Recently, researchers in England identified two different types of killer whales, different in their behavior and size
Not long ago there were these Black dome complications, and now - a killer whale (Orca Orcinus orca).
The killer whale belongs to the dolphin family and is the largest in the family. To this day, it is accepted that there is only one species in the Katlan genus, a situation that may be about to change?
The basic group is a family or a group. The killers are considered "intelligent" and skilled predators. Its populations are known from across the oceans and seas to the south and north, despite differences in the size of individuals in different populations, all killer whales are considered to belong to the same species.
Recently, researchers in England identified two different types, different in their behavior and size. This is the first time that killer whales have been described and studied in the North Atlantic Ocean. The killer whales are not "regular visitors" to the island's waters, perhaps this is the reason that recently, following numerous sightings and frequent appearances of the marine mammal, researchers were given the opportunity to compare data and identify differences.
Dr. Andy Foote Dr. Andy Foote who headed a group of researchers from the University of Aberdeen publishes his findings in the "Molecular Ecology" monthly.
According to the findings: in English waters there are two types: one ("type 1") had "worn" teeth (as a result of a lot of use?), the second ("type 2") showed no tooth wear at all. Type "1" is about two meters smaller than type "2", there will also be differences in shades and differences in the number of teeth.
The tests were conducted on skeletons and remains of killer whales found on the shores of the island in the last 200 years.
After the striking differences became clear, the researchers set out to test the differences in the behavior of the two types and it became clear that "different behavior caused different development". While type "1" was observed in the northeastern Atlantic Ocean and northern England, type "2" was observed west of Scotland and Ireland. By examining the deadly secretions, the researchers came to the conclusion that type "1" is an omnivore, that is, it feeds mainly on fish by " pumping them", and as an additional seal predator, which according to the researchers causes the teeth to wear down, while type "2" specializes in preying on marine mammals - mainly dolphins and small whales.
Genetic tests of the two types showed that "each type belongs to a separate population". That is, separate populations, different sizes, different shades, different food preferences, different number of teeth, different morphology and different habitats.
The researchers identify all these as conditions similar to the conditions that led the Galapagos Pharisees (Darwin's "Pharisees") to differentiate into separate species, and therefore it is possible that the killer whales are also in the phase of differentiating into two separate species.
Therefore, according to Dr. Pott, the two types of killer whale should be treated as "distinct evolutionary units" and as such "active conservation of this special animal should be done".
38 תגובות
The exile from his country:
You claim that it is not true that the motivation of the evolutionists is religious.
I'm convinced that in all the examples I've encountered of the fringes of evolution - including your example (and between us - that's what's interesting here. What's important in this discussion is your motivation and the fact that you need the false claim that the "general law" is not true shows that some kind of moral inhibition still exists in you and you didn't feel comfortable staying on the real issue which is your motivation) are examples of those motivated by religious motives.
At least female lion and tiger offspring are fertile, as you can see HERE
(search for the text female lion-tiger hybrids)
The situation is unknown for male offspring.
You can read more here:
http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/hybridisation.html
Among other things, it says:
"
Hybrids are usually considered sterile, and sterility is a natural biological barrier against hybridization occurring. There are rare situations where nature has proven the sterility rule not always correct and this has resulted in such beasts as li-ligers and ti-tigons.
Despite the rarity of natural hybridisation, and the even lower chance of fertility, we know it definitely happens, and frequently enough that over many thousands of years evolutionary change can come about.
"
Why did you try to sell us the opposite of what is known?
If someone is "forced" to stop testing whether a chimpanzee and a human can reproduce together then they did not test whether a chimpanzee and a human can reproduce together. I also once wanted to check it out but I forced myself to stop before I started.
The number of chromosomes is not necessarily a limitation.
Mongoloids are still (rightly) recognized as humans and can interbreed with normal humans.
At least the Russian scientist you spoke of thought that the human and chimpanzee matter should be tested and it is not proven.
Therefore your attempt to negate my words regarding man and chimpanzee is nothing more than a fraudulent attempt.
There are millions of creatures recognized as different species and therefore billions of possible combinations.
What percentage of them do you think were tested?
Even if we look at mammals only - there are over 4000 different "species". What percentage of the tens of millions of possible combinations was tested?
Therefore - as I said - we have almost no proof of the existence of separate species.
After all, you even quoted the word "almost" in my words.
Does the fact that you pointed to one proven example contradict my argument?
of course not!
So why are you trying to create that impression?
to mislead! As I said - you have an agenda.
The matter of raising the migration of the rabbit does not belong to the issue of the separation of the species.
Note that I also did not talk about the fact that the Euphrates and the Tigris do not have a common source and that Cain married a woman who was not born and was not created and that Noah put on the ship such a large number of creatures that no ship could contain.
The Torah is full of nonsense and it has enough nonsense in our case as well so that there was no need for me to deviate from it.
By the way, what do you think about the sage's words?
Your first argument refers to the fact that the definition of the term "sex" is not a "sharp" definition and that different definitions create different separations between the sexes.
This argument is true, at the same time it does not detract from the basic argument that evolution must go a long way before we can claim that the theory has been proven for any practical need. Suppose we define a "species" as a subgroup of animals that are genetically different from other animals and they prefer to breed within themselves (even if they can breed with other subgroups). In this case we have confirmation of the creation of new species. Has your argument for confirming evolution become stronger, or my argument that evolution has a long way to go before it recovers become weaker?
The answer is of course not. The arguments for evolution are not related to the definition of "species" but to the variation between species that occurs naturally. In order for two species to diverge from each other, they have to go through the following four stages:
1. The creation of two subspecies - two groups that differ from each other genetically but will reproduce with each other (for example, a Siberian tiger and a Bengal tiger or a wolf and a dog)
2. Creating behavioral barriers - at this stage the two subgroups can still reproduce with each other but will prefer to reproduce within the group (for example the fruit flies and perhaps the "outcasts" of Galapagos)
3. Creation of genetic barriers - at this stage even if the two subgroups reproduce the offspring will not be completely fertile. A horse and a donkey can produce an offspring (a mule) but of course it is not fertile. A lion and a tiger can produce offspring but the male will be barren. A dog and a Kyoto can produce offspring, but new studies have shown that the fertility of hybrids declines after the third generation.
4. Even with both groups having sex, they will not be able to bring an offspring into the world (dog and cat)
Of all these steps, confirmations were found only for the first two. The next two steps are still waiting for confirmation but since the time periods are very long I wouldn't hold my breath in anticipation. Even if we assume that in our lifetime we will see confirmation of the third stage, it will not help you in an argument against the creationists who will simply argue that in order to confirm evolution you need to show the fourth stage (or for the change from simple to complex life forms, or that humans are different because they were created in the image God).
Your second argument, Michael, is much more problematic:
"The exile from his country tried to make use of this matter when he said that the formation of new species had not been proven.
The funny thing is that his claims in the field come from religious motives and he never asked himself whether the definitions he uses correspond to the religious definition."
Michael, until now I thought you were just a talented person, but now I see that you also read heart and kidneys. What a profound worldview anyone who doubts evolution is necessarily driven by religious motives. I can assure you Michael that my main motive is the scientific truth. Personally, I have many doubts about evolution in its current version. To Tomi I thought that the site would be a suitable arena for mutual fertilization. It's a shame that people like you have taken over the debate and turned every doubt raised about evolution into a crusade accompanied by personal slander.
I used this particular definition because it is a very common definition. For example, about between the hybrids between Kyoto and Coywolf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coywolf
An interesting experiment conducted recently in Germany is described. I will summarize the main points:
The experiment tested whether the wolf, dog and Kyoto are the same animal or if they can be considered as separate species. The scientists tested whether Kyoto and a wolf could produce fertile offspring. Before the experiment, it was common to think that Kyoto and a wolf could produce completely fertile offspring, a fact that called into question the question of whether they are two separate species. However, the German experiment showed that in the third generation there was a sharp decrease in the fertility of the hybrids, therefore the wolf and the Kyoto should be considered as different species (as opposed to the hybrids of wolf and dog which continue to be fertile).
In the following argument you repeat yourself but make a mistake that needs to be corrected:
"The formation of new species has already been proven according to every possible definition of "species", but it is clear that the stricter the definition, the harder it is to find examples.
The strictest definition is the one in which the newly created species are completely unable to reproduce among themselves (as opposed to less strict definitions according to which it is possible to be content with the fact that they never naturally reproduce among themselves)".
Inability to produce offspring is not related to different species. There are many different species that can produce completely infertile offspring. A horse and a donkey, a lion and a tiger, a horse and a zebra are just a few examples of infertile hybrids created from different species.
And now come the really problematic arguments
"Note that according to this definition we have almost no evidence for the existence of any separate species.
No one has ever tested whether man and chimpanzee are separate species or even if man and whale are separate species!"
The use of humans is demagogic. There is no doubt that you understand the problematic nature of these experiments on humans, which is why you bring them up. There are many studies on hybrids among animals. All hybrids that were created (whether naturally or artificially) belonged to the same "family" and usually to the same "genus". Therefore humans and whales cannot produce offspring. Even animals that are much closer to each other such as panthers and other cats cannot produce offspring.
The argument that no one has ever tested whether a human and a chimpanzee can have offspring is incorrect (or in your language a lie). A Soviet scientist in the late XNUMXs tried to breed a human with a chimpanzee. He did not succeed, but had to stop the experiment. In any case, the number of chromosomes is different between a human and a chimpanzee, so from experience with animals we know that the chance of a fertile offspring is zero.
For those who want to read more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee
Moreover, the taboo regarding having sex with animals is relatively late. The fact that although intercourse with animals has never been recorded between hybrids indicates that humans do not breed easily with other species. The fact that even with another hominid (Neadrethal man) apparently no offspring were produced again emphasizes the difficulty of placing offspring with other animals.
"The examples that meet this definition are the fewest of the examples observed in the laboratory (but with the enormous timescales necessary for evolution in nature, it is still surprising that any examples have been observed at all).
One of them is of a type of wheat grown in soil that is increasingly rich in copper.
The copper killed a large part of the crops and what managed to survive was used as infrastructure for the next generation.
This is how they created wheat resistant to copper.
When they tried to multiply (artificially) this wheat with the original wheat - it was not possible."
When I claimed that there are no examples of the creation of new species among animals (and even though I defined what a new species is) you claimed that there are examples for the most part and attached an article that agrees with my words. For this, in your impudence you called me a liar. Now you bring wheat as an example. Here is a news flash for you Michael Wheat is a non-living plant.
From here on, Michael, your claims move into the realm of science fiction:
"Similar results were also obtained with fruit flies that chose different types of habitats."
Scientists have never succeeded in creating a species of fly that cannot reproduce with its parent population. The article you usually attach without reading is one example of this. In fact, the failure to create different species among flies is one of the claims made by the creationists (claims made with a lot of demagoguery and inaccuracies)
Another argument from the field of science fiction:
"And in the Bible?
The Bible often talks about lions and tigers.
The Bible clearly speaks of them as separate species, but the truth is that they can be hybridized and have living and fertile offspring."
Of all the examples in the Bible (Pan Ma'ale Gira) did you choose to focus on lions and tigers? There are two experiments in which a lion and a tiger succeeded in breeding. All the offspring (unlike, for example, a tiger and a lion) were sterile. The Bible speaks of separate species and in this case it is right.
See for example:
http://www.messybeast.com/genetics/hyb-leopxlion.htm
או
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopon
"This is true for other "species" mentioned in the Bible, but sages in general reach new heights in matters of taxonomy."
It is not clear to me how the sayings of the Sages relate to my response. I am not a great expert in the sayings of the Sages, but I have one in Aramaic for you "Istra in Lagina, kish-kish readable"
I honestly didn't think you would respond after my retirement announcement. But, since you chose to respond, you left me with one of the following three choices:
1. Ignore your response as I have already announced my retirement notice
2. Respond with sarcasm and ridicule the mistakes and lack of knowledge demonstrated in the last response
3. Ignore the past and answer you seriously in the hope that you might prove that your character is different from what I think
I chose the third alternative (although my inclination was to choose one of the first two) because many on the site are impressed by your knowledge of physics (unfortunately my knowledge of physics is too little to judge you) and they may reach wrong conclusions as a result of your responses.
Therefore, Michael, I will devote a little more time to you and answer you at length on each of your claims. Sometimes I allow myself to quote you in this case I put bunks. Since I make no effort to hide my identity, there is a reasonable chance that the comments will be removed. If not, I would like to mention as parting words that I have been reading the articles on the site almost since its inception. I think the goal of passing on science to the general public that my father took upon himself is very important. Unfortunately, I have serious differences of opinion with my father about the how, so I will no longer comment on the site.
Shimi, the exile from his country, a Jew and the rest of the clan..
Here are some books that will surely interest you, in my opinion there is no need for quotes Michael or Avi
Someone who has been in school for 12 years and is planning a few more in higher education
He must have allowed himself to look at some non-fiction books (one of these books is exactly what "Jew" wanted Michael to point out,
Contradictions in the Torah and in your own law)
Richard Dawkins - "The Blind Watchman", "The Selfish Garden", "Is There a God? - The Great Illusion of Religion"
Chris Hitchins-"How Religion Poisons the World" (for you the "Jew")
These are a few but selected examples that emphasize the many lies that have been sold to everyone here
That they were children and for some reason they continue to cling to them even after they finish elementary school.
There are many books and many examples especially in the group of professors and scientists included in the group of "Brights"
(Look them up on Wikipedia or Google, among them Daniel Dennett, the great modern philosopher, and the professors I mentioned), I'm sure you can learn a lot from them.
All I can feed you is a pleasant repetition of the question
And in a selected quote, a Texan governor said after being asked if the New Testament should not also be printed in Spanish after the minority of South American origin in Texas requested their own version to be distributed in stores:
"If the English language was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me"
Thanks….
In the debate about the formation of new species, the opponents of evolution try to use the fact that the definition of the term "species" in science is not a "sharp" definition and in the link I provided a sequence of different definitions for the term is presented when it is clear to everyone that the use of different definitions also leads to different divisions between the species.
The exile from his country tried to make use of this matter when he said that the formation of new species had not been proven.
The funny thing is that his claims in the field come from religious motives and he never asked himself whether the definitions he uses correspond to the religious definition.
The formation of new species has already been proven according to every possible definition of "species", but it is clear that the stricter the definition, the harder it is to find examples.
The strictest definition is the one in which the newly created species are not able to breed among themselves at all (as opposed to less strict definitions according to which it is possible to be content with never breeding between them naturally).
Note that according to this definition we have almost no evidence for the existence of any separate species.
No one has ever tested whether man and chimpanzee are separate species or even if man and whale are separate species!
The examples that meet this definition are the fewest of the examples observed in the laboratory (but with the massive timescales necessary for evolution in nature, it's still surprising that any examples have been observed at all).
One of them is of a type of wheat grown in soil that is increasingly rich in copper.
The copper killed a large part of the crops and what managed to survive was used as infrastructure for the next generation.
This is how they created wheat resistant to copper.
When they tried to multiply (artificially) this wheat with the original wheat - it was not possible.
Similar results were also obtained with fruit flies that chose different types of habitats.
And in the Bible?
The Bible often talks about lions and tigers.
The Bible clearly speaks of them as separate species, but the truth is that they can be hybridized and have living and fertile offspring.
This is true for other "species" mentioned in the Bible, but sages in general reach new heights in matters of taxonomy.
There, it is not only that lice are created from human sweat and mice from mold, but that the Erod can be created as a result of mating 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" , Khulin Kakhz A.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."
Comments are blocked due to keywords that have been misused in the past. Not because it was designed
Michael, since I am blocked for some reason by my father, I am forced to stop the discussion.
It is amazing to see that comments on a site that claims to be scientific are blocked because the site's editor does not agree with its content.
Goodbye and Goodbye
By the way, the exile from his country: do you have unequivocal proof (according to your definition) that a man and an elephant do not belong to the same biological species?
Ben Hashem = human being
The exile from his country:
Wow - we really had an argument in the past and I should have refrained in advance from referring to your words because even then you were fully discovered. Here is the link for everyone to see:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/scientists-still-wary-after-science-minister-confirms-belief-in-evolution-1903099/#comment-194299
Although there was no discussion in which the things you said happened (for example, I proved that I had no example).
In fact, the opposite is true as you can see in the same discussion (but I already explained how you get the title of "liar" and I see that you internalized and worked hard to earn it).
I will not repeat what I have already told you because, unlike you, I am not a broken turntable.
I will limit myself to one link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-speciation.pdf
And by adding a piece of information that I did not have at the time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMj_45epINM&feature=player_embedded
Don't understand yet?
I have no way to help you.
Michael, we've had this debate before when you claimed that you had evidence for the formation of new species in complex organisms. After a long discussion we saw that you do not have a single proof of the formation of new species (referring here to the formation of a species that cannot produce a fertile offspring with the species from which it split).
You have no example of the formation of a new species because such an example simply does not exist (except among bacteria).
Darwin's bird argument is perhaps the most failed example imaginable because no one claims that the "outcasts" cannot produce fertile offspring with their parent group. (Furthermore, there is great doubt as to whether the four species in the Galapagos are really separate species because the mother of the group was a mixed race herself)
Once again, the argument that small changes lead to big changes is entirely based on the desired assumption. You assume that the theory of evolution is correct and hence assume that there is no obstacle that the genetic variation will lead to the creation of new species.
Science has to prove this claim and such a proof (yet) is no longer available.
Regarding the use of macroevolution - there are many examples of the use of this word among scientists so your argument is simply incorrect. Beyond that, scientists pay a lot of attention to the issue of the formation of new species. The article I quoted clearly states that the relationship between macro and micro evolution has been studied extensively by all evolutionary scientists.
Likewise, the argument that all scientists think that environmental changes lead to the acceleration of the creation of new species is not true. There are two theories (at least) about it. The first claims that the changes are gradual over time, while the second claims that the genetic changes are accelerated during a period of environmental changes. Beyond that, there are scientists who claim that (some of) the major genetic changes are created as a result of changes on the surface of the sun. This argument is contrary to the accepted theory of evolution.
Some detail on the use of the term "macroevolution" by scientists can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
As a rule, the use is similar to that which mathematicians use the term "large numbers" in expressions such as "the law of large numbers".
Macroevolution is simply many microevolutions. This is a similar ambiguity to the one that prevails in the definition of the term "species" (is it a matter of the ability to reproduce together, is it only de facto reproduction in nature, is morphological difference enough, etc.).
This is the opinion of the vast majority of scientists.
The use of the term "macroevolution" as if it were something completely different is a religiously motivated use - one that does not believe in the ability of the laws of nature as they are to create the observed phenomena.
Therefore, the scientific community even refers to the use of this term by scientists as a belief in the Hopeful Monster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopeful_Monster
There is not a single one among the scientists who does not think that sudden environmental changes did not accelerate the division into separate species, so this is not a controversial issue.
There is also quite convincing evidence for the formation of new species as a result of changes other than drastic environmental changes (such as a group of birds that began to differentiate due to changes in song).
When we talk about the origin of a word - we talk about its origin in the meaning in which people use it.
No one would argue, for example, that because Hebrew preceded English, it was the Jews who invented the word die.
It is therefore entirely accurate to claim that this is a term that was (re)invented, perhaps, from religious motives.
I would choose more carefully the content of my words and not just the words I use.
For example, I would not refer to the "use of the word liar for anyone who does not jump to their feet when the name Darwin comes up" on a site where there is no such use.
While it is certainly possible that among those who do not jump to a halt when the name Darwin comes up there are many liars, but they only get this title due to their lies and not due to their failure to jump to a halt.
The quote I gave illustrates that the concepts of micro and macro evolution do not belong to "Christian doctrines" but are also accepted in the scientific world. The fact that "Christian doss" use these concepts does not invalidate them or make them a "proper religious invention"
Moreover, as the authors of the article point out, the connection between the two phenomena has occupied evolution researchers for a long time. In other words, contrary to your judgmental view, there are quite a few people who dedicate their time to a better understanding of the relationship between the phenomena. I am convinced that if you ask most of those involved in the field, they will admit that the field of creating new species is one of the least understood in evolution.
Darwin's theory of evolution does claim that there is no difference between micro and macro evolution. However, this is only a claim which, like any other scientific claim, needs to be tested. As of today, there is no finding that supports this specific claim of evolution.
There are a (small) number of scientists who claim that micro changes do occur naturally, while macro changes (that is, the creation of new species or complex life forms from simple life forms) only occurs as a result of changes in solar radiation (if my memory serves me correctly, an article on the subject was even translated on the website) . If we put the two theories to the test of the findings (as of today) it is impossible to separate them.
The science of evolution (as opposed to physics) is a young science in which there is still more hidden than revealed. The attempt to present evolution as a theory that needs any practical proof is simply not compatible with scientific truth. It is possible that in the future we will indeed foresee the creation of new species and the creation of complex life forms from simple life forms. If these findings are indeed discovered, I am convinced that they will arouse great excitement both in the general public and in the scientific community. On the other hand, it is possible that we will discover that the creation of new species requires special conditions and that microevolutionary changes are a necessary but not sufficient condition for the creation of macroevolutionary changes.
Two final notes by the way:
First I read the article, the fact that the author of the article thinks that macro and micro evolution are the same phenomenon can already be understood from the title of the article.
Second - I would choose the expressions I use more carefully. There are no proofs in science, there are only confirmations. This is not a semantic difference but an essential difference. Also, the use of the word liar for anyone who doesn't jump to their feet when the name Darwin comes up is jarring at best
The exile from his country:
And a general accusation in the style of "it's not the first time" is not an honest act either.
If there are places where you think that scientific accuracy has been sacrificed for some purpose - point them out (after all, you may be wrong in them as you were wrong here).
What is more likely is that this is not the first time this has happened because the first time has not yet come.
The exile from his country:
Forgive me, but your conclusion does not follow from the data you provided.
The fact that there are scientists trying to answer questions raised by religious people in the terms in which they were formulated does not change anything as to the origin of the question and the motives behind it.
It is nice that among the millions of articles published in Nature there are 215 articles that mention the term macroevolution. What you quote means nothing, because there are always passages where the subject is explained and familiar words are used. In this article, if you read it to the end you would understand that the answer is yes, and since he bridged this gap, there is no meaning today for micro evolution or macro evolution. There is only one evolution. Just as Newton realized that several phenomena such as the acceleration of falling bodies (an apple) and the mutual movement of stars originate from the same force - gravity. In the same way that we talk about micro-evolution and macro-evolution, we can talk about micro-gravity (the apple) to macro-gravity (the stars), so it would be correct to write a scientific article saying that Newton united micro-gravity and macro-gravity.
That is, before Darwin they believed that there were changes within the species (something that was observed and there is no way to deny it) which in today's words can be called micro evolution (even if it is a religious invention it describes the thinking of elements in the public and needs to be addressed), and after Darwin there is only one evolution that explains the big phenomenon (which some call macroevolution) through the collection of small phenomena.
Don't also forget that the division into species was invented by Linnaeus a century before Darwin, but he did not give an explanation for the differences between the species, he assumed like his contemporaries that this is how they were created.
To Avi Bilozevsky
The distinction between micro and macro evolution is not a proper religious invention.
For example, in 2009 an article was published in nature (which as far as I know is not suspected of being "religious")
which is called:
Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution
The article was written by David Resnick of the University of California and Robert Reflex of the University of Missouri.
The article begins like this (my translation):
Evolution researchers have been trying for a long time to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation) which can be observed both in nature and in laboratories and macroevolution (for example the creation of new species) which cannot be observed because it occurs over periods longer than human life.
Below is the bibliography of the article:
Reznick, DN, Ricklefs, RE 2009. Darwin's Bridge Between Microevolution and Macroevolution. Nature 457: 837-842
Moreover, a search of the term macroevolution in a scientific database brings up 215 results from all the leading journals in the field.
This is not the first time that in the name of the war you have declared for the defense of evolution, you are ready to give up scientific truth. I suggest you consider whether the goal in this case justifies the means.
Jewish:
I am responding at this time because I have a feeling that I am going to be hospitalized in a few hours.
Expect a break in my comments.
The contradictions in the Torah are with reality and logic in general and not only with evolution.
Some of the things in your book also contradict evolution, of course. For example, the story of the six days of creation - although you can try to interpret "day" also as "night pot" and not just as a billion years (as brhvc did), there is no logic in this, and if we decide to change the meaning of any word that we don't like, we can also interpret " Mein Kampf" as if written by Santa Teresa.
You will find other contradictions in claims such as "the Euphrates and the Tigris come from a common source" or "the hare ruminates" and more.
It's too short and I don't have enough time to list everything at the moment, but you can find a lot on the "Deat Emet" website
http://www.daatemet.org.il
To Michael.
I'm actually hooked on these conversations. If you could please write all the contradictions you know from evolution about the Torah, that would be nice of you.
And I wouldn't be the only one interested in that in my opinion.
brhvc:
There are a lot of contradictions but I don't have the strength to explain to you.
Stop putting God everywhere (unless you insist that he kidnaps).
Come on... little kids. According to the Torah, there is no contradiction. It is not written that a day = 24 hours. It is written a day. Maybe a day is equal to a billion years? Besides, Shimi said that he does believe in evolution. In addition, it is very petty to start an argument about someone praising his God for his sophistication and beauty.
Put:
These biologics cannot be considered for several reasons:
One is that their motives are clear - they all grew out of religious education.
The second is that they are invalid in Shishim (multiplication). There are indeed some, but there are many more who think they are talking nonsense.
The third is that those who read their words and understand something about it see that they are talking nonsense.
In general - you have a very strange perception regarding the matter of faith.
Your words sound as if one can choose whether to believe or not and this is not true for a reasonable person.
When a certain claim contradicts the facts and logic, I have no way of believing it - no matter how much I want to believe it.
Therefore - usually - it is not at all relevant who said something to me - only what he said is important.
The exceptions are cases where someone tells me something about something I lack the knowledge to make a decision about.
In such cases, I take into account the credibility I attribute to the person who tells me the things, but even when I believe him - it is not the same level of faith that I attribute to things that I can judge for myself.
That's why none of us is able to give you discounts either.
If you say something that seems illogical to us - we will think it is illogical and it doesn't matter how much morality you preach to us.
Abi - In one sentence you said it all, "There are some biologists in Christian universities in the USA, but they cannot be taken seriously"
Why not? Because they have a different opinion?
Michael- If a believing Christian told you and proved that there is a God, would you believe it? Or are you referring to "believer" only as being of your opinion?
Raul - I know it's a scientific site, I've been here for over a year and a half, I enjoy the site and learn a lot from it, but I have every right to say what I think, even if everyone thinks I'm wrong, and I didn't come to start an argument. on my way
My father, Michael and Raul, I did not come here to start a mess or an argument, because it is clear that none of the parties will convince the other, but at least be open to accepting the opinions of others and not dismissing them, even if you are sure that you are right
Good evening everyone
Shimi, please, this is a scientific site
If you think that what you are saying meets the criteria, you are welcome to try to explain how in this matter
https://www.hayadan.org.il/snake-evolution-0901107/#comment-259335
And here is another one of the non-existent proofs - described by a believing Christian:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMj_45epINM&feature=player_embedded
Put:
I don't think there is a place for bringing God into the discussion and reminding you - that's what you did.
I did not come with claims to the whales.
If there was a God, I would come to him with claims for making them murderers (there are many vegetarian animals - for your information, and there are also such humans, and I am among them).
Alternatively - if we praise God for the quality of their murder methods - perhaps we should also praise him for the effectiveness of the murder methods of certain nations in certain historical events.
More evidence is being added to evolution every day, and 99.9999% of biologists support this view. (There are some biologists in Christian universities in the US, but they cannot be taken seriously). This mantra that neither side has evidence is practiced by Protestant preachers and Jewish converts, but it is a lie. Returning to it will not become true even if it convinces people who are not familiar with the innovations of science.
Why is there no point? Should we be interesting?
Regarding the killers "the killers" (I wonder what Greenpeace says about it) - what did you want them to eat? algae?
Father - I do not understand micro and macro, I only know that there is no contradiction
You see creation in one way and I do in another way, and you know what's funny? No one has conclusive proof, the fact that some numbers match up in an equation does not make it a proof
Obviously! You love him even when he results in the murder of millions of people (much more than six million, FYI!) and among them babies who could not sin at all.
abandoned.
There is no point in the discussion.
I pointed out the illogicality of your words but I didn't mean for it to turn into another bubblegum.
Shimi and Michael, don't involve the Holocaust. Anyway, the splitting of species is an example of evolution. I know there are creationists who claim that this is microevolution, meaning variation within a group of species, but science does not distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution. This is a proper religious invention.
God is not a politician, a pop star or a great scientist, that today I love and tomorrow I curse him
anger? Of course there is, why did 6 million have to die, why all the horrors, but from here to the curse the road is long
When I was a child I didn't always understand my parents' decisions, why am I not allowed to go out? Why? Why? So I was angry with them, luckily I didn't know you then, I would have cursed them
There really is no conflict between God and evolution.
There is only a contrast between the creation story in the Torah and evolution and in general between what is written in the Torah and reality.
Anyway, my question was related to your comment. If you praise God for the sophistication of the killers (in the act of murder they committed) - is it not right that you curse him for the Holocaust?
What I have to say about the holocaust, I am ready to have a fun discussion with you, but not here
And I don't see any contradiction between "God" and evolution - in the context of this article
Put:
And what was said about the holocaust?
Thanks Michael, I saw it not long ago on TV and I was shocked
And to this it was said - How many are your deeds, God (yes, I know, you don't like people talking about "the one") here
Regarding their intelligence - you should watch the following link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3xmqbNsRSk
I wonder if the two "species" can interbreed
An assumption is not a proof. Wait another thousand years and see if you are on the right track