matter. You can ask a thousand and one questions about the planner. It has nothing to do with the creation of a robot -> therefore a planner. If I find a robot in the desert, I know that someone designed it. I don't care who did it.

    "Then stop coming up with all kinds of absurd statistical calculations" - what is absurd? The fact that all biologists agree that there is no chance of the formation of an entire cell at once?

  216. A 166,

    No selection works on a car. But if we were to produce car parts and change a little each time. Every time something came out that we liked we would get rid of everything else you would very quickly get from a 1960 Beetle to a 2010 Ferrari and also a plane if you wait long enough. Look at what a change man has created by the selection of wolves until the creation of a Chihuahua on the one hand and a Great Dane on the other which seems to have nothing to do with them and for all intents and purposes they are two separate species because they are technically unable to mate. Now you will come and say "Ah, intelligent planning", no, the selection in any case is not random, it can be due to the environmental conditions or the will of the person. But the changes in the dogs happened in an A-K-R-A-Y way! You and many of the creationists miss the power of the combination of random change + non-random selection that can in a relatively short time create wonders.

    Regarding the competing theory, you are evasive again. What is the nature of the planner? Why are things not perfect? Why are animals extinct? Have you ever seen a car manufacturer selling wooden wheels? So why did your designer create an animal like the extinct dinosaurs? Oh, he didn't foresee the meteor coming??? Why are there genetic diseases in the world? what? Your designer didn't think that a mutation would cause cystic fibrosis and a horrible death at a young age?

    A. Please don't dodge. Thank you for not having answers to all of these and evolution has very clear answers to all of the above questions. So stop coming up with all kinds of far-fetched statistical calculations and refer to the simplest facts. If he had planned everything would have been better, moreover, everything would have been getting better and better like cars are getting better and better. How is it that bacteria that were created first are the most durable and successful creatures on earth? Does a 1910 car go faster than a 2010 car? If he wanted us to worship him, all that was needed was to be revealed and 99% of the people in the world (not only the Jewish people) would happily do as he wished. So what is your conclusion from all this?

  217. Aviram (170):
    Academic discussion? :-))
    An academic discussion is what is based on academic criteria such as facts and claims and conclusions that are based on logic, which did not characterize the reactions of those who program a.
    victory? Using logical fallacies and distorting facts while ignoring their disclosure and zigzagging to other topics (which were already answered a few steps earlier) as a clear diversionary tactic, is this what you call a victory? A few days ago a 4-year-old boy "beat" me as well in a similar way.
    It seems you really have a lot in common 🙂

  218. A.

    Consider yourself the winner of this academic debate.

    All the best for your composure in the face of slander

  219. A. (168)
    On the topic of statistics, I gave you more than one example (and I repeated it several times) that illustrates your fallacy, but you ignore them. I pointed out some serious logical flaws in your arguments and most of them you ignored or evaded (the intelligent reader will judge). Others also explained to you and Michael also gave you a small challenge on the subject but you ignored them. The others exhausted the matter a long time ago and now it seems that I do too. It reminds me too much of a conversation I once had with someone who was finally found to be mentally ill, he too was based on arguments that had logical fallacies at their core and ignored exposing those fallacies while moving the subject of the conversation in other directions that turned out to be circles within circles. At first the phenomenon was interesting, at a certain point it just got boring.

  220. Camila, you are repeating an obvious thing again.

    "The whole statistical concept and the calculations derived from it are completely wrong. Using the very same perception it is possible to conclude that other things that do exist every day are also impossible. "- Give an example. Are you talking about winning the lottery for example?

    If your words were true, then no scientist would calculate abiogas calculations and mathematical models of evolution. But what can be done, even the greatest evolutionary scientists calculate chances. Take a look, for example, in the book The Blind Watchman, Chapter Three: The Accumulation of Small Steps, and see for yourself why evolution requires such. Well, if not , we will agree to accept any probability. And if that is the case, we can claim that a whole living cell can be created by crying. But it is a fact that no scientist would claim such a thing. The reason is clear - zero chance.

    "Without presenting even one well-founded consideration that supports this gut feeling. "-The based consideration is the evidence that a certain protein requires a certain length.

    "We know that all robots are the product of intelligent planning, therefore a robot (and it doesn't matter which one at the moment) is necessarily a product of intelligent planning. It's a tautology for its own sake. "-No problem. I'll rephrase it without tautology: Can an object identical to a robot be created by itself? Your answer?...

    The comparison you make between an organic creature and objects designed by man (such as urns, watches, cars and robots) is an illegitimate comparison because of the properties of the materials they are made of and hence the possibilities of their being formed naturally." of humans?

    The fact that there is no physical chemical mechanism that enables such a natural formation regarding any individual component or complex in the same objects is what proves the existence of their intelligent designer and creator." - There is also no known physical chemical mechanism for the formation of replicating DNA. So?

    Still, your main fallacy is that if we don't know something (for example, what exactly are all the transition steps that created kinesin) then it is necessarily guaranteed that kinesin was created in way X" - no problem. Do you know another way besides evolution? Bring it here and we'll wonder about Kankana.

  221. A. (166)
    You wrote: "Note - the argument here is not about a technical possibility (even here one can disagree) but a statistical one."
    Your problem is that there is no debate here because the entire statistical concept and the calculations derived from it are completely wrong. Using the very same perception it is possible to conclude that other things that do exist every day are also impossible. Your inability to see your logical fallacy here is your problem and yours alone. In the end, all you have to say is that it seems illogical and improbable to you, without presenting even one well-founded consideration that supports this gut feeling. In the past, people's gut feeling was that the earth is flat and that the moon and the sun are the same size. Luckily some of us don't just rely on our gut feelings.

    About the robot. The very use of the word robot which is a concept closely related to a planned intelligent creation is illegitimate because you are creating a circular argument here. We know that all robots are the product of intelligent design, therefore a robot (and it doesn't matter which one at the moment) is necessarily a product of intelligent design. It's a tautology for its own sake. Again a logical fallacy that you refuse to acknowledge, which in no way diminishes the fact that it is still a logical fallacy.

    The comparison you make between an organic creature and objects designed by man (such as urns, watches, cars and robots) is an illegitimate comparison because of the properties of the materials they are made of and hence the possibilities of their natural formation. The fact that there is no physical chemical mechanism that allows for such a natural formation regarding any individual component or complex in those objects is what proves the existence of their intelligent designer and creator. Your disregard for the physical, chemical, and biological knowledge that shows how those formations form (even if not completely) is the fundamental flaw in your argument. Since so far you haven't been bothered by serious logical failures, it is not surprising that this failure also seems logical to you.
    I'll help you out here on what could have been a more interesting question. If we were to find an organic organism that has nothing to do with the structure of the organisms we know (in terms of hereditary material, metabolic pathways, etc.) then it would be an interesting question where it came from. It still wouldn't prove that it had an intelligent creator, but at least it was something that evolution explains much less well than it explains what does exist here today. In such a case, the question of whether someone was able to produce the same completely different organism, was a more legitimate question (and as mentioned even then the answer was not clear because there could be other answers such as evolutionary development in an isolated system that we do not know exists on Earth or even elsewhere in the universe). Still your main fallacy is that if we don't know something (for example, what exactly are all the transition steps that created kinesin) then it necessarily follows that kinesin was created in way X. According to this logic one can claim with the same degree of confidence (and with the same degree of error, as long as there is no other good evidence ) that kinesin is created in Y or Z way (for example, good good the good dwarf is the one who created kinesin. There must be someone in this world that is his gut feeling).

  222. to R.H-

    Not really. Agreeing in principle that proteins change is not agreeing that any change is possible. Even a car changes over time - it rusts, tires get punctures, the color fades. But such a change will not make an airplane out of it (I know that a car does not replicate itself, but this is just to illustrate the point). Note - the argument here is not about a technical possibility (even here you can disagree) but a statistical one.

    Regarding the competing theory - it is irrelevant who created it, discovered its origin, etc. If you understood why a robot made of DNA is evidence of a planner, then you have gone to the root of the theory. The theory only says this - robot -> therefore planner. Just like archeology says XNUMXd -> therefore planning.

  223. A.
    If you agreed to the 4 sections above 158 then you agree with evolution. Adding 5, proteins are formed gradually. But you are contradicting yourself.
    If you agreed that there are mutations and that they change proteins, then proteins change into something else as a result of the mutations.

    And I still haven't received an answer about your tomorrow theory. OK, let's say a robot made of DNA as you say is evidence of a designer. Who is the planner? Where did it come from? What technology does he use? Why? When did he perform? Is he still planning today? Why are there so many problems such as children who get cancer? Is this how you plan? Why are some animals extinct? What was not planned properly? Where do new species of creatures come from? Is he invisible among us? Still planning? If so where is his factory?

    A. All these questions and many others have simple and scientifically clear answers in light of the theory of evolution. Now we will see you deal with your "alternative theory".

  224. To the administrators of the site and its participants:
    A number of people with a hidden agenda that goes against the intellectual scientific nature of this site make any discussion here
    sterilize. The place becomes a scene of verbal wrangling between the deaf.
    A worthy alternative is to simply censor those people. This is a legitimate policy.
    Those people can find relief for their personal problems on sites like YNET, etc. and leave the place for people interested in the topics discussed here.

  225. withering-

    I talk to you about A and you answer me about C. I ask you scientific questions, and you tell me stories about fairies.

    After all, what did I ask?

    In front of you is a replicating robot made of DNA and proteins. Is such a robot evidence of a designer? And what do you answer? "He is evidence of a mental patient." Well, we learned something...

    I think you got the point, yes, we are a sophisticated robot. William Paley must be giggling now...

  226. Michael, I know, I know... I was in a particularly high mood and had five minutes to spare. what can I do.

  227. A. (152):

    You wrote: ""Which parts are in nature and why exactly them and not others?" - those that are required for some parts, for their proper functioning."

    Chimeral, Chimeral, it's cheap, it's easy to use and it will fill any hole no matter the size. Take Chimarel - it's free! What, won't you take? Instructions for use - every time you don't know how to explain something, fill in the blank with Himeral. It's Paul Prof, the perfect finish.
    *** because of this ****
    Side Effects:
    1) Suppresses any desire to obtain knowledge that you do not yet have.
    2) Addictive! Suddenly you find yourself using it even where you discover to your dismay in retrospect that there was no need for it at all.

  228. A. (158)

    Let's say I were to meet a person who claims to be a robot. I check it, it is made of flesh and blood, it is all made of tissues, proteins, DNA and water and all in the appropriate amounts and proportions. I take an x-ray and he has a normal skeleton but whoop... wait, he also has metal parts in him! I ask him where the metal parts came from and he says that it is the standard in the robots from his series. I call someone who understands a little more than I do about deciphering X-rays and he immediately recognizes the parts as rivets used to fuse serious fractures and even shows me on the Internet the particular model they named that poor man. Needless to say, the parts are exactly where you would expect them to be in such a case. I ask the guy why he says he's a robot and he says he woke up one night and realized that's the only possible explanation. I ask him if so where did they assemble you? Is there a factory that makes robots like you? And without getting confused, he says that he has no idea how it was made, but he is sure that it is true. Maybe he suddenly appeared one day just like that. He ponders and then decides decisively - in any case, there is no other option. It just doesn't make sense to have anything else.
    I kindly offer him a glass of water and go to call the district psychiatrist. I feel a bit sorry for the guy, all in all he doesn't seem dangerous. But do you know what will happen tomorrow? He may still vote for Shas or Torah Judaism, after all a robot.

    The answer is no, he is not evidence of a planner, he is evidence of a mental patient.

  229. Kamila and R.H.

    Did you fall asleep again?

    Too bad Camila, I already thought you would present some serious challenge. Well, I'm used to that...

  230. to R.H-

    "If the protein is close to your kinesin, you will say that it is from the same family and it is not "something new" and if it is far away, you will say that it is not that one." -Absolutely not. The kinesin contains 2 legs. If you present a scenario of how each leg had a meaning on its own, it would be absolutely interesting .

    "I suggest you use the Phi Blast tool" - I wouldn't rely on that. The length of kinesin is 600 ha. You need to present many intermediate steps, which get closer and closer to the kinesin sequence. I find it hard to believe that this is possible. Let me remind you - Most of the intermediate stages have disappeared according to evolution.

    Plus if you have any scientific guts I'd love to understand what part of evolution exactly you disagree with?
    1) that random mutations are created?"-Agree.
    2) that mutations change the phenotype ??-agree.
    3) There is competition for resources ???-Agree.
    4) The fittest survives ????-Agree.
    That's all evolution. "-Definately not.


    5) that certain proteins can be formed gradually - absolutely not.

    "If you have scientific integrity, present an alternative and we'll see if it holds water" - for fun. I'll ask you what I asked Camila. Before you is a replicating robot made of DNA and proteins (just like humans). Do you think it's evidence of a designer? Yes/No?

  231. Michael (154)

    In such cases, I tend to budget myself a certain amount in advance that I am willing to donate, be it a beggar or just a passerby who asks nicely. It certainly seems that in this case the beggar is indeed behaving like the last of the crooks and yet perhaps one of the other readers found interest or novelty in the things, so it was worth the trouble if only for that reader.
    Besides, don't forget that he carries his punishment with him everywhere he goes, so I don't envy him at all.

  232. Friends:
    There is a story I sometimes tell in situations like this.
    A beggar enters the restaurant and starts asking the diners for money.
    The first person he approaches takes 10 shekels out of his pocket and gives it to him.
    He goes to the second one, gets another 10 and so goes to all the people sitting in the restaurant.
    When he finished the round he goes back to the first one.
    The first one understood the principle and sent it to hell.
    The beggar curses the first with juicy curses and moves on to the second.
    The other feels sorry for him (perhaps he really needs more money and it's not pleasant to steal the curses either) so he gives him another 5 shekels.
    He continues in the round, receives money from several people and curses the others and immediately when the round ends he goes back to the beginning - skipping the first one, going to the second one, accepting or not receiving money, if he doesn't - he curses, and returns in each new round to the person who paid him in the previous round.
    At the end of the process, he leaves the restaurant - not before cursing each and every one of the people sitting there.
    I was the first and in response 49 I clarified who/what I think we are dealing with.
    Each of you can decide for yourself how many times you want to pay before you take the curses.

  233. A.
    Between us, nothing will convince you. If the protein is close to your kinesin you will say it is from the same family and it is not "something new" and if it is far away you will say it is not that one. I suggest you use the Phi Blast tool that finds who is similar to the protein and then who is similar to what you found and so you go further and further away and very quickly you will see the chain of events that led to the creation of your magnificent kinesin (by the way you did not explain why you were attracted to it).

    Plus if you have any scientific guts I'd love to understand what part of evolution exactly you disagree with?
    1) that random mutations are created?
    2) that mutations change the phenotype??
    3) There is competition for resources???
    4) The fittest survives????
    That's all evolution. Abiogenesis is a mysterious section of it that does not affect the correctness of these principles.

    But come on, let's say these principles have not been proven. What is your hypothesis? How are new species created? It is clear that you always avoid arguing about what you really believe and always leave it out of the debate. If you have scientific integrity present an alternative and we'll see if it holds water.

    I agree with you 100%. These guys are in retreat and the gods are getting away from them. Once people of type A thought that every river and every flower had a god. Then God became abstract. Then they claimed that he was constantly creating lice and fleas by spontaneous creation. When this was proven to be false, they claimed "yes, but he creates bacteria out of nothing" and then Pasteur proved that there is no spontaneous creation of bacteria. Now they go even further, to the first chamber and the big bang and so it goes further and further away.

  234. to Kamila and R.H.

    If it has homologues, then they will probably have a similar structure. That's why I asked for a scenario for its gradual formation, from a completely different structure. This is what evolution claims, and this is what I think is impossible.

    The same goes for the article that you brought tried to trace different kinesins in the kinesin branch. There is no evidence there that the kinesin evolved from a different structure.


    It is also not important if there are other examples of macroevolution" - not that I know of. But I insisted on the difference between changes that could not be created gradually (like kinase), and those that could (fur color).

    "The logical fallacy here is twofold: 1) the inability to fully explain something (such as presenting all the micro-evolutionary steps that led to Kinesin) cannot constitute proof that that something does not exist" - not accurate. We actually *know* that such structures cannot be created gradually .For the same reason we know that a car cannot be created gradually. For the same reasons I mentioned earlier.

    "of course does not contradict the parallel existence of all the examples of structures and processes for which there are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of other well-documented findings" - we have already seen. Therefore, even kinesin, which is a well-studied protein, does not have any scenario. And this does not apply only to kinesin. I can offer you many other examples.

    "And the way kinesin came into being (a hypothesis supported by the very existence of a variety of similar proteins with different levels of complexity, some with different functions)." - and they all have a similar basic structure. It's like the difference between a small car and a big car. Both are a little different, but both Cars.

    A. When you decide to take responsibility for your logical fallacies, I will be happy to read and refer to your answer that has not yet been given. It should be noted in connection with the alternative explanation that you have to offer." - In front of you is a replicating robot made of DNA and proteins. Is such a robot evidence of a designer? Yes/No?

    "Which parts are in nature and why exactly them and not others?" - those required for some parts, for their proper functioning.

  235. Michael (137, 138)
    I agree with what you wrote and I came to the same conclusions, and yet it is impossible to consider the allusion to the answer to include "meat" that can be wondered about. Israel also makes sure to give answers and hints about its nuclear issue, but it cannot be called an answer. A. Employs exactly the same kind of policy of ambiguity that is so contrary to the spirit of science (not to mention the logical fallacies that already make his texts unworthy of even normal public discourse regardless of science).

  236. R.H. (149)
    It seems that from the point of view of A. Until we show him how we take a soup of basic organic molecules and turn them into kinesin, this is proof that macroevolution is impossible. It also doesn't matter if there are other examples of macro evolution as the micro steps that led to the big changes can be shown, he will still be held to the altar horns. The logical fallacy here is twofold: 1) the inability to fully explain something (such as presenting all the micro-evolutionary steps that led to Kinesin) cannot be proof that that something does not exist, but only proof that our knowledge is still partial (which is the usual situation at the forefront of research in science and it is not It matters how much knowledge and how many puzzles we solve along the way, the same front where things are incomplete and unknown will still exist). Those who adopt the approach of A. On the fact that not knowing means proof of non-existence or proof of non-programming means stopping the progress of obtaining knowledge and regression to mental stagnation and perhaps this is its true purpose. 2) The possibility of having a different process (for example, the formation of kinesin in some miraculous way and all at once as A. suggests without detailing the mechanism, schedule and some other critical things that would perhaps allow a more serious consideration of his proposal) does not of course contradict the parallel existence of all the examples of structures and processes for which there are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of other well-documented findings that are remarkably consistent with what is expected to be obtained in the process of evolution. Of course, in such a case it would be an explanation that is much less elegant from our point of view, but that in itself does not rule out the very possibility of its existence. if a. Had he bothered to provide an alternative explanation more detailed than his "hints", it would have been possible to examine whether what he is proposing really sounds more plausible than our hypothesis within the framework of evolution regarding the origin and way of formation of the kinesin (a hypothesis supported by the very existence of a variety of similar proteins with a different level of complexity, some have a different function).

    These two logical errors join several other logical failures previously revealed by A. And you have nothing more boring in this world than a discussion with someone who is not willing to accept simple laws of logic because under such a regime of thought everything can be "proved" and everything can be "disproved" even when it is the same thing itself.
    A. When you decide to take responsibility for your logical fallacies, I will be happy to read and refer to your answer that has not yet been given. (because you continue to evade and be the joke of the forum).
    You wrote: "Certain parts of nature were created at once. Not in a gradual evolutionary way. It is definitely possible that a planner was involved."
    Which parts of nature and why exactly them and not others? Who is that mysterious planner? How were those parts created, by what mechanism? When (6000 years ago?) and at what rate (within a millionth of a second? within a day?)

  237. But if you are so bothered by the evolution of kinesin and this is the last thing left to convince you then please see a new article from this year that deals with the issue:

    And again, wonder and wonder, there are no surprises, and your famous kinasin has preliminary forms and a completely normative evolution like any other protein.

  238. A.
    After all, you yourself claim that it has homologues, don't you?
    But why are you looking so narrowly at one protein?
    There are analyzes of whole genomes that show a gradual development and wonder and wonder, this is in accordance with the phylogenetic findings. The wonder and wonder is also in accordance with the fossil findings and the geological layers. All the evidence shows development.
    Beyond that, don't forget that evolution often progresses in leaps and bounds rather than point mutations.

  239. R.H-

    a) I'm not the dos...

    b)"New proteins and structures have been demonstrated countless times and it will not help you to argue and argue and argue that this is not the case. You can't argue with the facts" - that's right, you can't argue with the facts. The question arises - do you have proof that the kinesin evolved gradually, or will you again claim "countless times"?

  240. withering,
    Leave is a waste. words If you look at the history of the site, you will see that the current debate is the 100th replay of the same debate. A. who boasted names like Doss and others always came up with the same well-worn argument for Kinasin's fatigue. What do you not have other proteins? What is so special about this kinesin?

    He will never offer an alternative, he will only claim that there is not enough evidence and will not listen to any argument. After all, every counter theory including the one he believes in with all his "soul and heart" is full of holes and he will never dare bring them up for discussion. Only kinesin and kinesin.

    Mr. A: 1) There is no established theory yet for the creation of the first cell. This does not detract as such from evolution. Evolution is not just abiogenesis. On the other hand, this does not mean that there are no suggestions and it also does not mean that the denial of evolution proves that it is an intelligent creation.
    2) The evolutionary principles of a) random mutations b) selection of the fit have been proven countless times and form the basis of all genetic engineering and molecular biology from which medicine, biotechnology and modern agriculture are derived.
    3) New proteins and structures have been demonstrated countless times and it will not help you to argue and argue and argue that it is not so. You can't argue with the facts.

    Oh right, the kinesin, indeed a mystery like no other. How does the kinesin succeed every time in knocking down all the thousands of evidences for evolution?

  241. to camila-

    I just now saw your response (117) to my response. That's why I'll start from it...

    So you claim that the topic of replication is too complex to talk back? Nice toffee. I don't think so, and I explained why (if you break down the RNA template, the nucleotides will also break down), but let's go on...

    "From a good familiarity with these issues, I can use logic and the facts I know to show that the story is logical." - So try to solve the problems I posed earlier. This shouldn't be a problem, right?

    Are you trying to say that until they have done this laboratory experiment in a real ocean and for millions of years, then it cannot be called a demonstration" - who claimed millions of years? They claim that it can happen overnight. Let them demonstrate it in a natural environment. This should not be a problem.

    "If the things work in a small glass in the laboratory, then there is no reason to think that they will not work anywhere else where similar conditions exist" - please. Did they demonstrate this in the laboratory? (I mean the first experiment, not the second)

    "This evidence includes a huge variation of molecules with relevant catalytic activity when the simplest mechanisms are found in relatively simple creatures." - You repeat the term "simple" again. I have already explained why replication, even minimal, is not simple at all.

    "This fact supports (does not prove) the possibility of the existence of an even simpler mechanism than we know today." - see above. The simplest possible mechanism is not simple at all.

    ” are your gut feelings that are based on the factually incorrect statistical model (and you choose to ignore this gross error time and time again) of the molecular interactions in these processes. The molecules of the hereditary material and of proteins are not balls in a cloth bag. The joining of amino acids or nucleic acids is not a probabilistic process of independent draws of notes from a hat." -Really? If this were so, why would they not accept the formation of a DNA and protein replication mechanism instead of a stubborn reliance on the world of RNA? (Hint- The reason for this has to do with statistical probability).So the evolutionary scientists also disagree with you.

    This is an excellent question. A question that is presented by many creationists in different versions that all have in common is a comparison between man-made technology (such as a watch or a car) and between natural phenomena (such as DNA or living cells). The fundamental difference is that the laws of physics and chemistry work without exception on all those objects. When you check the properties of materials, you find that pieces of plastic or metal do not tend to behave or interact in a particularly "interesting" way." - Proteins and DNA also do not usually perform special integrations, until they have reached a certain length.

    "Molecular systems, on the other hand, have an interesting (and spontaneous) behavior of forming a huge variety of configurations that display an even greater variety of behaviors and reactions with other substances." Replication or synthesis of proteins or ribosomes, what is the value of all the above variety?

    "Watches and cars also do not reproduce according to biological laws of heredity," - also DNA does not yet exist a complex replication mechanism.

    "Well, if the parts of the plane had a natural tendency (due to their physical and chemical properties) to connect at all the appropriate connection points," - proteins also have no natural tendency to connect with their substrate.

    "Using the same logic, gravity can be disproved." - I did not claim that evolution was disproved because there is a similarity from a parallel evolution. I did claim that it disproves the claim of similarity, as evidence for evolution.

    ” What are we playing now in detective tracker? I asked a simple question, in your opinion, and you tell me back that you are giving me insinuations and that those who want to understand something from this, then let them do it. Are you able to give a clear and relatable answer? Who created? How was it created? When was it created? I am not asking for facts, but only your opinion, however far-fetched, or however well-founded it may be" - in my estimation, certain parts of nature were created at once. Not in a gradual evolutionary way. It is definitely possible that a planner was involved.

    ” In principle, can the accumulation of small changes lead to a big change? "- So it's not. At least not a change of a certain kind. Take for example the structure of kinesin that I gave earlier. Try to describe its formation gradually if you succeed.

  242. incidentally:
    The jump you propose is a backward jump - in the best case - and a headlong jump into an empty pool - in the realistic case.

  243. Moshe:
    I have drawn the conclusions and my conclusions contradict yours.
    I explained them.
    I don't understand the function of the long quote you provided because it doesn't present any new information. The authors of the article were not convinced of the existence of reincarnation and it is clear to me personally that such reincarnation does not exist.
    The prejudices of whoever invented PLR are irrelevant.
    Acupuncture also assumes the existence of energy flow in the meridians and all kinds of other nonsense without it preventing it from working in some cases.

  244. Michael

    We discussed Stevenson's research - which is serious scientific research.

    Some of his evidence in the research are marks on the body (birthmarks, etc.) which his research demonstrates are marks
    From the experiences of the previous incarnation (injury)

    And this research has never been disproved.

    That is, there are several aspects here:
    Physical evidence (as strange as it may sound)
    Description of the subjects of the research, their place of residence and details - which were found to be historically correct.

    I also brought you the opinion of a professor who was skeptical and read the studies

    Take the whole quote and think for yourself:

    PLR presupposes a belief in some form of reincarnation. Stevenson believed
    that the physical marks offer strong evidence. Today's PLR practitioners tend
    to found their therapy on Stevenson's scientific studies.

    Many observers of
    Stevenson's research works considered him to be the modern Galileo
    times. As with Galileo, science's ultimate verdict on his work may come long
    after the end of his life. Stevenson's books on reincarnation have become
    somewhat analogous to a Hindu mythological yagam horse: they are set free
    by a king and allowed to wander unbridled in other kingdoms, but the lands
    into which they have ventured belong to the king until another monarch
    restrains them.

    So far nobody has been able to debunk Stevenson's scientific
    works. Irrefutably, if reincarnation were to become generally accepted in the
    future it would be untenable to regard PLR as a pseudo-therapy.
    Reincarnation is not yet a scientific truth, yet PLR may be considered useful
    form of psychotherapy in the appropriate culture when applied correctly, but
    damaging when abused and misapplied.

    All information is available and available
    The only question is whether there is the courage to make the leap and accept the conclusions of the evidence
    In both subjects - soul reincarnation and leaving the body

    And to accept the fact that physicality is not the be-all and end-all

    good evening

  245. My father (133):
    The cities were created mainly in the process of intelligent creation.

  246. Of course, by the way, the whole idea of ​​this answer falls apart because of the logical error in it (trying to explain the formation of life by the existence of life before the formation of life) but I just wanted to point out that he actually tried to give a (stupid) answer to the question.

  247. withering:
    In response 50 A wrote as follows:
    "In my opinion, the first cell, or the mechanism for its replication, were created at once. But not by natural processes. In any case, we must not accept a hopeless explanation."
    That's why he really hinted at his opinion on the question of how life developed.
    From what is said in this sentence and from the fact that he was silent (finally) on Shabbat, I conclude that the miracle he is talking about was wrought by God in his opinion (the one in the Torah it is written that he created each creature separately and that he even created the woman from the man's side, but as you have already seen - he is not moved by contradictions)

  248. It is also necessary to notice the subtleties of the wording.
    Even PLR is only good in cultures that believe in reincarnation. I see it as a kind of placebo.

  249. Moshe:
    Read carefully and quote accurately.
    Throughout the article a distinction is made between Reincarnation and PLR.
    The fan attitude is the attitude to PLR.
    The attitude to reincarnation is different and right after the quote you gave it says:

    Reincarnation is not yet a scientific truth, yet PLR may be considered a useful form of Psychotherapy in the appropriate culture when applied correctly, but damaging when abused or misapplied

    By the way, what am I supposed to conclude from the bias in the quote?
    Think for yourself!

  250. A. (127)
    You wrote: "Even a similarity of 99.9 means a difference of hundreds or thousands of DNA bases. The similarity in itself does not mean anything, as I demonstrated with the parallel formation of the structure of the eye"

    You don't even understand what you demonstrated... your reliance on convergence events (convergence to similar solutions during evolution due to similar selection pressures, such as a surface suitable for flight = a wing in birds and bats or a hydrodynamic body in fish and whales or a light-sensitive organ like an eye) is an excellent demonstration ( more on the other demonstrations) how evolution works exactly the way we think it works. Another and essential thing that you do not understand is that the conclusion reached by the scientists (evolutionary biologists, it should be mentioned) that the eye (like other organs and structures in organisms) evolved several times is completely based on the same similarity and difference (or "distance" matrices) with which phylogenetic trees are determined. The same imagination that you don't like, whatever the reason. What is so ridiculous about the whole thing is that you claim that phylogenetic trees are irrelevant while basing it on a phenomenon that is a direct result of using the same methods and based on the same phylogenetic trees. This is what you demonstrated here, your stupidity and not the first time.

    You wrote: ""Ignores the comments that pointed out to you about shameful errors in knowledge and logic" - leave the jokes aside. Thank you."

    So you wrote, and immediately continued to ignore the question that I have already asked you several times regarding the way in which life was created in this world. A question that gets a sweeping ascendancy despite your pathetic attempts to claim that you hinted at the answer to it. What is the mechanism, who created it, when, where? I want to see what is your alternative that seems much more logical to you than all the evidence that points in the direction of a common origin through the mechanism of evolution. The only joke here is you and your unwillingness to take responsibility for your ignorance and crooked logic.

    You wrote: "And regarding the first duplicate - it's fine to say you don't know the answer. But if you knew how to give 2 articles that you think showed a possible duplicate, know how to admit it even if they are completely unfounded."

    You received a full reference to this in my response (117). I will only repeat the bottom line for the perception-difficulties/crooks among us: if they are unfounded in your eyes, you are welcome to show it. I mentioned in the same comment how you can do this. If you do this it will arouse great interest in the scientific community, unless you use the same crooked logic with which you calculated the zero probability of the formation of a table salt crystal from the evaporation of a salt water solution (see response 66) or the non-existence of the force of gravity (see response 117) or relying on Say A to negate that A itself (see explanation in this response) so that they will just laugh at you all the way.

    Can any of the other readers help a little no. It's starting to get a little unpleasant kicking helplessly like that.

  251. Indeed you are right, the evolution of ideas (cities in this case) goes much faster than biological evolution, because the memes (the genes of ideas) can quickly replicate in entire populations within the same generation, which is not the case with biological genes.

  252. How were the city of Tel Aviv and the city of New York created?
    It's all a matter of billions of years of evolution
    You have two magnificent cities, so-so simple and so true.

  253. Michael

    I get the fix on James Randi.
    At the same time, I am skeptical about such award channels.
    I remember that there was also a famous creationist who promised to give money to whoever would prove evolution and "for some reason" it never happened.

    But that's another topic, and I'd like to stay focused on the topic I brought up with your permission:

    I read the links referring to Stevenson

    In the first link (his name is mentioned only 10 times) -
    The claim that came up is that he studied children from a culture that believes in reincarnation
    And precisely because of this, Sivanson did further research on individuals from the West and came to exactly the same conclusions

    And in the second link (a fascinating 10-page article) his research is only praised
    and conclude:

    So far nobody has been able to debunk Stevenson's scientific works.

    No one can force you to believe the scientist and the other reliable witnesses
    But your ignoring them is not the scientific way.

    Best regards

  254. Moshe:

    Regarding Randy and warming up - your words are not true.
    Feel free to read here:

    this text:

    Yesterday, James Randi put up a blog post in which he questioned the validity of anthropogenic global warming. He has subsequently made the statement that he probably has more thinking to do about global warming, and he admits that he really knows nothing about it. So Randi's blog post is, essentially, a non-starter as an issue, although there are some interesting things to think about.

    Randy is a serious person and that is what most of the scientific community sees in him.
    I do not agree with your slander of him.
    In relation to studies on reincarnation, you are welcome to look for references to Stevenson here:

    There is also a reference here to out-of-body experiences.
    You can read more Stevenson references here:

    Grandma's stories, I've already told you, we've already heard from people who saw Jews slaughter a Christian child and I have no interest in dealing with others - even if you repeat them over and over.

  255. A:
    It's a type G stupidity.
    The connection is clear to the one whose eyes are in his head and it was also explicitly explained.
    You bring reasoning from the field of probability of some event from the field of chemistry without talking about any model of chemistry.
    It is something between not serious and idiotic and an act of fraud.
    To put it more precisely - I presented you with another probability question - one in which the model is also unfamiliar to you (because you don't know what my friends say before the game) and I let you bet your money on your conclusions.
    Your unwillingness to do so shows that you are more on the side of the fraudulent act than on the side of the frivolous and idiotic.
    You try to sell people conclusions that you yourself do not know how to draw, but as soon as it comes to conclusions that you can draw in a similar way, but instead of selling them, you have to bet your money on them - you hesitate.
    It shows that your money is much more important to you than telling the truth to others.

  256. Michael Shalom

    There are several studies, the most famous of which is by Dr. Ian Stevenson
    To say that it is flippant and not serious calls into question the entire scientific method

    Prof. Elmeder briefly refers to the research (several studies actually) of Dr. Stevenson

    Regarding the out-of-body experience:

    In the first response you said

    "Regarding an out-of-body experience - this is a recognized and accepted phenomenon"

    And in your second response:

    "There is also no serious evidence of an out-of-body experience"

    Which of these two do you actually support?

    The first example I gave is that of a scientist (biochemistry) - and if you think she fits the profile of "getting blood to bake matzah", then no testimony in our world is admissible.

    And the example of the blind woman (one of many with a similar description) - shows that she saw without anything to do with the biochemical process. and outside the body from a third view.

    James Randi is a global warming denier and I would take him and his propositions with limited liability

    I return to my initial statement that I really like your intellect and your method of investigation
    And especially because of this, I am surprised by your insistence against the findings


  257. To the last Camila-

    A similarity of 99.9 also means a difference of hundreds or thousands of DNA bases. The similarity in itself means nothing, as I demonstrated with the parallel formation of the eye structure. Do you want to prove (at least theoretically) that a bacterium can turn into an elephant? No problem. Take Gen B, which was regenerated according to evolution from A, and you will see that there may be small transition stages between them. I will even help you here: according to evolution, a molecular structure like kinesin is formed gradually. If you show me how it is formed from a structure that is not similar to kinesin, my theory will be disproved. Note: kinesin, dynein and myosin They are from the same family and have a similar structure. So they are out of the question. Good luck...

    Regarding Michael's question - I did not understand how it is related to evolution. As soon as I understand what the connection is, I will gladly answer.

    "Ignore the comments that warned you about shameful errors in knowledge and logic" - leave the jokes aside. Thank you.

    " you know why? Because I'm really against environmental pollution "-Join Greenpeace.

    And regarding the first duplicate - it's fine to say that you don't know the answer. But if you knew how to give 2 articles that you think showed a possible duplicate, know how to admit it even if they are completely unfounded.

    waiting for your response…

  258. Moshe:
    There is no serious research that verifies the existence of reincarnation.
    There simply isn't - and I don't know what Lokesh they sold you.
    You are welcome to point to the study if you wish to receive a specific reference to it.

    There is also no serious evidence of an out-of-body experience. There are all kinds of people's stories - including those who saw Jews slaughtering a Christian in order to obtain blood for baking matzah.

    More than that - there is a million dollar reward that anyone who demonstrates the existence of these phenomena or other hallucinations will receive from the Randy Foundation:

    Indeed - what matters is the experiment.

  259. Thanks for your response Michael.

    I read your article and the long and interesting discussion that followed with great interest
    And I went through the part of the research in English

    I told you that I appreciate your knowledge and even sometimes keep to myself definitions you wrote
    which were formulated very eloquently (compliment).

    Take for example the subject of reincarnation - your article denies it on a theoretical basis
    But the research from the XNUMXs - proves that it is real (perhaps you haven't gone into all the details yet)

    And here I will bring the quote (yours):

    "Experimental facts are stronger than any law.
    What we formulate as a law is a scientific theory and as such it is always under limited liability - not only with the dualists but also with the scientists.
    The fact that the experimental findings are more convincing than any theory is enshrined in the scientific method where the way to disprove a theory is by presenting findings that contradict it. "

    Also the subject of the out-of-body experience - I intentionally brought the example of the blind from birth (and there are many cases like hers) who explains that even when dreaming she does not see any sights but only dreams through smell, touch, etc.
    A physical explanation here is insufficient.

    The more often I discuss such a topic, I come to the conclusion that in such topics, objective information does not change a person's opinion, but only direct experience (possibly also a direct experience of research)
    I mean we are what we experience.

    It probably cannot be bridged.

    Best regards

  260. A. (118)
    I am here, definitely and not only me, also Michael and the other readers are waiting for you to answer a series of questions that we asked you during the messages, questions that you ignore and do not give answers to. I asked you, for example, would 99.5% similarity satisfy you? (Response 66) And you don't answer, I asked you how you think life in this world began and you claim to "hint" at an answer but continue to avoid providing it. You ignore Michael's challenge, ignore the comments made to you about disgraceful errors in knowledge and logic and with most of your impudence continue to use the same crooked logic and the same meaningless sentences that are not consistent with the accepted scientific definitions (of evolution for example, and I don't mean the history of things but the very basic definitions and facts and undisputed findings).
    I went through the comments again and it's amazing to see how you get factual answers and a reference to every issue you bring up, no matter how far-fetched it may be, even when you repeat the same false claims that have already drawn your attention to them. Even when it's already clear that you have no intention of contributing anything relevant to the discussion, but only trying to throw mud in devious ways, you still receive a relevant reference even if less welcoming (and very rightfully so). So yes, I'm here, waiting for your answers that you "forget" to give, do you know why? Because I'm really against the pollution of the environment and against polluters who throw their garbage in all kinds of places and don't bother to take care of it when they draw their attention to the matter. At first, you might think that they are just people who don't pay that much attention to hygiene, but there comes a certain stage where you can't avoid the conclusion that this is an environmental hazard.

  261. A:
    Are you still here or have you retired?
    What about referring to the challenge I posed to you?

  262. By the way, Moshe K:
    In relation to the tone:
    I never raise my voice for no reason.
    The only cases in which I raise my voice are cases in which I recognize a commenter's disdain for others (whether other commenters or scientists) or (and this happens a lot) a lie.
    You are welcome to try to find a comment of mine that does not meet this criterion.

  263. Moshe K:
    Regarding an out-of-body experience - this is a well-known phenomenon and it is accepted to think that it is a special state of consciousness that results from disruptions in the functioning of the brain.
    They even know how to proactively do this:

    On this topic and related topics, I suggest that you also read this article of mine
    and the discussion that follows it

  264. And I wrote a comment without links and with names.. and yet the comment was blocked... strange..

  265. The abstraction I proposed for the discussion between creationists and evolutionists speaks of a separation between two concepts:
    natural selection - mathematical,
    natural selection - biological,
    The natural - mathematical - choice, as I called it, is simple, and indisputable, without logic we have no conversation, dialogue... and a purpose in this discussion..
    Mathematical selection means: Given a world, in which there are entities with the ability to reproduce, in which differences and random errors can emerge, and there is pressure from an environment that filters the entities. Natural selection will be created.. cases for example,
    Economic markets (for example: only a company that adapts to the reality of a new product on the market survives), computer software, etc.
    The biological selection is the source of the discussion, and the question of whether the biological environment is suitable for the economics of mathematical natural selection and that is what the discussion is about.
    Regarding the question of inheritance, I think that most debaters agree that genes cause inheritance.
    For the error questions, it is also known that there are disease mutations.
    And as for the pressures of the environment, we know them every day.. weather, natural disasters and the like..

    These are the environments I think the natural beer is most likely to exist among biological creatures.
    Is it the only explanation for life, that's not the discussion... Nor how did heredity and reproduction come about - although Dawkins, for example, has possible and interesting explanations.
    Is God an environmental pressure (for example only the good and those who keep the mitzvot will survive) it can be difficult to measure the level of keeping the mitzvot according to a clear index..
    But for evolution and natural selection... I didn't find a rebuttal

  266. A. (77):

    "The first article is based on reactions without enzymes. That is, on the purity of natural processes."
    It implies that enzymes are not a natural thing for you... then what are they?

    "...he claims that at a certain temperature the RNA pattern will break off (usually around 80 Celsius), and then, when the temperature changes, the RNA chain will be rebuilt again. Some problems with this scenario:

    a) If the chain breaks, the nucleotides will also break from each other. Which means we will get a salad.
    b) Even if it is possible, the chance of this happening in a long chain (as opposed to a short one) is extremely low. Because the nucleotides also need to stick to each other (polymerization), and not just to the template."

    In principle, these questions, like many others that are related to specific mechanisms, are relevant and are asked and also examined on a regular basis by various scientists. To explain why the questions you raise are not relevant in this case, a somewhat more in-depth review is required that includes additional studies that showed why the claims of those scientists are absolutely reasonable (some of them were even carried out artificially in the laboratory) as well as a presentation of thermodynamic calculations that show that in principle these processes are possible under certain conditions, there is no dispute that although have existed in the past for long periods of time. It is not possible to present all the complexity of this topic in a talkback. All this information exists and is accessible to anyone who is interested enough in the subject, where the starting point can be, for example, the quotes I brought and the sources from which they were taken, as well as the other studies that the same works cite in the content. In every conversation about science there is a stage where the person wants to understand something beyond the general (and slightly popular) arguments and it doesn't matter how well they align with logic and the facts. In the bottom line, there is no escape from directing the person who is looking for solid facts to the volume of research on the topic in question. From a good familiarity with these topics I can use logic and the facts I know to show that the story makes sense. If you don't trust what I'm saying (which is completely legitimate of course) there's no avoiding checking things directly. The "problems" you brought up here are similar to all the other "problems" I have encountered so far stem from a lack of recognition of the facts, findings and calculations carried out in the many studies done in the field. People like short and decisive answers, but scientific research is neither short nor simple nor easy. It seems that what might convince you is only if you see things with your own eyes in the original articles and maybe even in the laboratories that perform the same experiments. If this is important to you, you are welcome to make the effort and obtain this knowledge. If you find substantial errors in those studies, you are more than welcome to report them accompanied by a detailed explanation (eg if there are errors in the calculations, or a substantial logical error or contradiction with other findings, etc.). At the moment your doubts mainly reflect a lack of orientation in the scientific knowledge that already exists and is available.

    Regarding your third achievement, I didn't quite understand what it was related to:
    You wrote: "c) We need to find a natural environment in which the above processes occur repeatedly, on a fairly large scale (according to the hypothesis of the RNA world, the ocean was filled with nucleotides), in order to demonstrate this in real time."

    Are you trying to say that until they have done this lab experiment in a real ocean and for millions of years then it cannot be called a demonstration? I probably don't understand you on this point, but if that's what you meant, then you suspect the validity of the vast majority of scientific research that isolates a minimal set of systems and examines them on a small scale in a laboratory. The assumption is simple, if the things work in a small beaker in the laboratory, then there is no reason to think that they will not work anywhere else where similar conditions exist (of lighting, temperature, chemical environment, etc.). The many successes of science that works this way should serve as signs to you that this way of gaining an understanding of how our world works probably works. If you add to this additional and independent tools such as computer simulations where it is possible to "take" the experiment out of the laboratory into the wider world and even into theoretical worlds that are not currently available to us, then we can be quite sure that if they support the laboratory experiments, the knowledge obtained about this system is probably relevant.

    You wrote: "Regarding the second attempt - this is exactly what I claimed: ribozymes to which 2 subunits are attached, to complete the replication process. There is no chance on any scale."

    I can't help you against your gut feeling that this is "no chance by any standard". This statement reflects your belief well but it has nothing to do with reality. In reality, where we don't know what the exact mechanism that existed in the past, neither I nor you, we can only guess what it was based on the evidence available to us today. This evidence includes a huge variation of molecules with relevant catalytic activity where the simplest mechanisms are found in relatively simple organisms. This fact supports (does not prove) the possibility of the existence of an even simpler mechanism than we know today. The additional facts of the existence of much simpler molecules and mechanisms that exhibit at least partial activity also support (not prove) the possibility of the existence of a simpler mechanism. This is an open question at the forefront of research, where science still does not have complete answers (and may never have such answers in this matter) and it is still the most promising direction in light of the same facts I mentioned earlier. In the meantime, the "proofs" you brought to the non-programming of the existence of such a mechanism are your gut feelings that are based on the factually incorrect statistical model (and you choose to ignore this gross error time and time again) of the molecular interactions in these processes. The molecules of the hereditary material and of proteins are not balls in a cloth bag. The joining of amino acids or nucleic acids is not a probabilistic process of independent draws of notes from a hat. The numbers you threw out before are not relevant to what is really happening at the molecular level just as they are not relevant to other molecular behavior as I mentioned in the example of the salt, which was brought up not to argue that salt and a living cell have the same level of complexity but to illustrate the absurdity of using a wrong statistical model as you do in it use

    You wrote: "True, as you say, it is very difficult to prove that something is not possible. But we easily rule out a lot of things. For example, the creation of a car through natural processes. Why do you think the creation of a car through a natural process is different from the chances of creating DNA through a natural process?"
    This is an excellent question. A question that is presented by many creationists in different versions that all have in common is a comparison between man-made technology (such as a watch or a car) and between natural phenomena (such as DNA or living cells). The fundamental difference is that the laws of physics and chemistry work without exception on all those objects. When you test properties of materials you find that pieces of plastic or metal don't tend to behave or interact in a particularly "interesting" way. They have no special (and spontaneous!) tendency to create the shapes of hands or handles for opening windows or engine parts. Molecular systems on the other hand have an interesting (and spontaneous) behavior of forming a huge variety of configurations that exhibit an even greater variety of behaviors and reactions with other substances. Watches and cars also do not reproduce according to biological laws of inheritance, do not contain variation in their features (each production line and it does not matter if 10 such cars were produced or a million) are built in the same way. And if an incident has already happened and in one car they forgot to put a certain screw, then this "mistake" will not be passed on to future generations. The essential difference between watches and cars on the one hand and organisms on the other hand are the physical and chemical properties that characterize them and that define the chances that such or other structures will be formed. Since in nature you find metal in very specific states of aggregation and never in the form of a car bumper (except in landfills created by humans and into which humans throw old cars), since in nature you do not find plastic that is not man-made at all, and on the other hand you do find materials in nature and even in meteorites Organic, that their formation can be easily explained, and that they have a tendency to connect with each other in diverse forms that you find in living organisms, all of these indicate that, at least in the world we live in, cars could never spontaneously form, but living things probably did. Another favorite example of creationists is the example of airplane parts that mix and connect to form a whole airplane. Well, if the parts of the plane had a natural tendency (due to their physical and chemical properties) to connect at all the appropriate points of connection, say the screws were super strong magnets but only parts with the proper spins could connect to them, it would insanely increase the chance of a plane spontaneously forming. In organic materials there are many more facilities for spontaneous formation besides the existence of such "sticky" edges, additional facilities for example are the number of particles that existed in the primordial "soup", the rate of interactions at the molecular level which is many orders of magnitude higher than the rate of interactions on our size scale, the fact that the mass is Relatively negligible to the electromagnetic force at the molecular level, which makes the matter of the "magnets" or the sticky ends very relevant at this level and of course the long time that those primary molecules had at their disposal. Anyone who compares the dynamics of watch parts and airplanes to molecules must be at best ignorant, at worst someone with flawed logic and at worst an evil crook.

    You wrote: "Cars do not reproduce by placing offspring (each car is produced separately on the production line), and do not undergo natural selection. "-True. But your argument revolves around imagination and not about the ability to inherit."
    It is clear that my argument is not only about imagination, but is about organisms in the first place. If the phylogenetic tree people relied only on imagination then you would also find pebbles (next to the chicken eggs for that matter), mountains (say next to the camels) and clouds (next to the sheep) in those phylogenetic trees. I don't understand why you try to "damage" my arguments with such stupid statements. After all, if you thought even just a little bit about the hesitation you presented you would immediately see that what you wrote is incredibly stupid.

    You wrote: "And here, too, you are wrong - there are similar biological systems, which were apparently created separately. The eye, for example, was created according to evolution 40 times separately. So a similarity between systems can be created, also according to evolution, from a non-shared source. Which refutes the whole claim."

    Your flawed logic is amazing (and very entertaining). You claim here: a) There is evolution (based on what I say of course) in which there is a common origin for organisms that show similarities. b) There is a similarity in organisms that we know is not from a common origin (such as the convergence of flight organs in birds on the one hand and in bats on the other). C) The conclusion: evolution has been disproved.

    Using the same logic, gravity can be disproved.
    A) There is a force of attraction (according to me) that causes the apples to fall from the tree downwards in the direction of the ground. B. There are apples that fly upwards against gravity (I just did that). third. The conclusion: gravity has been disproved.

    You wrote: "And what is my opinion about the creation of the world? As I hinted, in my opinion, certain biological mechanisms were created at once. Whoever sees this as evidence of a one-time creation, let them be disturbed."
    Say, what are we playing detective tracker now? I asked a simple question, in your opinion, and you tell me back that you are giving me insinuations and that those who want to understand something from this, then let them do it. Are you able to give a clear and relatable answer? Who created? How was it created? When was it created? I'm not asking for facts, just your opinion, no matter how far-fetched or well-founded it may be. I want to understand what is the mechanism that a person like you, who seems contrary to all the positive signs that we have, that the spontaneous formation of the first copies is unlikely, what in your opinion is a plausible mechanism. I'm sure you have at least one of these.

    You wrote: "I can accept normal changes such as color changes and improvement of an existing feature. But I cannot accept the formation of a complex biological complex, such as a kinesin or a nucleosome or a ribosome. This already belongs to the science of dreams..."
    The world of science thanks you for being willing to accept small changes. We appreciate it very much. In principle, can the accumulation of small changes lead to a big change? And does not knowing something mean that it is not possible (especially if there is evidence to support that it is possible)? Can you prove it?

  267. I sent a comment with more than two links and there is a chance that the WordPress system saw it as spam

    I hope she won't forget.


  268. Hello Michael
    I enjoy reading your news, even though I don't like the tones so much (in both directions).

    A point I would be interested in hearing your opinion on is:

    It is difficult for me to understand your insistence on physicality and evolution (as the origin of man from matter)

    When there is strong evidence to the contrary


    A scientist comes out of her body in a clinical death event and sees everything

    Blind in a similar case, leaves the body - and sees! Everything

    A mathematician talks about experiences with drugs like LSD and DMT

    The research on reincarnation by Dr. Wambach (who was skeptical of the reason) in the sixties
    with 1000 subjects

    In light of confusion above the comments
    It is appropriate for me to state that I am religious and I see Judaism as an archeological exhibit (that may have been alive in the past)

    In appreciation

  269. From:
    I read your comments and was very impressed with the breadth of the news.
    In any case, I wanted to ask why the opposition to the Jewish Talmudic sources.
    Here I checked and indeed in the Talmud it is written that the future of the land will bring out on the trees "glosskas and milat vessels". ZA that they believed that evolution is really a process that will eventually make it possible to duplicate all types of products that man uses. The Talmud there expands to different types of control over the evolutionary processes such as grapes, each of which will be the size of a whole barrel and from which they will take ready wine.
    2 questions then
    1. Why do you think you should cancel an approach that comes from the sources of Judaism?
    2. Why really the theory of evolution itself has not yet developed to include such sophisticated replication possibilities. Maybe because something is still missing in the basic understanding?
    Thank you if you answer.

  270. Hello everyone

    It seems to me that I have a brief clarification. The advocates of the creation theory do not rule it out
    the theory of evolution. They claim that there was also external intervention, since the theory of evolution has a little difficulty explaining how the first living cell was created, out of the primordial soup. I would be very happy to have an idea for a solution
    Thanks and congratulations

  271. to me:
    You're an idiot, and you won't get any more detailed reference from me because I don't talk to walls.

  272. Rothschild you are with the country
    The evolutionists do not understand anything, otherwise they would grow computers and televisions on the trees.
    Sages have already said in a tractate that they are going to grow ready-made food on the trees and ready-made clothes and utensils.
    So when you get to that, it's a sign that you've understood what evolution is, until then you'll live in dreams.

  273. Joe:
    There is no way to rule out the existence of the flying spaghetti monster or the existence of a full teacup circling the earth, but there is also no reason to believe in their existence.
    In science, it is customary to use Ockham's razor, which suggests avoiding the introduction of unnecessary concepts that contribute nothing to understanding reality.
    The Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other imaginary friend is not condemned for this reason.
    If there is something that has no effect on the world, then as far as we are concerned it is simply gone.
    Science only deals with things that can be put to the test by confronting the observed facts.
    Something that has nothing to do with these facts and that the world would look exactly the same with him as it would without him - is simply not interesting.

    Mathematics, in my opinion and according to many scientists, is discovered and not invented.
    It exists even if no one has discovered it and its laws are strong and exist even if no one invents a language to describe them.
    Man exists only in the blink of an eye in relation to the existence of the universe and he only recently started formulating the laws of mathematics, but the world has always existed all the laws of mathematics that we only recently discovered.

  274. 107:
    Reading your comment, I understand that stupidity does not need a creator - it is simply understandable and independent for you.

    By the way - I saw today on National Geographic, how a lion harasses a lioness - that's how it is in the nature of animals.

  275. Friends
    Arguing and arguing and arguing
    And there are no winners
    The creationists are sealed in theirs and the rest of the sane people are fighting but do you really think there is a chance??? Stupidity can't be beat!
    Chumza: Camila, will you marry me? You're the woman I've always dreamed of! Rational, atheist, brilliant, eloquent, genius, there's nothing to say - if you were here next to me I'd fall at your feet! You can also fall in love through talkback!

  276. ravine:
    I appreciate academics, and God forbid I don't underestimate your knowledge. Just that I think
    A statistician would immediately understand what I'm talking about.

    And to my friend, this matter will conclude a good night for those present.

  277. Michael:
    I really appreciate your learned explanation, but can I even rule out the non-existence of something "that is not" (according to you) just because it is within the realm of the unknown (a hidden god)?

    And is the statement "mathematically bound"... is it a statement that requires non-interference within it, or is there a need to create a mathematical language before the "mathematically bound"...

    I hope I understand my question.

  278. 0:
    You haven't dropped the token yet:
    Besides attacking me (without any basis for your false accusations) you have not said anything in this whole discussion.

  279. Joe:
    I used "the nickname Bor and the people of the country" following response 89 which seemed to be aimed at me.
    I have no problem calling you Joe as long as you don't veer towards 89 style comments.

    Religion does deny science as facts - at least that's what its holy books do.
    Since religious people are human beings and some human beings are unable to resist logic, then some of them (by definition not all and not even most of them) accept - at the same time as religion - the conclusions of science and then they begin to be required for different interpretations of the scriptures.
    It's a bit of a stupid idea because why should you believe in a god who can't even express himself properly?
    Of course, the interpretations also make no sense, and if you interpret "yum" as "era", then why not interpret "no" as "yes"?

    The content of the XNUMXnd chapter of XNUMX Kings completely dismisses the vanity claim as if it was something passed down by word of mouth since the giving of the Torah. According to what is written there, on the day they discovered the book they discovered during the rebuilding of the Temple, no one knew anything about the laws of Judaism.

    Evolution did not have to be assimilated into anything because it is mathematically committed as soon as extremely simple conditions are met.

    Of course, the claim that God assimilated evolution into some kind of overall master plan and did not create the animals himself as it is written - beyond the fact that it is illogical (because, as mentioned, there is no need to assimilate something into the world that requires it mathematically) - is also in contradiction to what is written in the holy books of Judaism.
    If you intend to found a new religion then please formulate its beliefs and laws so that it can be referred to.

  280. In my opinion, the religious doctrine does not deny science as facts (at least for religious scientists), but it has a different interpretation of the scientific facts...
    For example: certain religious people claim that the six days of creation are ages - not days and that man was created in the sixth age.
    My "launching point" will be, when it is proven that (perhaps) "evolution" was embedded in advance in an overall master plan of a higher power (again, provided that it is about ages and not 24-hour days).

    By the way, repeat the derogatory nickname of "Bor and the people of the land"... I chose Bor and live in Israel out of modesty and few jokes. But I knew in my heart that it wouldn't be long before someone would take advantage of my derogatory name.

    Distinguish between ignorance and stupidity.

  281. Joe:

    If you talked to me, my goal is not to philosophize at all, my questions come willingly for a fruitful dialogue. The basis for such a dialogue is the understanding of the concepts and terms we use. As soon as we understand the concepts and can apply them in simple examples, we can move on to the drawing of conclusions stage. I feel that I still have a basic lack of understanding in the way you use the term "chance", so I would appreciate it if you could elaborate a little on the subject.

    The alternative is deaf talk full of insults and derogatory names, you choose.

  282. "You just don't understand what is being said here."

    Maybe when your father told you non-stop "you don't understand" when you were a child and shut you down - it worked.

    It doesn't work on adults

  283. Note:
    Response 95 was written out of a certain anger that arose from response 89.
    This was even before response 94 was released (which was blocked, temporarily, by the automated system).
    The content of comment 95 is still correct but if I had seen comment 94 before I wrote it I would probably have used more subtle wording.

  284. Joe:
    Chance 1 is not random and arbitrary but the correct answer.
    Any event, whose chances of occurring during, say, a year, are greater than zero - its chances of occurring over a period of as many years as we wish are 1.
    It is very simple to prove and anyone who understands anything about probability knows this.
    If you are flexible - you might even be able to open up to the truth!

    The launch point between two things only exists if the two things touch.
    It is not clear to me what you mean by the launch point of two doctrines that are completely opposite to the understanding of the world.
    Scientific doctrine seeks truth through experience and logic.
    The religious doctrine denies these means and instead suggests belief in grandmother's stories.

    It is interesting to know why you are even looking for such a launch point.
    What is the starting point between religion and the ball?
    What is the starting point between religion and Big Brother?
    These questions do not interest you?

  285. Michael:
    Response 89 was not addressed to you - but to Guy.
    Second, I hope I won't regret the "charm" I gave you in a short time.

  286. Michael:
    First, thank you for an answer that is not cynical.
    The kind of answers you gave, I also give the same answers to people who talk to me about religion and science.
    But I still want to find the starting point (if there is one), between religion and science.

    The chance-"1" as you wrote, sounds far-fetched and too arbitrary (meaning that it is impossible to ignore a combination of unique data - at a unique time).

    Be flexible, be flexible.

  287. By the way, idiot:
    You really prove to me that Shabbat is a day of rest.
    More than 24 hours without your nonsense is a real gift.

  288. ignorant:
    You got the right answer - even if it's not the answer you wanted to get.

    You just don't understand what is being said here.

  289. Roschild
    You are ready to shut your mouth already and let factual arguments be heard

    Until now A spoke to the matter.

    You keep trying to incite the subject to ego and hatred and it's enough already.

    And yes, I expect another infantile response from you

  290. Excuse me, your honor - but if your goal is falsehood to the end, and you pretend to be intelligent, open the door to your right, and join the first person who shouts Eureka.
    Then maybe you will come to your satisfaction.

    I'm sorry for being blunt, but your contribution is not absent.

  291. A:
    I see you are still alive.
    Meanwhile you ignore the challenge.
    What happened? When it's your money and not scamming others, do you suddenly not trust your far-fetched probability calculations?

  292. Joe:
    The chance that on any Hanukkah during the lifetime of the universe exactly 44 people will die in a cremation is 1.

    By the way, it hasn't happened yet. Some of the 44 died after Hanukkah and some of the wounded may still die.

    Of course you would ask the same question about 8 people or about a fire caused by an oil can or a fire in the Maccabim area or if there were 44 people who were saved (from the language of salvation) at a time when they could have died from a fire or if there were 8 people who were saved plus a priest and a priest.
    If you take all the coincidences that you would define as the hand of God and refer to the question of what is the chance of which one of them will happen, then the answer to this question will probably be 1 even if we greatly limit the period in which we examine the matter.

  293. Randomness? Meaning, without external intervention of any kind... physical, telepathic, etc. of any entity.

  294. Joe:

    The matter may not be so simple. Before we jump to conclusions we will try to understand the question you asked.
    You used a lot of terms that I'm not sure I understand. What is a chance? What is randomness (to which you referred with the phrase "randomly").

  295. ravine:
    Simply put, what is the chance that there will be a match between what happened and Hanukkah symbols (and data) randomly? So that, according to you, "it will not be attributed to a message from a higher power"?

    And that's the end of my explanations.

  296. Joe:

    Sorry but I still don't understand what you mean, maybe you could still try to clarify the question?
    You asked what are the chances?
    And I ask what is the chance? And to make things clear, you will also give an example. There is not much point in dialogue when the parties do not understand each other's words.

  297. ravine.
    For this you need an accurate "acceptance" of the data I uploaded...
    Can't think of an example right now.

    I think the question is pretty clear.

    And yet, what are the chances that I will want to convey a message to you for a certain task, at a unique time in a unique way, and in a unique amount - and you will do it, just by telepathically transferring it from me to you?

    Hope the reception is appropriate.

  298. The evolutionists do not understand anything, otherwise they would grow computers and televisions on the trees.
    Sages have already said in a tractate that they are going to grow ready-made food on the trees and ready-made clothes and utensils.
    So when you get to that, it's a sign that you've understood what evolution is, until then you'll live in dreams.

  299. What chance does a person have of winning the first prize in Toto Lotto Pis, etc. - absolutely zero (the chance of each of us dying within a few days is much greater). But as soon as someone won - then he won. So what? God in heaven arranged this win for him?

  300. To the last Camila-

    The first article is based on reactions without enzymes. That is, on the purity of natural processes. He claims that at a certain temperature the RNA template will break off (usually around 80 Celsius), and then, when the temperature changes, the RNA chain will be rebuilt again. Some problems with the scenario It:

    a) If the chain breaks, the nucleotides will also break from each other. Which means we will get a salad.
    b) Even if it is possible, the chance of this happening in a long chain (as opposed to a short one) is extremely low, because the nucleotides also need to stick to each other (polymerization), and not just to the template.
    c) We need to find a natural environment in which the above processes occur repeatedly, on a fairly large scale (according to the hypothesis of the RNA world, the ocean was filled with nucleotides), in order to demonstrate this in real time.

    As for the second attempt - this is exactly what I claimed: ribozymes that attach 2 subunits to it, to complete the replication process. No chance on any scale.

    In short - try again...

    True, as you say, it is very difficult to prove that something is not possible. But we easily rule out a lot of things. For example, the creation of a car through natural processes. Why do you think the creation of a car through a natural process is different from the chances of creating DNA through a natural process?

    Are you really comparing a salt crystal to the complexity of proteins like kinesin and RNA polymerase?

    "Cars do not reproduce by placing offspring (each car is produced individually on the production line), and do not undergo natural selection. "-True. But your argument revolves around similarity and not about the ability to inherit. And here you are also wrong - similar biological systems exist, which were apparently created separately. The eye, for example, was created according to evolution 40 times separately. So similarity between systems can be created, also according to evolution, from an origin Not shared. Which refutes the whole claim.

    "So, contrary to Michael's opinion, I would be happy if you stayed here longer because for me you are an excellent ambassador of the opponents of evolution" - excellent.

    And what is my opinion about the creation of the world? As I hinted, in my opinion, certain biological mechanisms were created at once. Anyone who sees this as evidence of a one-time creation - shame on him.

    I can accept normal changes such as color changes and improvement of an existing feature. But I cannot accept the formation of a complex biological complex, such as a kinesin or a nucleosome or a ribosome. This already belongs to the science of dreams...

  301. I didn't ask if there was a connection.
    I asked a simple question as it is presented…
    And I asked for a "statistical" answer!!!
    And for those who have difficulty understanding the question, I am asking for net numbers.

    I define the term chance...

    manner (form)+
    "Specific quantity".

    To my father: This type of answer indicates mental fixation.
    Every researcher/scientist, who has a mental fixation, will "turn around his tail" - and will not add truth.

  302. Joe:

    How do you define the term chance? How do you calculate the probability that a certain event will happen?

  303. Absolute bullshit. There is no relationship and those who are looking for this relationship indicate more about him than about the nature of the relationship.

  304. An urgent question for Darwinist statisticians...

    What are the chances that 44 people will die? Exactly on Hanukkah, and precisely in a fire?!

    As the total number of candles that are lit on Hanukkah, in a fire and not in any other way (drowning, accident, etc.).

    I am not a religious person in a practical way, but finding out the truth is a candle to my feet.
    I'm asking for a serious answer - not an argument.
    I will have another chance to argue with this and another in the future - I guess.

    Quote from Walla:
    Special coverage of the Carmel in the Carmel disaster: firefighter Danny Hayat died of his wounds
    By: Kobi Mandel and Ariel Noi, Walla! news
    Saturday, December 18, 2010, 18:02 p.m
    Firefighter Danny Hait, who was seriously injured in a fire in Carmel, died of his wounds at Rambam Hospital in Haifa. A tailor was injured while trying to extinguish the police bus that caught fire. This brings the number of people killed in the disaster to 44.

  305. Clarification religion, science.
    The development of human language and writing form the basis for the development of human thoughts.
    In the beginning, language and writing were used for basic communication, for the needs of existence and survival, and for mutual help. As a result, groups of people, society and cultures developed.
    Words are metaphors, sometimes indicating the "thing", if it is an inanimate thing that grows and lives. There are words that indicate an action. And a variety of other words that indicate other essences.
    The person learned to connect the words and create sentences. Build sequences of thoughts, ideas, and imaginations. and even build stories.
    Religious thinking is archaic thinking, which grew out of mythical thinking that attributes meanings and explanations to events. Both mythical and religious thinking tried to define the purpose of human life. After that, philosophical thinking developed and following it the approaches in philosophy.
    The three forms of thinking were satisfied with sensory and subjective knowledge
    In personal opinion and verbal persuasion. Sometimes magic is used to impress and convince. and sometimes with physical and psychological violence.

    Scientific thinking is a fourth way of thinking in the evolution of human thinking. is about 150 years young. compared to thousands of years of the other forms of thinking.

    Scientific thinking requires defining the word theory and idea in a reference to test them in reality. In other words, it is not enough to call it gold, but there are criteria that can be argued for and that there will be agreement regardless of culture.

    That is, scientific thinking requires that there be a connection between the word (the metaphor) and the sentence, thought, knowledge, imagination, and reality by using the senses, experiments and prediction.

    Since our sensory perception is limited. After all, the technological developments allow the expansion of the spectrum of sensory perception and our ability to expand our perception of reality.
    Therefore there are innovations, and not that scientific thinking is not good, or correct as those who hold the altar horns of religious thinking claim.

    Religious thinking is one of the three archaic forms of thinking
    It has an important place in the history of human thinking, nothing more.

    Religious thinking is not equivalent to scientific thinking in understanding reality.
    Since her way of relating and understanding reality is only a literary way. That is to say that words are used without being defined and put to the test in reality.

    Religious thinking is not similar due to the "faith" and is not equal to the "faith" thoughts that are in scientific thinking.

    All thoughts of "belief" in scientific thinking await proof according to the criteria of the scientific method. And another part of the "beliefs" are based on evidence according to the scientific method.

    Although the same word "belief" is used and it can be misleading. But the meanings of the same word are heaven and earth when it is used in scientific thinking as opposed to religious thinking.

  306. And by the way - Q:
    The fact that A managed to mislead you is no accident.
    Deception is the main tool in the work of these companies.
    That's why I also put before him in response 52 a challenge that would oblige him to express the extent of his faith in the claims he makes.
    If he thinks he is capable of performing the probabilistic calculations he claims to perform, he should have no problem accepting the challenge.
    I could interpret the fact that he did not respond to the challenge by saying that he does not believe in his own words, but in the meantime there is a simpler interpretation: he is not just a creationist - he is simply religious (which is the more problematic type of creationism) and does not write on Shabbat.
    We'll see how he reacts later.
    I really hope he will invite me to the game I described because there is a potential for huge profit here.

  307. That:
    You probably haven't participated in enough debates with creationists to immediately recognize what goes like a duck and misses like a duck.
    A is their creation in a bubble.
    In response 50 he even writes this explicitly - and I quote:
    "In my opinion, the first cell, or its replication mechanism, was created at once. But not by natural processes."
    Therefore - he doubts - but only what makes sense. In clearly illogical assumptions he does not doubt at all.

  308. Some "God" there is no doubt that this is not the God that religious people talk about (rabbis, priests, sheikhs, etc.)
    Everything that is recorded in the sources - the Bible, the Koran, the New Testament - these are historical books in which most of the information was more or less true, except for everything related to supernatural forces, God, etc...
    Everything related to "miracles" etc. is either an invention or really blind faith
    There is no doubt that there is no guiding hand, there is no guard from above and all this nonsense
    In the meantime, one should believe only in science that gives proofs and strives for proofs instead of a religion that creates hatred, wars, a tremendous waste of money and destroys humanity

  309. As a bystander, I have a bad impression of the discussion culture, of both sides (although some are 'clean') - it is possible to discuss without underestimating the other side...
    I think that Not a creationist, but one who questions the dominant scientific paradigm, logical scientific tools.
    Claiming that the theory of evolution has difficulties does not mean that one immediately jumps to the conclusion that a creator of the world with a long white beard created the beetle from the sweat of lice 6000 years ago.
    The evolutionists know that most of their opponents come from religious motives, so they fall into the trap and defend Darwin in a way that is not purely scientific, but reminiscent of religious fanaticism. (hence also the disparaging expressions I mentioned, they would not appear so often in the discussion of carbon fiber).
    and no - Can you lay out your claims in an orderly manner, what do you accept in the evolutionary approach and what is difficult for you, as well as write an alternative that explains the evidence, if you have one?

  310. Beetlegoose (55)

    How many words do you think are needed to explain cosmology, quantum mechanics or general relativity? And remind me what is the decisive evidence of these theories? In your opinion, is anything that is too complex to be explained in half a sentence or "proved" beyond a shadow of a doubt through a single piece of evidence then necessarily untrue? If your answer is yes then there is not even one area of ​​science that meets this criterion, therefore all science is necessarily wrong. So all the successes of science to date is one big fake in your opinion?

  311. A. (50)
    The bottom line is that we do not know as of today how the first clones were created, but the evidence that does exist illustrates that your claims are at most based on ignorance and your gut feeling (which is based on incorrect considerations that I will show later in the response) that it does not make sense. There are models and experiments that show possible mechanisms for the formation of replicas or replicating processes that do not require what you claimed was necessary. For example here:

    A simple mechanism to explain the replication of RNA and DNA without the use of enzymes can also be given within the same thermodynamic framework by assuming that life arose when the temperature of the primitive seas had cooled to somewhat below the denaturing temperature of RNA or DNA ( based on the ratio of 18O/16O found in cherts of the Barberton greenstone belt of South Africa of about 3.5 to 3.2 Ga., surface temperatures are predicted to have been around 70±15 °C,[52] similar to RNA or DNA denaturing temperatures). During the night, the surface water temperature would be below the denaturing temperature and single strand RNA/DNA could act as a template for the formation of double strand RNA/DNA. During the daylight hours, RNA and DNA would absorb UV light and convert this directly to heating of the ocean surface, raising the local temperature enough to allow for denaturing of RNA and DNA. The copying process would be repeated during the cool period overnight.[53] Such a temperature assisted mechanism of replication bears similarity to Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), a routine laboratory procedure to multiply DNA segments.

    52. Lowe, DR and Tice, MM, Donald R.; Tice, Michael M. (2004). "Geologic evidence for Archean atmospheric and climatic evolution: Fluctuating levels of CO2, CH4, and O2 with an overriding tectonic control" (PDF). Geology 32: 493

    53. Michaelian, Karo (2010). "Thermodynamic Origin of Life" (PDF). Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss. 1:1

    And here:

    Relatively short RNA molecules which can duplicate others have been artificially produced in the lab.[65] Such replicase RNA, which functions as both code and catalyst provides a template upon which copying can occur. Jack Szostak has shown that certain catalytic RNAs can, indeed, join smaller RNA sequences together, creating the potential, in the right conditions for self-replication. If these were present, Darwinian selection would favor the proliferation of such self-catalysing structures, to which further functionalities could be added.[66] Lincoln and Joyce identified an RNA enzyme capable of self sustained replication.[67]

    65. Johnston, WK; et al. (2001). "RNA-Catalyzed RNA Polymerization: Accurate and General RNA-Templated Primer Extension". Science 292 (5520):

    66. Szostak, Jack W. (June 4, 2008). "The Origins of Function in Biological Nucleic Acids, Proteins, and Membranes". HHMI.

    67. Lincoln, Tracey A.; Joyce, Gerald F. (January 8, 2009). "Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme". Science (New York: American Association for the Advancement of Science) 323 (5918):

    And there are other alternative proposals that are supported by observations and experiments that, at least at the principle level, are much more feasible and simpler than what you presented, so the scientists you mentioned (and I am one of them by the way) do not disagree with me on this issue at all. Of course, as I mentioned at the beginning, this is the forefront of research and there are many open questions, but there is no evidence that simple replicas do not exist. If someone could give a convincing argument that simple replications are impossible (as opposed to illogical) and it is very difficult to prove that something is not possible or even unlikely as you claim and I will demonstrate what is the fallacy in which you suffer when you claim that the chances are extremely small, absolutely zero. Michael gave his own good example on the subject but you don't have to go to the moon for this. A table salt crystal is a very ordered crystal where all the atoms in it are arranged alternately - a chlorine atom and a sodium atom. Now we will dissolve the crystal in a glass of water and we will get several billions of hydrated sodium and chlorine ions. If we now evaporate the water the ions will return to a crystalline state. If we consider the probability that the configuration we will get is exactly a lattice in which there is always a sodium atom next to a chlorine atom and vice versa but never two sodium or chlorine atoms side by side we will get something very, very, very close to zero and this is because the number of possibilities to get different arrangements is large, so large that the number What you stated in your response can be considered zero for all intents and purposes compared to my number. However, the arrangement we will receive in reality will always be a perfect arrangement, the same arrangement that a line and a half ago I showed there was no chance of getting. Did a miracle happen here? Maybe this explains a few things... Maybe God is so busy arranging the atoms that were sitting in the proper order that he has no time to hear the prayers of rabbis and beauty queens who go up in a hot air balloon (so that he can hear better?) and ask for rain. On the other hand, it could simply be that not every arrangement is allowed for simple chemical and physical reasons and then we don't need God to save us from this embarrassment.
    You wrote: "Assuming that each such enzyme consists of only one hundred bases, this is still a jump of 300^20. An "infinite" number. Michael was right when he explained to you (and not for the first time) that without the right model you can indeed think that certain things are unthinkable, but the reality that it can be measured and reproduced in the laboratory (and even at home in front of the television) shows that this is nonsense. You are presenting such nonsense.

    Will we one day discover simple independent replicas that could have formed in the primordial soup? maybe yes, maybe no. The evidence so far points in the first direction. In any case, I have the patience to wait and I really enjoy the discoveries made along the way. In any case, I hope it is clear to you that the way the first clones were formed is not related to the evolutionary process that seems to have taken place up to this day (and continues to take place even today).

    "How do I think life began on Earth? In my opinion, the first cell, or its replication mechanism, was created at once. But not by natural processes.”
    Aha... that they are for example? My question was pretty obvious, how do you think life began? Offer an alternative explanation, maybe we'll learn something.

    "I didn't understand how you link the age of the world to the claim that the replication mechanism was created in Mecca, or that some planner created nature."
    I showed why the existence of a designer who created nature cannot explain the changes that took place to create the various species that exist today. Suppose there was such a planner, how do you think he created the variety of species we see today?

    Which brings me to phylogenetic trees and fossils - the tree/fossil claim is based on similarity between organisms as evidence of common ancestry. But this is a logical fallacy. Because even in planned things there is a wonderful similarity. For example between different cars. Sometimes a certain model of a car is almost identical to its previous model, a year earlier. In other words, the claim of similarity originates from a wrong inference. Which may testify to a considerable extent about a common creator."
    Cars do not reproduce by placing offspring (each car is made individually on the production line), and do not undergo natural selection. The logical fallacy is with you - your claims are: a. Cars show similarities to each other, b. Cars have a common designer and creator. third. Animals show resemblance to each other. Your conclusion based on the first two claims is that animals must have a co-designer and creator. A clearly wrong conclusion. Here is an example of your crooked logic: a. The color of the milk is white, b. Milk comes from the cow's udders. third. The color of the writing paper is white. Conclusion: the paper must come from the cow's udders.
    Say, aren't you tired of making fun of yourself? (I actually enjoy exposing your follies, so contrary to Michael's opinion I would be happy if you stayed here longer because for me you are an excellent ambassador of the opponents of evolution).

    You wrote: "95% similarity is not close for you?" - So it is not. The human genome consists of 3 billion bases. This means - a difference of tens of thousands of bases between us and monkeys. A huge difference, in light of the fact that sometimes changing one letter is enough for the change to be fatal. "
    Will 99.5% similarity satisfy you?

  312. This is a fight that we must not lose otherwise we will all suffer the results (just look at what is happening in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Sudan and other countries where religion has taken over and turned the lives of the citizens there into hell on earth)

    By the way, someone in response 60 brought a very beautiful example of evolution that takes place right in front of our eyes during a person's lifetime, and it is impossible to argue here that this is only about "bacteria" on a Petri dish, this is about an intelligent and complex animal that is really evolving before our eyes, an excellent example For evolution and an amazing experiment.

    By the way, similar experiments were also done on gray pigeons, and there too, through artificial evolution, different varieties of pigeons were created, some of which look like a bird of a completely different species.

  313. Unfortunately, as long as they have inexhaustible resources to flood the youth, and real science only has small corners, they must be answered, even if it is a Sisyphean task.

  314. Dear Friends,
    I don't understand how you still have the power for all creationists, evolutionists and other history deniers of all kinds. I am already completely discouraged

  315. Beetlegoose, I brought you 39 practical examples of uses in evolution.

    what do you have to say about this?

  316. beetlegoose,
    I suggest you read a little, not a lot.
    All, and I emphasize - all - molecular biology, modern medicine and modern agriculture are based on evolutionary principles. You will learn, for example, how to transfer genes, how to change genes? All this is done as a technology based directly and immediately on evolutionary principles. Without an understanding of these, none of the genetic procedures that are done every day in tens of thousands of laboratories around the world could be performed.
    You will learn a little and we will talk again.

  317. Wow, you make a living here...
    Some things I learned recently from the book Angle of View
    1. I believe = I don't know.
    2. It is impossible to believe and know at the same time. One can know or believe.
    3. It turns out that if you choose to believe, you choose not to know...
    4. In the said book there is a quite interesting explanation, almost convincing and it is possible that it can even be tested by a scientific experiment regarding the origin of life.
    It's true that I didn't repeat the question, but I do think about it...
    keep hanging out

  318. Beetlegoose:
    There is a lot of evidence and you choose to ignore it.
    Who do you think has doubts?
    You must not! You are sure that all reality is one big lie!
    You are sure of it even though all the findings point to the opposite.
    This is exactly why I claim that arguing with you is hopeless and all that is needed is to make it worse on you.
    By the way, how about זה ?

  319. The last Camilla:
    If there was conclusive proof of evolution you wouldn't need so many words to convince. The existence of the debate is conditioned by the fact that there are sufficiency!!!

  320. It is possible for evolutionists to use syntax without the words:

    Ignorant, stupid, evil, delusional, I am enlightened, etc

    The frequent use does not indicate great knowledge but demonstrates a great lack of confidence

    Constantly trying to prove that "I'm up there" - proves that you're not really there.

  321. A:
    I see you meet all the criteria of the stereotypical creationist.
    Your ignoring the links to one of many texts that offer an explanation for the evolution of life is just one of the characteristics.
    The unintelligible use of probability is another characteristic.

    How exactly do you calculate the probability of a chemical reaction without a mathematical model of the chemistry?
    You are simply sucking the calculation from the finger you inherited from the monkey instead of using the brain (which in humans is more developed) to understand that without a model there is no way to calculate such a calculation.

    To calculate the probability of any event, you need to describe the sample space and how the lottery is drawn within it.
    To apply probability in the field we are discussing, you need to describe a model of chemistry and of all the ways in which a living organism can be formed, then calculate the ratio between the number of experiments that would have yielded success and the number of possible experiments and multiply that by the number of experiments that were actually carried out.
    The matter of a model is very important. Think for a moment about the strange fact that the moon always faces us on the same side.
    A fool will say that it can't happen (it does happen) because there is no way that the speed of the moon's movement around the earth will exactly match the speed of its rotation around its axis so that it completes both rotations at the same time. It will be argued that the chance of two random numbers being identical to each other is zero (and zero, as we know, is smaller than all the chances you "calculated" for this or that biological process). He will conclude that God took care of it. But he is, as mentioned, stupid, because he did not take the laws of physics into account. A sane person who notices this point will try (and succeed) to find the laws of physics that cause this and will be able, therefore, to free the god of gaps for more important tasks.
    This is the importance of the model
    But let's touch on another point for a moment.
    I will ask you a question based on the ability to calculate chances.
    Think about the next game (which involves a participation fee: )
    There are 100 people who each received one of the numbers between 1 and 100.
    There is a room inside which is a thick wooden surface with 100 holes arranged in a row and covered with lids.
    Inside the holes are written the numbers from 1 to 100 in random order.
    The job of each person is to identify the hole where their number is written.
    For this purpose, he is allowed to examine the contents of 50 holes according to his choice (that is, he is allowed to access a maximum of 50 holes and in each of them open the lid, look inside and close it again).
    Then he must go to the game managers and say in which hole he thinks his number is.
    After telling the managers this he goes home and cannot have any contact with the others.
    After everyone has gone through the room checkers who manage all the people's guesses.
    If everyone guessed correctly, they distribute a prize of NIS 1000 to each.
    Otherwise they don't share anything.
    Before the people enter the room they are allowed to discuss among themselves and make any decision they want.
    How much is it worth to them - if they are smart, to pay for participating in the game?
    To check if you trust yourself answer the following practical question:
    It was said that I and 99 of my friends are willing to pay 10 shekels each to participate in such a game that you will finance the prizes distributed in it.
    This means that for each cycle of the game you are paid 1000 new shekels.
    Do you want to commit to playing with us, let's say, twenty such games?
    I assume that someone with your level of knowledge will stupidly think that the chances of winning are very low and will come to the conclusion that the offer to finance the game is worthwhile for him.
    On the other hand, he will think, whoever presented me with the challenge may know what he is talking about and between me - after all, I know that I don't know and I only play the know-it-all towards others - so maybe he will agree to finance the game because of the danger?
    With such a conflict, it is likely that you will decide not to respond because money is involved here. This is different from the stupid statements you usually make that cost you nothing.
    So what will happen?
    would you agree
    If you are like your predecessors - you probably won't agree.
    So far I have had two types of responses to such questions:
    One is ignoring.
    The second is the delusional claim that it doesn't belong.
    I wonder if you will come up with another delusional claim for us.

  322. to camila-

    What is the minimum required for the replication process? Good question. If you have a general background in biochemistry, then at least 2-3 enzymes are required: one enzyme that binds nucleotides on an existing RNA chain, one enzyme that connects the nucleotides to each other and one enzyme that forms the chain from the original template Of course, each such enzyme is itself composed of hundreds of RNA, DNA, or XA bases.

    Assuming that each such enzyme consists of only a hundred bases, this is still a jump of 300^20. an "infinite" number.

    Therefore, even the great abiogenesis scientists do not believe that these enzymes were created in the primordial soup. But what to do, this is probably the only way. If you are willing to accept every possible chance, your right. But know that the scientists disagree with you.

    "There are very complicated mechanisms and components and there are those that are much simpler. It is not so improbable to assume that even simpler mechanisms and components existed in the past than the simplest ones we find today" - but all of them are required at least for the aforementioned enzymes, see above.

    When, in my opinion, did life begin on Earth? In my opinion, the first cell, or its replication mechanism, was created at once. But not by natural processes. In any case, we must not accept a hopeless explanation.

    I did not understand how you link the age of the world to the claim that the replication mechanism was created in Mecca, or that some planner created nature.

    Which brings me to phylogenetic trees and fossils - the claim of trees/fossils is based on similarity between organisms as evidence of a common origin. However, this is a logical fallacy. Because even in designed things there is a wonderful similarity. For example between different cars. Sometimes a certain model of a car is almost identical to its previous model, a year Earlier. That is, the claim about similarity originates from a wrong conclusion. Which may testify to a considerable extent about a common creator.

    "95% similarity is not close for you?" - So it is not. The human genome consists of 3 billion bases. This means - a difference of tens of thousands of bases between us and monkeys. A huge difference, in light of the fact that sometimes changing one letter is enough for the change to be fatal.

  323. Friends (and I mean friends, not idiots):
    It's a shame for every second you devote to Beetlegoose and A.
    These two company decided in advance that no fact will spoil their delusions and all they are doing here is bothering.
    As far as I'm concerned - the only way she has a chance against them is to annoy them with the spread of lies they engage in non-stop.

    Anyone who argues with evolution for religious reasons should hear what the Sages had to say on the subject:
    About abiogenesis:
    Lice are created from human sweat and mice from mold.
    Enjoyed? Read about other evolution topics:
    The Erod can be created as a result of pairing a snake with a turtle: "Rabbi Hona Bar Torta said: Once I went to a council and saw a snake that was wrapped around the turtle, later an Erod [a type of snake] came out from among them", Chulin Kakhz p.a.
    is funny?
    That's not all, of course:
    In tractate Avot, Chapter XNUMX, Mishna XNUMX, it is written: "The tiger is bold-faced because he is a bastard like the mule [!] which [the tiger] is the son of the wild boar and the son of the lioness. Because during the heat of the lions, the female puts her head in the thickets of the forest and growls and demands the male, and the pig hears her voice and chases her, etc. And since he is a bastard, he has a fierce face."
    And how about that?
    And in order not to detract from the Jerusalem Talmud, I will also quote from his words:
    In the Jerusalem Talmud it is known to say that: once every seven years God changes his world, the louse after seven years turns into a scorpion, a male hyena turns into a female and a mountain mouse turns into a wild boar (Shabbat chapter XNUMX page XNUMX column XNUMX / XNUMX) In summary - the Talmudic thinking was Very good for stand-up comedy if it wasn't so funny that the stand-up artist himself would lie down laughing.

  324. A. (28):
    You wrote: "According to the theory of evolution, mutations are actually supposed to create new biological structures, not destroy them. Therefore, as I said, degeneration is actually evolution in reverse."

    Honey, you write nonsense and it's clearly out of ignorance. I recommend you read a professional book on evolution because what you just wrote is complete nonsense. Evolution is not supposed to do anything. Evolution is simply a change in the frequency of alleles from generation to generation. There are countless examples of evolutionary changes that lead to degeneration of systems/organs/genes and countless examples of changes that lead to the opposite direction. Evolution has no direction, no goal, no desires. What you wrote is more reminiscent of social Darwinism (which has nothing to do with Darwin and the theory of evolution) and its misuse by the Nazis.

    You wrote: "The same goes for photosynthesis in snails - snails have the genes for photosynthesis. This is something that should not be found in them but in completely different phylogenetic trees. How do you explain this in an evolutionary way?"
    I again refer you to that article, the answers are there. Too bad you don't bother to make a little effort. There is no contradiction with evolution, the connection between that snail and the algae that is its food and that is the source of the chloroplasts with which it carries out photosynthesis is a clear connection in time and place and there really is no special miracle here. I can tell you what, for example, there might be a problem that impairs the explanation of evolution, if there are many species of snails but only some of them (and they do not sit exclusively on one phylogenetic branch) would perform photosynthesis in the same mechanism when they had no connection in time or space with organisms containing chloroplasts As they were found in those snails, then it really didn't fit the story that the other facts tell and maybe other mechanisms should have been thought of. Even in such a case there is no contradiction between the mechanism of natural selection and other mechanisms that may also have a certain effect. In any case, to the best of my knowledge, no such case has been found to date.

    You wrote: "It is very easy to claim that these are transposons or insertions from other creatures. But as far as I know, this is another theory. In other words, you solve the above problem by adding another theory. So what exactly did we do here?"
    I did not solve the problem, we started with an apparent "problem" in evolution (which turned out not to be a problem at all) and I raised an untested belief that there are known mechanisms (which are not in the scope of theory but known mechanisms that are used in laboratories every day) that can explain that interesting phenomenon in a fairly simple way. I have no idea what the exact mechanism is that does happen there, I didn't delve into it and didn't claim to "solve" this difficulty but only refer to it and speculate. However, it is possible to delve into the details and if they have not yet discovered the exact mechanism, then this is an excellent research topic, you are welcome to try if it is really important to you, I am interested in other things and my time is not abundant. Thanks.

    You wrote: I have misunderstandings and other difficulties. If you want, I will expand...:
    In light of what you wrote in your comments, which included a significant number of extremely incorrect statements about the field of evolution, errors that I addressed since I understand something on the subject by virtue of my research that also concerns evolutionary issues. So forgive me but I will give up the pleasure. By the way, even when you come to the garage, you start arguing with the mechanic about what causes the noise in the engine and that's without understanding how the engine works? It's one thing to make claims when you are knowledgeable in the field (doesn't require belief or acceptance of the field) and know the details and definitions, but it's brazen when you talk to a professional and make stupid claims that are irrelevant and at best reveal your ignorance. I think I kind of try to patiently answer what people write even when it's obvious that they don't know the material that well or even if their logic is a bit crooked, but there's a limit to how much nonsense one person can spout regarding basic facts and definitions.

  325. A. (28)
    You wrote: "I don't understand how the monkey's closeness to man or any other genotypic closeness (by the way, they are not as close as you think) proves a common origin, rather than a common creator."

    The monkey's closeness to man confirms (not proves) the hypothesis of common origin that was put forward in the framework of evolution. Since, as Lapels said to Napoleon - we do not need this hypothesis - in reference to God, here too science does not examine this possibility because it is inaccessible by the scientific method. Let's assume for the sake of the matter that there is indeed a Creator. If you suggest that he directly created all the creatures that exist today and therefore see a common similarity, then this raises some contradictions: you are not claiming that he created the individuals that are alive today, right? That means me and you and the monkey in Africa who is currently swinging on a tree. We were all born to our parents and they to their parents and so on. We also know that there are genetic changes between us and our parents from generation to generation, we also know that we have competition for limited resources and that not each of us produces the same number of offspring. In short, all the conditions for evolution are met even now. We will return to the same Creator. When did he create all his creations? 6000 years ago? Doesn't match the facts. A million years ago? So it doesn't add up with the hundreds of thousands of fossils that tell a different story. 4.5 billion years ago? So you relegated it to the biogenesis stage and basically showed that evolution is the only explanation whether there is a creator of the world or whether there is no creator of the world. Your only option to "get out" of this is if you claim that the creator of the world is actually deceiving us and confusing us like for example he plants fossils that look old and things like that. Perhaps these are arguments that suit the Sages when they argue about that one who falls from the roof and his penis penetrated the genitals of the woman he was supposed to ravage, whether or not a ravishing actually took place. These are not arguments that are relevant to science. In light of what I wrote, do you have an explanation of how the phylogenetic trees (which were modeled using scientific methods and through the glasses of evolution) support the idea of ​​a common creator? Do you have any idea why those who believe in a common creator did not initiate the construction and examination of phylogenetic trees themselves if it might be so relevant to the subject?

    By the way, apes and humans are so close at the anatomical, molecular and even behavioral level, that you have to be completely blind to think that we don't have a common origin as the fossil evidence also shows.
    When you write that we are not as close as we think, what do you mean? 95% similarity is not close for you? (In many cases the similarity is much higher than that but I'll go for it).

  326. A. (25)
    You wrote: "In short, the only way we know for efficient replication is the formation of RNA/DNA polymerase. But as I said, this is based on a hopeless event."

    How hopeless? Do you know what is the minimum required to start the replication process. It sounds like your main argument is something like the following: the efficient replicator we know today is very complex, so it is unlikely that such a replicator evolved by chance. The thing is that we don't know what the minimum is needed to start the replication process (which is a key point for the beginning of evolution). On the other hand, we do know that even if the probability of this is very small, this chance still exists (although I definitely agree that it is so unlikely that something as complex as what exists today was created by chance, so it is probably not what happened). Not knowing in itself is not proof that something is not possible. I still believe that the replication process started in the past from relatively simple molecules with a relatively simple mechanism because of the collection of circumstantial evidence that points in the direction of this possibility. When you examine the reproduction mechanisms of different organisms in the tree of life you see that their mechanisms and components are not the same in their level of complexity. There are very complicated mechanisms and components and there are those that are much simpler. You find the simplest mechanisms in the most primitive life forms (primitive in the sense of similarity to the ancestor, not in terms of efficiency or quality). This indicates a gradual process of refinement in this case of the mechanisms and components of the shards. It is not so improbable to assume that even simpler mechanisms and components existed in the past than the simplest ones we find today. The fact that we don't know about them yet does not negate their existence. The fact that we do know examples of much simpler components and mechanisms that have appropriate properties (even if not complete) strengthens the belief that it is indeed possible to obtain mechanisms and components of replicators that are simpler and perhaps even much simpler, which eliminates the need at this stage to turn to supernatural forces and strengthens the The desire of the scientists to try and find those possible solutions. In this respect, it is an open question that is still at the forefront of research, and like everything that is at the forefront of research, there are still no answers to most of the questions, but there are mainly questions and hypotheses. I believe that in the not too distant future (a few tens of years) a simple duplicating mechanism will be found, but this is only faith, just like faith in God for that matter, faith that comes from a combination of gut feeling and hope. I know how to separate these kinds of beliefs from science.
    By the way, how do you think life began on Earth?

  327. I really don't understand how you can completely deny evolution. When we buy a plant for home do we really see it grow? No. We see the growth after it has happened because the plant moves and grows too slowly for our eyes to notice the beam change. When we look at the moon at night do we actually see it moving in front of our eyes in the sky? No!! To us it appears to be hanging, and only after a certain time we see that it is "suddenly" hanging in the sky in a different location. - Why is it so difficult to understand that evolution is a process that is many times longer than the processes described here and we are only entering its depth in recent times with new findings, of course we cannot observe evolution directly into the world, only in retrospect, like many processes around us, but this does not rule out that they are indeed developing around us all the time and developed in the past - as is the nature of the universe around us - at different speeds - some slow and some very fast in relation to us, but still arbitrary. Evolution is not science. It is a belief that is based on observations and intellect. At the moment - both are confirming the claim more than refuting it, so the idea of ​​evolution deserves to remain and continue to try and obtain better evidence.
    As a person of faith, I see no reason to see evolution as a claim that contradicts a deity. I'm really trying to understand the people who forcefully decide that God created man in a day (because what is a day for God? Is it a day like ours? Or can God's day be a billion of our years? - is it proper for us to decide?...) and maybe God created man On (his) day that took a billion or more years here - and whoop - here is a human being (and other vegetables, but I will focus my argument on a human being:). And with all due respect, the process of evolution is no less magic than any magic that exists in our concepts as well. Evolution neither contradicts God nor contradicts itself. On the contrary - it shows that everything as a whole and as an individual in the universe strives to develop through change - and isn't that exactly what the deity is asking him to do? - To all the naysayers - please think about it..

  328. Avi Shalom, why don't you release comments?

    I sent a response that includes 2 links to articles from the evolution forum on the Orange site, why don't you approve them?

  329. Beetlegoose what proof do you have for the story God? Apart from a collection of folk tales and a night of superstitions, there is no shortage of proof.

  330. Avi Blizovsky:
    Of course, also a diesel engine, rocking chairs, and the washing machine that also irons.

  331. It has already been explained to you that antibiotics are the technology you are asking for, you emphasize the mental opacity of the creationists who are not willing to hear that there are answers to their seemingly open questions.

  332. Rothschild:
    You are just a bloated scum like the bloated title and text of this article on the theory of evolution.
    The sloppiness of people like you doesn't help the theory debate at all.
    What can stop the debate is a convincing proof such as the appearance of everyday technology that makes it possible to control the processes of life just as electronic products are built.
    As long as there is no such thing, there will be a debate and there will be scumbags like you who think that with vain claims and condescending talk they will convince everyone of the truth of your nonsense.

  333. "They are just an interweaving of professional words into an inflated but meaningless slogan."

    This is exactly what you get from reading your long response full of air and self-importance.

    who do you think You Are ? clown

  334. Beetlegoose (hybrid of a beetle with a goose):

    It seems to me that in your last response you forgot one "no".
    It seems to me that you are building on the fact that if you say the nonsense many times it will become the truth.
    You haven't read the article that provides conclusive evidence for evolution.
    You say about things that have already been done that they are impossible.
    You say that technologies that exist and some of them work successfully even before the word evolution was invented do not exist.
    You must be one of those people who, when they enter the zoo and see a giraffe, say "It's impossible! There is no such animal!".

    The truth is that if I hadn't actually met types like you I would also say about them "it's impossible - there is no such animal" but since I act a little differently and I have met the animal - I consider myself obliged to believe in its existence.

    Religious belief is ridiculous.
    It is difficult to give a blanket answer that will show the ridiculousness of all religions, but if we talk about monotheistic beliefs, then these questions are based on the ridiculous stories in the Torah that are in conflict with science (the rabbit does not raise rum, contrary to what is written in the Torah, the Euphrates and the Tigris do not come from a common source, contrary to what is written in the Torah, the story of the flood and Noah's ark do not Perhaps for many reasons, the story of the Tower of Babel - apart from the fact that it is completely delusional - also presents a jealous and cowardly God who fears that if humans build a tower then they will be like him - and more and more priests).
    If you focus on the Jewish religion, you can also add to the ridiculousness the jokes of the Sages (like lice are formed from human sweat and mice from mold or like a cow's trachea splits into three parts, one of which reaches the liver).

    All religions are built on the neutralization of critical thought and the introduction of faith under them.
    That is why it is not surprising that there are Muslims who lose themselves to religion (this is not a spelling error. Religion is an "opinion" whose eye has been removed).

    I think you didn't read the article or didn't understand it.
    Otherwise you would understand how the matter of common origin arises from it without a shadow of a doubt.
    The truth is that I hold back from claiming that your misunderstanding is the result of a decision that you decided not to accept the conclusions before even reading the article.
    Your words on the subject of abiogenesis are also just an interweaving of professional words into an inflated but meaningless jargon.
    If you want more stuff that you can ignore and attack anyway, then go for it Link to this and to the links marked from it.

  335. Zvi from Rashalat:
    Again no no no no! Conclusive proof in the form of a general and broad technology similar to electronics that originates from the theory of evolution in a unambiguous and clear way.
    If there was such a thing, all the debates would not take place here.
    Therefore it is still a matter of private belief for each and everyone's choice.
    Speculation of what might happen is not worth the profit on the computer screen.
    As long as they haven't happened they are just as much speculation as saying the world will end in 2012. String theory has been under development for about 40 years without any visible practical results. No one will give it another 40 years to bring even 10 results.
    Chatter like we'll be talking in another 200 years fits exactly the language and style of the creationists.

  336. Beetlegoose has an evolutionary technology and they call it "improvement". It has been used in agriculture for thousands of years and that is how all domesticated animals have been domesticated. The whole difference between man's unnatural selection that created the cow from the primordial wild ox and the natural selection that created the ox in the first place is a scale of time. Because the evolution contains a lot of random components so it takes more time.

    The only thing that can "knock" evolution is a time machine that will prove that it didn't have enough time to develop all these millions of species.

  337. for deer-

    I have studied enough. Thank you. And I would recommend reading professional books, and not at the level of popular science.

    I explained the first replicating problem. Why it is largely improbable, even according to the scientists. I'm interested to hear what Dawkins' solution to the above problem is. Bring it here if it exists, and we'll wonder about our jar...

  338. Beetlegoose:
    What does "if it was true" mean? I'm in favor of doubting, but not when talking nonsense.
    If I grab the apple and let go then statistically around 1 in 10 to the 63rd power the apple will not fall down but will jump in some other direction because if by chance the spin of all the electrons in the apple are in the same direction, the apple will gain momentum and react. So what, I'm willing to bet on it, your penny for all the money in the world on every roll - are you ready? So since humanity does not have the time to perform 10 to the 63 toss, does this mean that statistics is a theory and cannot be relied upon and predicted with its help? Because I don't have endless years and endless monkeys with typewriters?
    Who said that 200 years is enough to control the processes of life?! Maybe in this field humanity will need a few more centuries.
    Chumza that in the meantime we show a beautiful control, starting with Mandal and ending with manipulations on genes that are carried out today, heal you and prolong your life.
    Give humanity another 200 years and see where we will be.

    Regarding your comment about string theory, it's probably a private case that still doesn't complete a full picture but that doesn't mean it's bullshit! And here too - let's talk for another 200 years.. 🙂

  339. Zvi from Rashalat:
    I am not debating whether evolution is true or false.
    But a conclusive proof of evolution can be in the form of technology that enables control over elementary life processes. In a way that it is clear that it is not possible to apply this except as a result of this Torah. And an example of this is modern electronics which would not exist if quantum physics were not correct.
    The theory of evolution has been around for almost 200 years, more than twice as long as quantum theory.
    If it was true we could have used technology to control life a long time ago. If you compare it to the technological development that originates from quantum theory.
    The fact is that there is no such technology.
    I mentioned earlier that a very advanced theory, string theory, was also developed in physics. The only significant product of this Torah is very advanced mathematics. in the field of bruises and other fields. But apart from that there is no practical result that can be tested in the laboratory.
    And that is exactly what leaves this beautiful theory in the realm of interpretation only.

  340. A(24) + Beetlegoose(26):
    The statements of both of you about evolution indicate that the time has come for the Ministry of Education to integrate evolution studies.
    Even if a piece of the puzzle is missing, it does not mean that other theories cannot be disproved.
    I recommend you both to watch the Richard Dawkins series, at least the two episodes of 87. And in general.. I recommend it to everyone.

    I also (warmly) recommend you to watch both episodes, although I know it won't change your mind and in general with blind coaches of all kinds I don't tend to argue.

  341. Continue to Camila-

    Regarding phylogenetic trees - I don't understand how the monkey's closeness to man or any other genotypic closeness (by the way, they are not as close as you think) proves a common origin, rather than a common creator.

    Regarding the degeneration of systems, this is not nonsense at all. Degeneration is caused by a mutation that destroys an existing system. According to the theory of evolution, mutations are actually supposed to create new biological structures, not destroy them. Therefore, as I said, degeneration is actually evolution in reverse.

    The same goes for photosynthesis in snails - snails have the genes for photosynthesis. This is something that should not be found in them but in completely different phylogenetic trees. How do you explain this in an evolutionary way?

    It is very easy to argue that these are transposons or insertions from other creatures. But as far as I know, this is another theory. That is, you solve the above problem by adding another theory. So what exactly did we do here?

    I have misunderstandings and other difficulties. If you want, I will expand...

  342. The last Camilla:
    Science, the result of which is a technology that, in a decisive way, could not exist without science. This is a fact that indicates the correctness of the assumptions of science.
    Evolution as a science does not have that kind of technology as it does in quantum physics, chemistry and the like.
    You tend to attribute the technologies you mentioned to the science of evolution. And it can equally be attributed to other areas. You can equally attribute alternative medicine if the results are good to some alternative science.
    When the success of the theory of evolution is to produce wine from beautiful grapes too!
    There is no innovation that is conclusive evidence when life is made from life.
    If evolution were to reach a deep understanding of life after so many years, this could be proven through technology that enables control over the sources of life.
    And in the meantime, continue to explain how different wines are made from different fruits.
    The attempt to explain evolution by dividing it into different chapters is simply an exercise that all religions use to interpret their interpretation.
    Astrophysics and evolution should not be compared at all. Because the practical implication for astrophysics in deep space is zero. (Until there are no vehicles to go there or devices are developed that utilize dark matter or dark energy)
    Evolution, on the other hand, should have an immediate technological impact here on Earth, including the ability to unambiguously control the construction of life in the most electronic way.
    In conclusion, evolution can be proven easily and in a way that excludes debate, provided that you see a practical technology for controlling or creating life that there is no other way to explain it except through this science. Until then you have a nice interpretation and that's all.

  343. As an ultra-Orthodox, I have never been able to understand why the religious oppose the theory of evolution. In my opinion it was taken from the opposition of the Christian establishment and there is no point in it.
    It's kind of like saying that whoever says that a cypress tree takes decades to grow is then a heretic, because according to the belief the world was created out of its abundance, including cypress trees.
    As a believing Jew, I believe that the world was indeed created on its own, and this is a subject that cannot be logically debated and is subject only to personal belief, and everyone has to choose whether to believe it or not.
    After all, we believe that God created the world with trees, seas and rivers, people and animals. This does not contradict the fact that science, for its part, should study the world while ignoring this fact. Because there is a very essential meaning in understanding evolution even if the world started about five thousand years ago. Evolution has future implications and not just the past. And understanding it can and does contribute a lot to science. Although I personally do not believe in the descent of man from monkeys as a practical fact, I am ready to accept the fact as something theoretical and important as a basis for various studies.

  344. withering-

    By chance, the subject of abiogenesis is one of my favorites. All researchers of abiogenesis agree on one thing - you need to find a replicator of some kind, which can replicate hundreds of RNA bases. In the known life, it is a RNA polymerase protein. This protein is quite complex and contains many binding sites and reactions. The scientists do not believe that our polymerase was sailing in the primordial soup. They are looking for a simpler molecule.

    For the time being, they found only one such replicator - ribozyme is quite complex (but much simpler than RNA polymerase) which is able to take halves of itself and assemble them into one molecule. The result is a replication of itself.

    a) Since he needs to find two complementary halves, the chance that he will find them sailing in the ancient soup is extremely low because of its length, which made scientists admit that it is highly unlikely.
    b) Even if they find a replicator that works on the same principle, only shorter (which means that it will be more likely to find a complementary sequence in the soup), it will encounter a problem because it will only be able to replicate a few tens of bases. Because according to the RNA theory, it is supposed to be elongated and encode a set of enzymes, responsible for protein synthesis or other cellular work.

    In short, the only way we know for efficient replication is the creation of RNA/DNA polymerase. But as I said, this is based on a hopeless event = a serious problem.

    That is why the biogas field is also considered the holy grail of biology.

  345. A. (20)
    Species that exist today did not evolve from each other. They share a common ancestor which could be earlier or later. There are several ways of measuring "distance" between different species when it is quite expected that there will be some that are closer and some that are further away. So far it's not terribly interesting (it's not true but we'll leave it for now for simplicity). When you try to examine kinship between species, for example by skeletal structure, you get a distance matrix that allows you to group the species into groups and evaluate kinship relationships. There is no reason in the world that you would get the same or even somewhat close kinship when your distance bar is completely different in every measurement (anatomy, DNA and proteins, fossils). The fact that the resulting distance matrices (from which they create phylogenetic trees that show the grouping of species into groups with a common origin) are remarkably similar, which is not trivial at all, is the interesting evidence that was not known to Darwin or to most of his successors which shows, once again, that Darwin was completely right on the subject This and of course there is no shadow of a tautology here.

    You wrote: "Degeneration = destruction. Evolution = creation and increase in complexity."
    Complete nonsense. This shows your insane ignorance of evolution. I'm interested to know, where did you get this "definition" of evolution?

    You should read the original article that describes that gastropod (snail) which is cool but not at all "wonderful" and no, there really is no contradiction and it's a shame that you don't bother to check things yourself before you present half-truths here. Among other things it says there:
    "The researchers used a radioactive tracer to be sure that the slugs are actually producing the chlorophyll themselves, as opposed to just stealing the ready-made pigment from algae. In fact, the slugs incorporate the genetic material so well, they pass it on to further generations of slugs.

    The babies of thieving slugs retain the ability to produce their own chlorophyll, although they can't carry out photosynthesis until they've eaten enough algae to steal the necessary chloroplasts, which they can't yet produce on their own"

    By the way, this trick has already happened several times before in both plants (the chloroplasts) and the mitochondria in "real" cells. I did not continue reading on the subject, but natural mechanisms that allow the transfer of gene segments (such as transposons) are very common and also exist in many viruses.

  346. Deer (21):
    From what you wrote in the original comment it is implied that in your opinion most girls believe in stupid things. A statement I agree with in general but it is just as true (if not more so) for most guys. The fact that you singled out this statement for women only is what makes the statement chauvinistic. The better comparison with the peppers would be if you said that most of the peppers are green (and present it in a negative way) when the plate here also has green cucumbers just as much (and for now it seems even more). This is exactly the meaning of the discrimination on the background of the peppers. I'm just stating an opinion here, I have no doubt that your intentions are good and I'm sure I wasn't hurt by your words (I hope this is the level of chauvinism among Israeli cucumbers).

    I accepted and said thank you and here I say again - thank you 🙂

  347. Beetlegoose (12):
    1) In fact, explanations and links to technological uses made in evolution have already been presented on this site in several places. I find it hard to believe that you are not aware of them, so I don't think it will help if I refer you to more examples on the subject. Can you explain what you mean when you write "source for technology"?

    2) You mean that you claim that cosmology and astrophysics and also the theory of relativity are not scientific since it is not possible to control their basic elements? When you create an environment where the governing laws are the laws of evolution and through these laws you manage to get a result that you wanted to get in advance (even though you didn't know how you could get it in advance) and you can repeat this process over and over again independently, isn't this showing control over The basic elements of evolution? If you can produce mutations in bacteria that are now part of their genetic load and those mutations are passed on to future generations (regardless of what the mutation did exactly) doesn't that show mastery of the basic elements of evolution? Does the fact that I cannot influence the motion of the planets or the rate at which galaxies move away from each other mean that the description we have of these celestial bodies is complete nonsense? By the way, do you have a better alternative that gives an explanation and predictions that are at least as accurate as these "unscientific" theories give us?

    3) You wrote: "It should have been possible to imitate evolution in the basic places of creating new life from inanimate." Evolution is not about biogenesis... maybe you meant what a. (16) Did he mean about the formation of the first cell given independent replications already given in the filter of natural selection? So the very incomplete answer (both due to the brevity of the paper and due to the simple fact that currently there are still many open questions which is a completely common and normal situation in every front of a field of research in science) is that I have no idea what was the exact mechanism that led to this development. The main question at the moment is what is the simplest arrangement that can sustain a fatty envelope that includes replicators that manage to replicate and produce offspring. In the context of abiogenesis, from the knowledge that exists today, there seem to be good signs (which can be demonstrated in the laboratory) that many of the processes that are required to participate in such an array and activity are not that complicated to carry out a basic activity (even if it is far from being as efficient as the activity that we expect in the super complex mechanisms that exist today) or to create structures (like a fatty shell). Since it seems reasonable to assume that good conditions, a long time and a large number of reacting molecules are added to this, the possibility that such a combination is created assuming that the first step is not a complex super-duper (like a cell we see today) is quite reasonable. Back to evolution, from the moment there is a first "creature", however simple it may be which was probably very limited in its abilities in terms of movement, defense mechanisms, sensing the environment and other adaptation mechanisms and which multiplied at an exponential rate wherever there were minimal conditions for its continued existence (after all, there were no predators then) the limitation The main one that would have probably revolved around the extraction of resources (food materials) or the effect of harmful waste materials whose concentrations increased as the density increased. That and the existence of mutations, whether due to copying errors of the primitive replicators or due to radiation, are essentially all that is needed for natural selection to begin. We have genetic variation, there is competition for resources, necessarily not everyone living at the moment succeeds in producing offspring at the same rate, not everyone is sensitive to the same environmental hazards to the exact same extent and here the filter begins to work. If you are asking how the modern cell was formed (which cell? There are many types in many different life forms) you are welcome to look for phylogenetic trees made from proteins and DNA and you will get a lot of information about the genealogy of the components of the cell. If the only thing that will convince you is to get the full sequence generation by generation of the cells then I recommend you stop watching movies because even there you don't get the full sequence of events but only 25 frames per second and then you may end up in an awkward situation where you see a photo of a sprout growing to be a plant and you can't accept that the mature plant is somehow related to that sprout shown at the beginning because what happened in all the missing periods of time between the pictures?

  348. withering:
    Commenting that it's really rare in your case stems from many years of observational heuristics on the fairer sex, it doesn't make me a chauvinist. It would be a chauvinist if I told you that because you are a woman - don't get involved in such conversations 🙂
    So if I don't eat peppers does that mean I'm racist because I'm discriminating against the whole pepper sect in front of the other vegetables?!

    I know a lot of bright, educated girls, and some of them are very educated, but when you start digging, it turns out that one walks around with a safety pin against the evil eye (simply because that's how she got used to it from her mother), another goes to a fortune teller from time to time, another one doesn't show disasters on herself so as not to "Open your mouth", a lot of braids in Kippur for some reason, etc.

    In short, my dear Camila, know how to accept a compliment when it comes - and it does!!

  349. Interesting, but a few caveats:

    It is a kind of tautology to claim that close species will show genotypic proximity and distant species will show distance. Because there will obviously be species close to man and there will be distant ones. But how do we know that they evolved from each other?

    The same goes for degenerate and pseudogenous organs - the fact that we don't know a function for an organ does not mean that it is indeed dysfunctional. In addition, there have already been cases where a function was eventually discovered for an organ that was considered to be dysfunctional. For example, for the appendix or for junk DNA. A neonic gene cannot be used As evidence of evolution. Degeneration = destruction. Evolution = creation and increase in complexity.

    In addition, how do we explain the presence of genes for photosynthesis in snails? Isn't this a contradiction to the phylogenetic tree?

  350. For deer (10):
    Thank you.
    You wrote: "Finally a girl who doesn't believe in astrology, numerology, reading in coffee, ghosts, talking snakes and other leading stupid beliefs in the world that still, unfortunately, have not disappeared."

    Then you added:
    "Without sounding chauvinistic - it's really rare among you."

    I'm sorry... you definitely sound like a chauvinist. I know so many brilliant girls (and I really don't deserve to be counted among them) that my conclusion is that you are probably hanging out with the wrong women. If you value the qualities you mentioned and don't value the others change something in your communication pattern, you may be driving away the more intelligent girls too quickly (perhaps because of chauvinistic comments that you hope won't be heard? :-))

  351. Oded (8):
    Clarification - everything is ultimately based on faith, including science. When I plan an experiment in the laboratory, I work in a conceptual framework that is built somewhere at the end of things on fundamental assumptions that cannot be proven (in mathematics they are called axioms and in physics they are called postulates, but the same things exist in all sciences and in fact in all areas of life, even when you get out of bed in the morning). The big difference lies in the number and size of these "pieces of faith" and the willingness to question them and even replace them with others if necessary, and no one likes to do that, not even scientists, but unlike religious people scientists have done it many times in the past and are still doing it today when the facts show which is what is required. I don't understand why you wrote: "You have claims that contradict belief in something!" Maybe I wasn't clear and maybe you didn't understand what I wrote but I didn't find anything in what I wrote that fits your claim and I would be happy if you could enlighten me.
    I didn't write that the belief in anything is a ridiculous belief, but that the religious belief is ridiculous. If this were just an indication of a private personal opinion, then I would add that religious belief is ridiculous to me (because of a series of problems that make the framework of religious belief look very inelegant, such as the multitude of different religions, each of which claims ownership of the truth, and all this without presenting any fact at a scientific level, The inability to test experimentally the claims made by those believers not about the axiom itself but about what was allegedly derived from the belief in that axiom, the joy of marking the targets after the arrow has been hit, the constant paranoid distortion of the interpretation of the religious scriptures to fit the new discoveries of science just to protect That macro-axiom called God, the mental rigidity that does not allow any possibility, even theoretically, of replacing that axiom with another, the clear contradictions between what is written in the Holy Scriptures and between the simple facts that are accessible to each of us with a little effort even by surfing the Internet, and many more social reasons, logical reasons, Teleological reasons, technological reasons, and the time here is really short to list them all, but so far all these are only the reasons on my personal level why I don't consider religious belief too much), but since religious believers hold a thinking framework that is based on circular arguments on the one hand and internal logical contradictions on the other, Something that the same people do not accept as legitimate in the other areas of their lives, so I feel free to call the religious faith (as I have come across it in different versions) ridiculous in general. Specifically, I mean "proofs" of what kind regarding the existence of God, "proofs" of what kind of God is actually the God of the Bible, "proofs" of what kind of God is actually the God of the Jews (or Christians or Muslims) and many more "proofs" of interpretations of "Prophecies" and a long list of logical failures of almost every type imaginable and examples of this are found in abundance on all types of websites whether here or at the "DOS" or in the excellent video series in Hebrew and English that simply present failures (and shocking ignorance) in Jewish converts and Christian creationists whose similarities are quite impressive.
    Still, of course, I do not rule out the principled possibility that there is a creator of the world, that there is intelligent planning, just as I do not rule out the principled possibility that we live in the matrix or that the spaghetti monster or I don't care are the ones who actually run all the affairs here. Non-disqualification in principle does not mean that I attach much weight to them. To further clarify the issue, it is not the axiom in itself that is ridiculous, but the entire thought system that accompanies it and that constitutes the religious belief as a whole is the ridiculous thing. If someone comes and says that science gives the best explanation we currently have for all the phenomena up to the big bang event that happened about 13.5 billion years ago, but at the same time he believes that he forgot the supernatural that preceded it and even started it all, then that's perfectly fine, there's no problem with that (Just as someone else will think that the universe began as a teddy bear's fart, I care. I personally still hope that I can find an explanation within the framework of the laws and phenomena with which science has been able to describe many of the phenomena in the world today. There is a high chance that such an explanation will not be found anytime soon, so for now for the time period before The Big Bang My belief is equivalent to any other belief (meaning it's not worth much).

    If there are good facts and arguments (within a coherent and not capricious logical framework) that can be tested according to the standards of the scientific method (for which it does not matter whether it is the theory of relativity or evolution) that point in the direction of the existence of God, I will be the first to adopt the findings and be their mouthpiece.

  352. Very interesting article.
    Just a technical matter, Avi Blizovsky, can you allow the illustrations to be enlarged? Because at this size you can't see anything. It is better to display the large image by moving the mouse over the image, it is also possible by clicking the mouse, but in my opinion it is less convenient.
    Thanks in advance

  353. To the last Camila-

    I'm interested to know. How do you think the first cell was created? Do you accept the hypothesis of the world of the RNA?

  354. Moshe, I more than agree with you about the leaders of the religions! Because of their status and their leadership, they feel obligated to give answers to all kinds of questions or phenomena, and sometimes the answers they give are simply terrible!, for example, why were soldiers killed in the Second Lebanon War, etc., etc. Unfortunately there is nothing we can do about it.
    For the sake of discussion, I will refer to evolution, :)
    Evolution does not contradict religion and religion does not contradict evolution. In the Torah it is written that man was created "in his own image and likeness", it is not written about the mechanisms that led to the creation of man, they did not explain to us the mechanisms (evolution, or anything else) regarding the existence of the plants on the earth or the existence of the animals, just so that there is no misunderstanding, I am of course Supports evolution. There are sources in which it is written that the earth, humans, animals and plants were created without development, but these sources are not the Torah in which the believers believe.
    There is nothing to be done, as scientists we will always have doubts, big or small, for every model that exists and this is what motivates us. 🙂 I am a big supporter of the religion of skeptical logic 🙂

  355. Cheer up, thanks for your comment.
    I certainly accept her regarding specific "approaches" in religion.
    Since in more cases then less, religion disagrees, in a way that is not implicitly implied, on science.
    Such as what revolves around what (the solar system), evolution, years of existence of the universe, and more...
    And it's true, these concepts do not "must" disagree with science, it is certainly possible to "adapt" religion to the developing science.
    But unfortunately the leaders of those religions (from rabbis to priests, monks and sorcerers), are afraid to open the borders of religion, in my opinion out of fear of "losing control" and leadership among the "sheep of their pasture".

    May they all become disillusioned, and move to the religion of "skeptical logic" 🙂

  356. The last Camilla:
    I pointed out 2 problems with evolution.
    which is purely a scientific interpretation and not a source of technology.
    All the "technologies" "attributed" to this evolution are only contagion. which stems from an interpretation that stems from the faith and passion of the evolutionists. They could be attached to other things just as well.
    If evolution was an actual science and not an interpretation, it would make it possible to control the basic elements that this science contains.
    Just as physics allows us to do such things.
    It should have been possible to imitate evolution in the basic places of creating new life from inanimate objects. As well as creating a cat from a fish.
    But this is interpretation and not science and therefore it is nonsense.

  357. Moshe, thanks for the response.
    The fact that we cannot make measurements and observations of one or another belief does not necessarily "earn" the nickname ridiculous.
    In science we develop a certain model that we think is correct and that matches the observations and correctly predicts certain phenomena. Because in religion we cannot make measurements does not make it ridiculous. As you said in its definition, it is not based on observations or something that can be felt or a record of one thing or another.
    A ridiculous thing is something that I think is true even though it contradicts observations or very strong models and as I said there is nothing and a half in science that contradicts religion and nothing in religion that contradicts science. These are 2 parallel lines that will never meet.

  358. withering:
    I was delighted to read your reply.
    Finally a girl who doesn't believe in astrology, numerology, coffee reading, ghosts, talking snakes and other leading stupid beliefs in the world that still, unfortunately, have not disappeared.
    Not only that, also the answer you gave shows that you are very realistic (and rational), much more so than many males I know..
    Without sounding chauvinist - it is very rare in your country.
    I really liked the answer, even though in the case of people of faith it will never fall on deaf ears - I stopped trying for them a long time ago.

  359. Oded,
    Science is also "faith" on one level or another.
    Only this is a belief that is based on "phenomena", which we call observations.
    And these observations are reproducible, and other definitions that make science a grounded belief. (And this according to the "pessimist" philosopher)
    On the other hand, religion is a belief that is not based and cannot be based by the very definition of its identity.
    So definitely, it can be considered "ridiculous".

  360. withering!,
    I'm interested in why you call religious belief ridiculous? You have claims that contradict belief in something!
    As I said earlier, unlike science, no one can come and say that there is no creator of the world or that faith is ridiculous because faith by definition is something that does not need to be proven, neither pretends nor wants to prove.
    Who made you come and say that belief in religion is ridiculous?! Do you know something we don't? Tell us!

  361. Beetlegoose (2):
    String theory still does not have any prediction that can transform it from an interesting theory with great potential to a theory that will replace fundamental and accepted theories in physics, and this through an experiment that will distinguish between it and another existing theory. Evolution has many predictions that have been found to be true with crazy accuracy when there is no scientific alternative that can explain, even a little, the same things. Therefore, in terms of the criteria of science, evolution is much more solid than string theory (which is also not weak at all by the way). What you wrote in this regard is a gross error.
    Dark matter and dark energy are two concepts that arise from direct observations. They are practically not in doubt (in terms of their existence). There is no other explanation for those observations (the rotation speed of the galaxies requires the existence of dark matter and the expansion rate of the universe requires dark energy for example). What is still unknown is the exact identity of these components, their origin, the mechanism of their creation, etc. and these are very different things from what you wrote.
    Regarding the usefulness of evolution, here you are really wrong, evolutionary principles and knowledge are used in the manipulation of bacteria in the context of antibiotic resistance, for example, there are algorithms (that are implemented in practice and not only in theory) that are based exclusively on the principles of evolution and are applied not only in research but also in industry. Therefore, your statement here is also a gross mistake.
    Your statement that "the creation of inanimate life is not possible" is not at all related to evolution but to abiogenesis, which mainly shows your great ignorance on the subject. It is strange to see such a statement because even if you are a religious person then it is accepted that man was created from inanimate matter so that even if we take away the ridiculous religious belief for a moment then the creation of inanimate life is absolutely possible. If you think otherwise we would love to hear where life in this universe came from.
    Regarding your question about how a monkey was created from a fish, then if you want a documentary that includes all the generations from that fish-like ancestor to the creatures that exist today and are its distant descendants, then you will have to work a bit because the intermediate stages are very many and even only the intermediate stages that are well documented (at the paleontological, anatomical level and the molecular) are too numerous to list here. If you want the major waypoints you can find a reasonable breakdown in popular science books and on the internet. If you want to get information at an academic level, you can go to the library and read professional literature in the field such as phylogenetic studies. In those sources you will find very detailed documentation regarding your wrong question about how man evolved from the monkey (man did not evolve from the monkey but from an ancestor from whom what we call monkeys and humans today evolved and I will assume that this is what you meant in your question). Even a Wikipedia search will give you quite a lot of information on the subject of human evolution.

    In light of the gross errors you presented earlier and in light of the great ignorance you displayed on the other issues in your response, I am afraid that you will continue to stay in your warm and comfortable swamp of ignorance. I hope for you that you manage to make this effort and acquire the basic knowledge so that you can come back here and make claims that are at least based on something in reality. Sticking to the facts doesn't require you to believe in evolution, but it is a prerequisite if you want anyone to take you seriously (I don't promise that I'll be nice the next time you write nonsense at the level you displayed in your last comment here).

  362. Although Annie agrees with Beetlegoose's response

    I would like to delete Max Power's comment 3

    Please maintain a discussion culture

  363. No scientific theory can be said to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt because it is a theory. A theory based on measurements and drawing conclusions. That's the beauty of science - the theory is true until someone comes along and disproves it.
    Most opponents of evolution are religious people. It is impossible to make a comparison between religion and science. In science, researchers conduct experiments and draw conclusions. There is no such thing in religion, but one cannot measure the Torah, no one can perform an NMR on the creator of the world. Religion and science are completely different from each other! There is nothing in religion that contradicts science and there is nothing in science that contradicts religion.

  364. To 2
    You are clueless and lack understanding, you buy your insights without understanding them, you didn't even read the article, so you will remain in your ignorance because that is what suits you.

  365. Evolution is just as true as string theory is.
    And as dark energy is true. And as dark matter is true.
    And like all of these, you can't do anything. Apart from interpretations and claims that various medical/biological developments are based on the science of evolution.
    There is no practical technology based on the fundamental claims of evolution.
    Creating a still life is not possible. Can anyone show how a monkey is made from a fish.
    And how man was created from a monkey.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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