One of the common claims in the mouths of the opponents of evolution is that it has never been proven that evolution is able to lead to the creation of new structures in existing species. A new study shows that a rapid evolution of 36 years was enough to change the external shape and social behavior of lizards and create new anatomical structures in them
Many aspects of the theory of evolution have already been proven in many spot experiments, but one of the common claims in the mouths of its opponents is that it has never been proven that evolution is able to lead to the creation of new structures in existing species. Now a new study has come out showing that a rapid evolution of 36 years was enough to change the external shape and social behavior of lizards and create new anatomical structures in them called cecal valves.
The experiment began when, in 1971, biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their home island, Pod Kopista, to the neighboring island Pod Marcaro - both in the Adriatic Sea. Thirty-six years later, an international team of researchers showed that the new environment caused the lizards to undergo rapid and large-scale evolution. Mitochondrial DNA samples taken from the lizards proved that the tested lizards correspond to the source population from Pod Copista.
According to the head of the study, biology professor Duncan G. Irschik of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, the evolution that the lizards went through includes, "sharp differences in the size and shape of the head, increased bite force and the development of new structures in the digestive tract of the lizard." He adds that, "These physical changes happened side-by-side with dramatic changes in population density and social structure."
The changes in head shape were caused by adaptation to new food sources. According to Irschik, the lizards on the arid island of Pod Kopista fed mainly on insects, and were therefore adapted to capture moving prey. On Food Mercaro Island, on the other hand, there is an abundant supply of plant food, such as the leaves and stems of the bushes on the island. The researchers examined the stomach contents of Mercaro food lizards and found that up to two-thirds of their diet is plant-based, depending on the season. This diet is largely different from the diet of the population on the Kopista diet.
"As a result, the lizards on the Mercaro pod have longer, wider and taller heads than those on the Copista pod. These characteristics translate into a large increase in bite force," says Irschik. "Because the plants are fibrous and strong, greater bite forces allow the lizards to tear smaller pieces from the plants."
Examining the digestive tracts of the lizards revealed an even more surprising discovery. The lizards at Pod Mercaro, which feed mainly on plant food, have developed new structures called cecal valves. These valves are designed to slow down the passage of food in the intestine by creating partitions where microbes can break down the plant parts that are more difficult to digest. The cecal valves have never been discovered in the source population of Pod Kopista, or in other lizards of this species. But it seems that an evolution of less than forty years was enough to develop them in lizards of all ages on a Mercaro pod.
"These structures are formed in less than XNUMX percent of all species of scaly reptiles," Irschik says. "Our data shows that evolution of new structures can occur in extremely short periods of time. Most likely, the evolution of the cecal valves happened together with a new link between the lizards on the Mercaro diet and between nematodes - microorganisms that break down cellulose, which were found in the gut of the lizards."
The change in dietary habits also affected the population density and the social structure of the lizards on the Mercaro Pod. Since plants are a large and predictable food supply, more lizards could be found relative to the area on the Mercaro food surface. The lizards wandered to find food, and did not actively pursue prey, and they stopped defending their own separate territories.
"These findings are special because they show that rapid evolution can affect not only the structure and activity of the species, but also the ecological behavior," says Irschik.
The results of the study are fascinating, especially in view of the fact that these changes happened in only 36 years. We know that life has existed on Earth for more than 3.6 billion years and that multicellular organisms existed as early as 1.2 billion years ago. The major morphological and behavioral changes that the lizards in the study underwent could have been repeated and accumulated hundreds of millions of times over the past billion years. It is these many changes that ultimately led to the huge variety of life we see today in the land, sea and air.
The results of the study were published on March 25 in the scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The research was supported by the National Science Center and the Foundation for Scientific Research in Flanders. The research group also included Anthony Harrell from Harvard University and the University of Antwerp, Kathleen Huyga, Beike van Anhuidunk, Thiari Baclio and Raoul van Damme from the University of Antwerp, Karin Braugelmans from the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences and Irena Gerbak from the Korean Museum of Natural History.
Source: http://www.umass.edu/
Image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Haeckel_Lacertilia.jpg
242 תגובות
Moti,
You are also wrong to say that all people were born from the first man. The first man never existed. There was no situation in which the homoerectous parents looked with pleasure on the first homospeians. There was never such a moment but everything was a long and slow process.
It's like asking when a few grains become a heap. It's a matter of definition.
If it contradicts your creation story, then consider your creation story incorrect.
Sorry.
Moti
No one said that the correctness of evolution implies that there is no God. What they do say is that evolution provides an excellent explanation for the multiplicity of species, without any need to postulate an external factor.
Beyond that, evolution shows that the living world does not seem planned. If you want, you can expand on why you think so.
So why is there no God? This is from the wisdom of creation. What does it have to do with understanding that if there is a concept of development called evolution then it means there is no God. It doesn't belong and the strong desire to freeze is what drives you
Just like that, the concept of development is already written and it has always been known that there are species and varieties of animals, even in the Gemara it is written somewhere that there are over a hundred varieties of the branch called "Diya" Su Wat?? From here on out, it's just a human desire.
Likewise, all human beings were born from the first man and developed into different peoples with different appearance. Not that I know how, but there is a natural reason for what she caused. But that's no reason to be cold. Because it doesn't belong, just doesn't belong. There is no connection
In response to Michael
You said "when have you come across a cleric who had to admit a mistake?"
There are many examples of clerics who confessed by mistake (I'm not sure if forced is the word).
A beautiful example can be seen in one of the books about Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu who is told that he said something about one prophet and then someone told him that it was said about another prophet and the rabbi stood up and told the public that he was wrong and it was said about that prophet.
An example from the early ones: the Ramban writes in his commentary about a certain matter in the Torah related to geography that after he ascended to Israel he saw that he was wrong and should be interpreted differently. (I haven't found the place at the moment but I remember reading about it)
And many more examples...
I am really ashamed that 70% of men in the world fill the 3 lower deciles of intelligence.
It's hard with them
In just two years I stopped drinking Coca Cola
Amazing!!! It's been about two hours since the end of the article and I'm continuing to read the comments...
All that remains is to envy the free time and the patience that allows you to continue writing...
And in the Adlerian matter……ERMAC…..disappeared as if it were not with the cessation of reference to him….
Be strong and embrace all of you!!!!
And really…..creativity? Higher powers?? Maybe we'll just talk about tarot cards and zodiac signs instead?
Some clarifications:
The sentence "I have no doubt that I am right" is a subjective sentence - it does not belong to the field of science at all and therefore it should not be judged by the expression "does not make scientific sense" and there is also no such thing as "scientifically logical" because there is only one logic and there is no difference between scientific logic and another.
Personally I don't feel the need to be smarter than others. It is important to me to be right - but not in the sense that I will fight for the rightness of what I said in the past but by saying the right things in the future. That's why, when I recognize an inaccuracy in things I've said in the past, I correct them even without being warned - this is the opposite of the behavior of someone who wants to be portrayed as righteous - I really want to be righteous and not just be portrayed as such. This is another aspect of the modus operandi of those whose logic is not mobilized.
Regarding a contribution to the upper part - I don't feel the need to do so - the lower part provides me with an extensive cushion for writing and the associations can lead in almost any direction. I also don't like to write a summary of other people's research, but only my own stuff. It's an easier thing to do in the comments section. I once sent Roy an article (which I also sent to Galileo) about the solution to a very beautiful puzzle, but Roy said that most readers would not understand the things, so it is better to avoid publication. He may be right. It may also be that he will reign in his mind. This article is always good because it is not about some discovery, but it was discovered and should be reported as news.
Geva
Classical psychology is lined with various personality and behavior theories. Freud, Jung, Adler, Erikson, Rogers, Eysenck, Shoham (the Israeli) and others, invented all kinds of personality and behavior theories and ways of treatment through conversations and digging into history. This is all unscientific. They all offer treatment and treatment methods that are of limited benefit, because much of the behavior is the result of genetics, or physiological brain disorders that are most effectively treated by psychiatry (medication). It is clear that a positive attitude towards others, including a child, is desirable and beneficial, but your insight that you are projecting the Adlerian approach on your discussion with Michael is a gimmick that has no practical meaning and your discussion can also be explained using other psychological theories; But what does it contribute? Your discussion was matter-of-fact and interesting and now it seems that you continue to respond and Michael is silent.
And after writing this comment I think: what did I actually write it for - to come down on the Adlerian approach? Just say something? The most important thing is not to get locked into a certain method and see everything in it. Each approach has something to contribute, but you have to know not to exaggerate and recognize the limitations.
Aryeh (Michael should also)
According to the Adlerian theory (I went through a course of guiding parent groups for my own pleasure)
Each child has membership conditions. When this condition is met, the child feels a sense of belonging, and when it does not exist, the child feels rejected, and for him this must not happen.
This condition accompanies us for life.
He cannot be changed and dealing with him is by expanding the conditions, showing the child that he is loved even without conditions.
As part of the track, you take a "self-awareness" course. In this course, the affiliation conditions of each participant are identified and thus learn to identify the affiliation conditions of others.
My condition of membership is to be smart. And based on the debate between me and Michael, I assume that this is also the condition of Michael's belonging.
This affiliation condition develops very easily. A small child recognizes (especially a smart child) that he attracts the attention of his parents when he says words of wisdom, his words make them happy, they hug him, encourage him, show him off to their friends, and then he feels he belongs and is loved. And he continues to try to be smart for the rest of his life. Because that's how he feels he belongs. Wherever he goes, he has to be the smart one and that's how he feels he belongs (and the phrase "I'm right" for him is a statement "I'm smart").
This is not a bad feature. There are much worse than her.
This is a quality that pushes for achievements, in an environment that values wisdom, he will be a leader.
The problem with this feature is that he must always be smart and therefore right. Otherwise he will feel bad. Even if he has already won all the titles and successes, any doubt in his wisdom will still result in a strong reaction (as happened to both me and Michael in the beginning).
And when he meets someone with the same condition of belonging, they fight for the same slot.
Only one of them can be the smartest. And they can argue like that forever. (As it is, Aryeh, in your response).
Each of them feels good with a smart response they write, and bad when they recognize a smart response from the other. And it's even worse when someone, like you from the sidelines, supports his competitor (and then he rushes to tell himself well, he's not up to par).
That's why they say in Adler when you're in a group and someone really annoys you, it's likely that he's the most similar to you, because most likely your affiliation conditions are similar and you're competing for the same slot.
I recommend the self-awareness course at Adler to everyone.
And since I'm a little more self-aware (and I also reminded myself of this when writing this comment) then I definitely stop arguing at this point.
(and if you say "he will come back" you will probably be right)
I could not resist
Your sentence Michael "I have not the slightest doubt that I was right"
is irrefutable and therefore does not make scientific sense.
Michael
Your repeated responses showed that you spare no efforts to convince him. He seemed to have closed the matter, but if he had continued to say or claim something, you would surely have replied to him.
The truth - you wonder how a person with a professional background like him holds the opinions he does.
It is instructive to follow a discussion between two people of your stature.
Your writing is lush; Don't you have something to contribute to the site at the top of the page as well?
lion:
I'm not sure you're right.
It's clear that we don't agree, but there's no point in continuing to argue.
I have no doubt that I was right, but I was convinced that I would not be able to convince Geva.
The reason I could not convince him is precisely the reason for his opposition to science.
I can only convince those who are willing to put their words to the test of scientific logic and fairness.
Those who are willing to ignore the fact that all technological achievements are actually an application of the results of scientific research and assert the postmodernist claim that science is actually just a discourse whose relationship to reality is no different from the relationship of religion or any other thought doctrine to reality cannot be convinced.
Geva
I am constantly following the new comments to read the rest of your discussion.
Do you think your discussion with Michael is over?
I tend to think that it will continue and not just continue, but below this article (unless a new article is entered that will be relevant to this discussion and then it will continue there).
Michael
I thank you for the debate
He was fruitful for me
Here I feel we have pretty much made our case
You don't convince me and I don't convince you.
So see you in the next debate.
Hill:
I saw that I did not address your question about quantum theory.
Of course I can think of experiments that, if they failed, would disprove it. The problem is that everything I thought of has already been tried and not disproved.
Hill:
I have already qualified my words regarding the mistakes that are revealed and said that this is true in relation to articles that are of interest to someone.
Articles that don't interest anyone don't affect anyone and they don't interest me either.
And so when you refer to articles that are not read, you burst into an open, one-sided and meaningless door.
If the article interests someone then it doesn't really matter if they read it right away or not. The main thing is to read it. If nonsense is written in it and if the reader is not stupid then the nonsense is revealed.
Therefore, as I said, the scientist has a motivation to criticize himself even before publishing his conclusions to the public.
You can say "not true" as much as you want and every time you say "not true" I will answer you "yes true". I am personally involved in scientific work and many of my friends are scientists. My eldest son, by the way, is also a scientist and my younger son is on his way. I know the matter first and foremost.
I am not saying that scientists are never wrong. They are only human beings but the mechanism of the scientific method is critical and ultimately corrects mistakes. How do you know that scientists, even great scientists, have fallen? Precisely because of the fact that mistakes, as I argued, are revealed.
The comparison to newspaper articles is really ridiculous and I hope you know enough to understand that it is not true.
If you really know enough to understand that it is not true - why did you say it? This is exactly what a scientist is wary of doing because he knows the deception will be exposed just as it has been exposed here.
I repeat that I did not claim that the scientists you worked with were planners. By the way, before I was the head of the software branch in my unit, I was the chief programmer there and I'm sure I encountered no fewer bugs than you. In fact, beyond the fact that they came to me from everywhere - also from other units - so that I could find them logical and mathematical solutions in the planning of the systems, they would also come to me to solve bugs and I am the only one of those I know who also discovered bugs that originated in the computer and not in the software. And yet I know that in scientific research the software is a marginal detail. Of course, the marginal details should also be well taken care of, but one must not confuse the essential with the bland. So okay, they had an overkill. Big deal.
If you encountered scientists who made logical mistakes then they did a bad job and others would discover their mistakes eventually.
When have you encountered a clergyman who was forced to admit a mistake?
When did you come across a creation that was honest enough to admit a mistake?
Or in some new age person (astrologer, homeopath, coffee or card reader, caller, etc.)?
You have not come across these because there are none and that is because these are professions whose "knowledge" they produce is not subject to criticism.
Note that the only reason you are trying to dwarf the nature of scientific criticism is so that you can free yourself from its shackles and assert your claims without criticism. That in itself shows that you don't really believe what you are saying.
Michael
As a systems person, is there a system that you have established whose control mechanisms are so vague and do not impose some of the control mechanisms on the scientist?
Especially when the research result is not a practical result. (where it works or not)
And you really exaggerated, it always comes out. Why does it always come out? You think that every article is immediately going to be checked, sometimes checked and sometimes not and how many times very serious researchers did fail. So they acted in an unobjective way right? This is a completely random mechanism, so not only is it not completely objective in my opinion, it is also not very reliable. An article in a reliable newspaper according to logic is no less.
Regarding what happened at the institute.
If some of them I worked on a joint project when they realized my advantage they let me do all the programming work.
I remember one bug at Technion (also a client of mine) when there was an overflow (the memory was full, there used to be such a thing) in the program and it predicted an explosion, in the lab it didn't happen and then they found the bug. (here the result was the control mechanism).
Therefore, the importance of programs in the scientific process should not be underestimated (I guess today it is different).
And it's really not like what you did as the head of a software branch.
You were a professional and I guess better than any of your programmers or at least most of them.
I was also responsible for the software in my company and I took upon myself the most difficult or the most interesting programs (like the cultivation).
When scientists would come to me and ask for corrections in the care programs,
I would almost always check if there were no bugs in them, mainly logs (and I did it when I had time or desire). And if there were logical errors, I would not have made the changes. Once, after I suggested that the change was illogical, a postdoctoral thesis that they had worked on for a year was thrown into the trash. He is one of the greats in the field.) And I will say more than that, some studies are so difficult to understand and others are so specific that there is absolutely no chance that anyone will ever lose their battles.
So from my personal experience, I really find it hard to accept your assertions about the objective thinking of scientists.
More than that, if this is important to you, go and consult any scientist friend of yours who will tell you, about others of course, stories about failed attempts, mistakes and cheating, even about great scientists.
Real question - do you know that there is an idea how to disprove the quantum theory?
Meir from comment 217:
I listened to the lecture.
The man is an orator with grace and also a demagogue and liar with grace.
A mesmerized audience sits there and does not see how they are being deceived and led by the nose.
It's a shame I wasn't there because I have no doubt I would have let the air out of his balloon.
Regarding your comment about Lamarck:
Darwin also came up with his theory before he knew genes existed (if he ever did).
It is true that Gregor Mendel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel already founded the science of genetics but Darwin didn't know it.
The reason it could do this is that, as amazing as it may sound to you, evolution does not require genes.
All that it requires, as mentioned, is the existence of replicators with a certain probability of small and random replication errors and competition. This is one of the beautiful things about it and it is what makes the idea applicable in so many fields (including genetic programming).
Lamarck's idea - beyond being proven wrong, is not endowed with this generality.
Hill:
I'm not saying there aren't bad scientists but please don't bring them to me as an example of the definition of science.
What's beautiful about science is that the worst scientists are always (but always!) nominated in their place in the end (if what they wrote is of any interest to anyone) because, as mentioned, science is objective, others check the logic of their arguments and repeat their experiments (not just one of the requirements of a scientific experiment is the frequency) and therefore a sane scientist will not dare to twist things and twist the logic because the result of this act will not be the prestige to which he strives but the humiliation of a nation and the world.
I don't know where you studied psychology and in general, the field of psychology is indeed saturated with people who are not scientists. This is not because the science of psychology is not needed but because people with scientific inclinations tend to go into other professions.
Your guide sounds like the height of non-seriousness to me. What is "I didn't understand your theory but it sounds amazing to me"? This is a sentence I would expect to hear from a stupid teenager when she is talking to a famous singer and the action of the glands replaces the action of the brain.
I did not claim that good scientists do not try to prove their claims. Far from it - otherwise the claims would remain unproven.
I only claimed that their logic is not mobilized and therefore it remains logic.
The fact that the logic is not mobilized does not mean that their willingness to activate it is not mobilized but when they activate it they activate it and not something else in its place.
I repeat - the sword of refutation is always hovering over their heads in the hands of others and every illogical statement is exposed in the end.
I do not want to comment on your judgment regarding the work being done at the Weizmann Institute.
I don't think you are qualified to judge what is happening there, and if scientists are having fun with programming that they are not experts in, there is nothing wrong with that - scientists are also allowed to have fun. I assure you that none of them published their conclusions as an achievement in computer science.
I can tell you that even as the head of a software branch in one of the IDF's computer units, I often preferred to program things myself that I estimated would be more difficult for me to explain to others than to simply do them. I did this many times in my citizenship as well.
I can, therefore, attribute the fact that scientists chose to program themselves also to the fact that when it comes to a complex idea, it is easier to get a computer to do what you want than to get a human to do it.
If a paradox is discovered in the laws of logic, this will be a proof that they must be changed, and therefore does not preclude us from changing them.
This has already happened once before with Russell's Paradox and indeed the rules of logic were changed at certain points. Fortunately the Russell Paradox didn't work as a result of a thought process that a lot of things were based on because if there were things like that they would collapse and no amount of your calming siren would help.
Every scientist who reads any of the quantum theories understands what he reads in the same way.
The fact that there are several theories (which are perfectly valid with regard to the experiments we are able to do) does not change this fact. This fact also allows us to know that if and when experiments are possible that disprove one of the theories - and these experiments will be performed and disprove it, no one will claim that it has not been disproved.
Michael
I agree with you one hundred percent that this is the definition of scientific logic.
Leibovitz also described it exactly that way.
I have already written my opinion on the scientific logic in detail in one of the comments.
(the response after which Chen disappeared).
I do not agree with you that the logic of scientists is not mobilized for their maturity.
Usually the scientists are obsessed with everything related to their virginity. And sometimes they are wrong
in their proofs and they are in no way ready to admit it, so unobjective is their logic as well as their experiment. (and I have come across this more than once in my professional life).
And I completely disagree with you about the objectivity of experiments.
Examples - I came across a scientific theory in psychology that was proven by experimenting in the field and statistical analyzes of the results. The analyses, according to my statistical understanding, were within a standard deviation. And to them a central and correct theory was built (in my logic) but its proof was ridiculous.
Another example, in the field experiment work I got to do in cognitive psychology. I got different and sometimes opposite results from the experiment that was the proof of the theory we learned.
I found that it is possible to explain the results I reached according to another theory (proved in another way). And that the initial theory is simply not true.
I wrote it at work and got a 10 from the supervisor even though he wrote a comment "I didn't understand your theory but it sounds amazing". .
Researchers from different branches use tools from other branches where their brainpower is small and sometimes they make mistakes. There is no mechanism that says if I prove something statistically a statistician should check it.
Even when building a house you have to consult experts and in Germany and the USA it is more serious.
And in the knowledge that his role is, as you say, "to create an objective body of knowledge" there are no laws that require elementary controls, everything is possible and the only control is what the colleagues and especially the competitors say and if there are no competitors.
When I walked around the Weizmann Institute (they were a client of mine) I saw most of their scientists spending a lot of time writing computer programs, they were at a really low level of programming. And made a lot of mistakes. I suggested to some of them that they let the programmers write the programs for them, it would be more professional and save a lot of time that they could turn to research. And their answer was that they enjoy programming so much.
So if you're talking to me about theoretical objectivity like this that is managed according to formulas. I have nothing to argue with her, but look at what is happening on the ground.
Newton was sitting on the grass and the apple fell on his head.
And thought maybe there is some force here that pulls the apple.
And immediately after that he thought how I prove him.
And I promise you that he didn't think about how I refute him. (This is just a graphic example)
(Luckily he was born before Popper).
According to Leibowitz, a scientific theory is such that every scientist who reads it will understand it in the same way (provided he is intelligent enough to understand it). I think you said (perhaps Chen) that quantum theory is such that if we ask the top ten scientists, what is the theory? We will get ten answers.
And I can reassure you that even if a paradox is discovered in the system of the laws of logic, they will hurry to change these laws and human knowledge will remain.
Hill:
All scientists are human and all are motivated, among other things, by personal ambitions.
However - their logic is not mobilized.
Their mental resources are mobilized, their physical strength is mobilized, their time is mobilized, but their intelligence is not mobilized!
One of the fundamental things in the definition of science is its objectivity.
This is exactly the role of science - to create an objective body of knowledge that every person is able to check for correctness.
That independence from a specific person is the definition of objectivity.
If the scientific practice consists of experiment and logic, then these two things must be objective - otherwise there is no value to the whole matter.
There is no such thing as "my logic". There is logic and there is illogicality and both are objective.
Logic is so objective that its laws are formulated in mathematical formulas accepted by the whole world.
Every time there is a fear of a paradox in the system of the laws of logic, the country is noisy because everyone knows that the meaning of this paradox is the undermining of all the foundations of human knowledge.
Mark was a smart man, he came up with his theory even before he knew there was gene expression. What they call dormant genes, I call options, and long live the small difference.
Michael
If this is the definition (I was afraid you were implying a different recruitment), I am indeed recruited. And so also all the scientists who came up with a new and subtle theory did not prove it.
If they were not recruited, they would not have the strength, adherence, tenacity and resources required for the proof (and today they also need to recruit others to invest and finance the proof for them).
When I wrote a new idea, I meant a new idea for me and I have no problem with the fact that this idea has already been used before, certainly not if there is an entry in Wikipedia about the originator of the idea.
When I was in high school I arrived at the Newton binomial by induction from Pascal's triangle
And I was very happy that people older than me arrived at the formula before me in a different way.
I'm sorry that my arguments strengthen people like Meir, my same logic that says there is a planner also means that the planner logically cannot be the one who prevents Meir from traveling on Shabbat or eating meat and milk and not even vermin.
Reply to 214 (I know how to count)
Your use of the fact that the phenomenon of balance exists in nature in all kinds of places
This argument reminds me of the joke.
The IRS came to a rich man and asked him for proof of his money.
And he answered them "Here are the proofs, here is the Mercedes, here is the house, here is the yacht, etc.."
An interesting lecture on the subject of knowledge versus faith
Hill:
By the expression "mobilized logic" I mean a logic that is not objective but one that will do everything in its power - sometimes contrary to logic - to reach a certain conclusion.
As when talking about mobilized journalism and mean journalism that is not objective.
Logic, by definition, must be objective and the moment it ceases to be so (because it was mobilized to prove some claim at any cost) it ceases to be logic.
By the way, your theory is not really new and it is similar to the ideas attributed (not entirely rightly) to a man named Lamarck who actually did not believe in an external force but in the inheritance of acquired traits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarck
Michael
It's hard for me to relate to the mathematical passages you presented.
For the part that changed my mind:
It really doesn't matter if it was endangered or not.
The argument was, and not mine, that when there is a risk of extinction, the chances of those with a beneficial mutation to survive and disperse in the immigrant population increase. And so in my opinion, now and then, when there is no danger of extinction for the change as described in the article, its chances decrease. I'm sorry that I did get carried away when I claimed that the planner intervenes. I have no evidence of that.
And if I come across illogical phenomena according to natural selection, but logical due to the intervention of a planner, I will change my mind again and think that he intervenes.
You are right in your claim that I am in love with my idea and therefore my thinking is not objective. You hang around a lot in the scientific community, do you know a single scientist who is not in love with his theory? And then he does everything to prove her. This is human nature. And scientists are human too. I think I'm much less in love with my idea because it's quite new to me and I'm trying to formulate it even for myself.
Your description of the balancing process is fascinating and I have no doubt that this is how things happened over the generations. and I'll treat her tomorrow (I'm tired)
I didn't understand what you mean when you write "I have to say that I think your logic is convoluted and convoluted logic doesn't make sense".
Hill:
First of all, I must admit (although no one commented on it) that I got a little carried away at the end of response 210 (my previous response to this one) when I said that evolution is a special case that relies only on the axioms of mathematics.
Actually what I was thinking about when I wrote this is of course the mathematical theory of evolution which just like other mathematical sentences is built in the form of "if... then...". That is - if there are factors that reproduce themselves with a certain probability of replication errors and if these factors compete for resources then evolution will occur.
As a claim about the world, it is only valid in a world where the conditions described in the "mother" of the sentence are met.
As for systems reaching equilibrium - this is a simple, self-evident phenomenon that also occurs in every computer simulation and is encountered at every turn in the world - whether it is the issue of demand versus supply, whether it is the fact that without external intervention the earth will (eventually) emit exactly the amount of radiation that will damage it, if it is the balance of gases in the atmosphere. Reaching equilibrium is a very common phenomenon in nature and no miracle is needed to explain it.
I want to go back here to what you said and tie it to a few other things.
In response 209 you wrote about how a certain thing burdens natural selection and increases the logic in the idea you brought up and that is exactly what you want.
Although I do not agree with the claim that natural selection is overpowered here, that is not the reason for these words.
What I want to emphasize here is precisely the phrase "and this is exactly what I want" which you wrote in parentheses at the end of the claim.
Those who want to discover the truth cannot do so if they want to prove a particular idea. This, in my opinion, is the source of all the mistakes I occasionally find in your words. As soon as you are "in love" with a certain theory and really want to find reasons why it is actually true, your chances of seeing things soberly and objectively go down.
This is the reason why when you brought the intervention of the planning factor in precisely extinction situations as conclusive proof of its existence and when I pointed out to you the fact that it was not an extinction situation you said that if so then your proof is even stronger.
This is also the reason why you see balance as a kind of external and arbitrary constraint and not a phenomenon that really stems directly from the assumptions and that you didn't have to see the world to understand that under the conditions from which evolution arises, equilibrium will also be created. In other words - the balance is not miraculous at all.
As I said - the balance between predator and prey is not achieved by adjusting the amount of appetite but by self-adjusting and inevitable population sizes - if there are not enough deer, some of the tigers die of starvation and then the deer population recovers and then the tiger population also recovers and reduces the deer population until that there is not enough for everyone and again some of the tigers die and God forbid.
By the way - another interesting example of "miraculous" coordinations that happen because of the laws of nature and not because of anything else is the coordination between the time of the moon's rotation around its axis and the time of its rotation around the earth in such a way that it constantly faces the same side towards us. If I didn't understand why it was happening I might think that God did it (of course I personally wouldn't think so but I would look for the reason as it did happen to me in the past). Think about it - two random numbers that are chosen from an infinite number of numbers. One is the rate of rotation of the moon around its axis and the other is the rate of its rotation around the earth - how much luck does it take for these two numbers to be the same?! As I said - you don't need luck at all because this coordination comes from the laws of physics.
Therefore, to return to the question of whether I accept your logic I must say that I think your logic is mobilized and mobilized logic does not make sense.
I'm not saying this in a blanket way, of course. For example - I really have no ability to prove that there is no factor that does interfere with evolution and causes it to behave exactly as I would expect it to behave even without it, but here I personally find it appropriate to use Occam's razor - there is no reason to add to the equation factors that do not add to its explanatory power (and in particular In the case before us - a mystical factor of this type not only does not add to the explanatory power - it detracts from it. All science deals with the demystification of reality and your proposal actually mystifies it).
Addendum to the long comment (I don't know her number yet)
It is difficult to understand, statistically, the possibility of a positive cooperation like between the flower and the bee. It is much more difficult to understand cooperation on a negative basis. The ease with which these mechanisms can get out of control requires an incredible precision of quantity versus appetite, any deviation and immediately one of them will disappear and this greatly reduces the chances of statistical feasibility (I include the examples for a casual audience, don't be offended, I know you understand even without examples.)
Michael (does not belong to the discussion)
My greatest expertise, as a programmer, was finding bugs (both software and logs).
People would come to me from all kinds of units and I would find their bugs and this continued in the company I founded as well. There was a stage when I thought of developing another activity which would be finding bugs for software (how much money could I make from Microsoft, their software is infested with bugs).
I hope you feel this expertise of mine in my responses.
The case of Microsoft according to the same logic of the other proofs, proves the natural selection. Here is a software full of bugs and it survives and not only survives but succeeds amazingly because it has no competitors.
Michael
You articulate in an exceptional way
And since we stopped the confrontations (which bothered me and I assume you too) I really enjoy reading your response.
I completely agree with most of what you write, especially when it comes to mathematics, the fields that interest me are biology (especially gagetics), brain research, a little philosophy (mainly logic) and psychology which I studied at university for fun. and computers which was my occupation. I don't like physics, chemistry, and unfortunately I didn't get to math).
You keep adding more layers to my idea.
I would really appreciate it if you told me that, at least logically, even if you don't agree, you see my intentions.
I never said there was no natural selection. I'm sure there is, and there is evidence of this all the time.
And as the son of Holocaust survivors (today is Holocaust Day) I am happy that it exists because it increases my and my children's chances of survival.
But from that to the theory that everything was created by natural selection, the distance is great.
If the topic of the external organism that causes population declines is related to the debate in your opinion, I will gladly include it. But I think his influence is random, and he can influence in all kinds of ways when needed and when not needed. for worse and for better.
The claim that there is a state of balance in nature as proof of how it was created is not acceptable to me.
Every additional variable that enters the equation makes the equation more complicated.
Now-not only does it have to be explained how the doe was created. It is also necessary to explain how the tiger was created and how the wonderful and precise balance between them was created.
I agree with you that if you assume that natural selection created everything, that is indeed the way things were done.
But I guess you will agree with me that a process that depends on several interdependent factors is even more difficult to prove.
I completely agree with you about what is happening in Israel. (I'm even more extreme than you).
When I wrote that something must be done or we will be destroyed, I meant that man as a species has completely broken all the laws of evolution. And if there are no other defense mechanisms (perhaps AIDS) and we don't activate the defense mechanism that is probably the only defense mechanism available to us, which is logic, then, as you said (I guess it's just a phrase) "only God knows what will happen to the rest" and to us.
Hill:
The resources in nature are usually (if we limit ourselves to the time when the sun provides us with the necessary amount of energy - no less and no more) renewable.
When a certain organism reaches a population that utilizes a certain resource beyond its rate of regeneration, a situation arises in which there is not enough of the resource for all parts of the organism and some of them do not survive.
Eventually, an equilibrium is usually reached where the amount of remaining individuals consumes exactly the amount that nature regenerated.
This equilibrium does not have to be the result of mutation. In fact, in most cases, it is achieved by reducing the population.
This does not necessarily mean the reduction of the population but only its reduction to a level that the environment can support.
Many times the resource is another organism - this is how, for example, an equilibrium is achieved between the size of the predator population and the size of the prey population.
One of the reasons for this is that as the resource dwindles it becomes more difficult to obtain.
Sometimes it happens that the resource remains easy to obtain until the last moment. This is the case, for example, when it comes to water from the only water reservoir in the vicinity.
In such a situation the population usually becomes extinct (as happened to certain populations in America).
In the situation in which we are in the country, the resources necessary for the survival of the parasitic population are concentrated for them by the state.
There is a positive feedback between the percentage of parasites in the population and their political power. This is actually the problematic fact in the whole story because their political power is used to control the taps and increase their share in the population. This situation is in complete contrast to the situation that usually prevails in nature where the quantity becomes at a certain point a limit on the continued growth of the population. Here, as mentioned, the quantity actually accelerates the increase.
The continuation of this situation (which currently shows no sign of change) will inevitably lead us to a broken trough.
Those who provide the resources - the productive and protective population - will not be able to support the parasitic population and when that happens, the last of the producers and protectors will be forced to leave the country and only God knows what will happen to the rest. Some of them will probably also emigrate to sane countries where parasitism is a weakness and be forced to start working and some of them may stay here to consume themselves (with the kind help of their loving neighbors).
All this, of course, only if there is no change that will cause the ultra-Orthodox (unlikely) or the state (a little more likely but not certain) to become disillusioned.
All this will happen without moving the mechanism of natural selection. He will continue to work - simply because he has no other choice. The logical mechanism of natural selection is one of the few examples of what can be said about nature while relying only on the axioms of mathematics, therefore it exists in every world where mathematics is valid.
Michael
Thanks
I told a joke
And you provided me with a new subject for thinking (I thought you marked it).
How is it possible for an organism to survive when its positive mutation kills its environment.
And actually, if you think about it, then any positive mutation that naturally will spread,
You will cause an increase in the number of survivors, you will eventually eliminate the food sources and cause destruction.
This can be explained in several ways (according to the choice).
The development rate of the creatures is low in relation to the food sources.
Preformed mechanisms that cause the organism to either not reproduce or eat less.
New mutations develop quickly enough (in the case of the devotee, his son is going to work).
In any case, these explanations create more weight and restrictions on the theory of natural selection
All such heaviness increases the logic of the idea I brought up. (And that's exactly what I'm looking for)
One of these mechanisms exists in humans. Reading not thinking
And if we don't activate this mechanism very soon we will destroy our food sources.
Then, if the theory of the creator (and also an intervener) is wrong, it will no longer matter.
Hill:
Your last story is unfortunately a private case of a very well-known phenomenon in nature.
Without referring specifically to your employee who probably, in some respects at least, does not personally represent the phenomenon, then this is the phenomenon of parasitism.
In each population an equilibrium develops in a situation where it is equally profitable to be a parasite on society or a contributor to society.
If there is no such situation and it always pays to be a parasite - society is destroyed.
This may be what is happening in our country.
By the way, the birth of ten children, as we know, is not a question of chances but of decision.
Keeping the ten children alive was a matter of luck in the past and thanks to science (and the understanding of evolution in general) luck (just like God - which is actually exactly the same thing) has less to say nowadays.
One more story to finish
I had an employee from Hasidi Gur (a brilliant programmer) he was disabled and his wife was disabled and he had ten children.
When I argued with him about natural selection (I was of course in favor of it at the time) he told me:
"If you were right, then what were my chances in nature for ten children.
But if you're right, then who will benefit more from the abortion, me with my ten children (all of whom were healthy) or you with your three children."
Michael
Thanks for the correction and I thought that was what you meant.
I think we have pretty much exhausted the topic at this point.
We started on the left foot and I'm glad we switched legs at the end.
I appreciate your and Chen's knowledge that spans so many areas.
We disagreed about the differences of opinion but I learned a few things from you.
I hope you also learned something from me.
Thanks and see you in another debate.
Michael,
Thanks for the explanation
I just noticed that in response 199, the characters were reversed in my attempt to quote Geva.
Instead of the quote "If logic is impossible - abandon the experiment" I of course meant to write the quote "If an experiment is impossible - abandon logic".
I hope the rest of the response made it clear that I meant this quote.
What's new:
Another thought that you must take into account is that the real world is a "computer" much faster than any computer we can build - not because specific things happen in it quickly but because it is huge and many things happen in it at the same time (and I am currently only talking about the Earth - those who are aware of the anthropic principle understand It is possible that the entire universe should be considered as the relevant computer and not just the Earth.
The only way we can speed up the process (in principle - at the moment this way is also impractical) is by making it sophisticated in a way that expresses our insights about life and tries to deal only with what leads to life, but then all of creation will claim that we have not proven anything and in fact found an ineffective way to carry out creation intelligent
What's new:
The answer Roy gave you also reflects my opinion.
Computer simulations were made with simple rules and indeed "naturally" created "creatures" that replicated themselves and these "creatures" did become more and more perfected.
In some respects this can be seen as proof that the concept works, but I cannot contradict the claim of a believer who claims that these are not life.
The secret of life is a secret we have not yet discovered.
We have a sense of where to look for it, but the complexity of the systems in nature is much higher than what we know how to simulate on a computer. Almost every simulation we conduct reduces the world to a very small collection of laws that operate on a relatively small collection of details. This is the result of both a lack of calculation ability and a lack of knowledge regarding the question of what are the things that are truly relevant to life - is a simulation of every elementary particle inferior? of each atom? of each molecule? I do not believe that it is possible to create life with simulation at higher levels of abstraction, but it is important that every creature contains billions of molecules - and our computing resources are limited.
תיקון
Last line instead of Mashar should be Mashar
Michael,
Is it possible to produce a simulation software of the creation from chemical materials to produce the simplest life.
Initial conditions will be given and the software will shorten millions of years to a reasonable time.
I already asked Roy the question and he said that for now several processes are missing.
But still, missing processes can be completed by experimenting with the software.
Such software will be able to show the feasibility of random creation.
I am writing here in general terms.
I maintain that the algorithm is very complex.
Some small notes:
Regarding the issue of the struggle between the various professions, I can offer a compromise:
The heart was built by a mechanical engineer, the circulatory system and the digestive system were built by a plumber, the genome was built by a programmer, the cell where the genome is interpreted and written instructions are carried out by a computer engineer, the eyes were built by an optometrist, the audio system was built by a DJ, and the olfactory system was built by an employee freedom
It has already been said that God is a cluster man, so we will leave the grapes to him.
In relation to the Big Bang, it is worth noting that historically the idea was born because of Hubble's discovery that the universe is expanding. All the other conclusions stemmed mainly from exploiting this conclusion and trying to understand what else follows from it, and later experiments (which were sometimes conducted unintentionally - like Gamov's "experiment") confirmed the predictions of the theory (like the background radiation in Gamov's "experiment"). This corresponds, of course, to the general model of experiment-theory-experiment-and research.
I'm not saying "if logic is impossible - leave the experiment" I'm just saying that pure logic is not science but mathematics - precisely the subject I like the most.
The point is that mathematics is not about the question "What is true?" But in the question "What is consistent?" or "what follows from given assumptions". Its conclusions never state "the world is such and such" but "every world in which these conditions are met is such and such". By the way, to me, any logic that is not the exact logic of mathematics is no logic at all.
One should definitely engage in mathematics - both because it's fun and because it prepares the ground for science which many times succeeds in saying: "Hi! But here exactly these and these conditions are met and therefore - as the mathematicians have already found - so and so!"
Trying to use logic without experiment to make claims about the world betrays both disciplines. It is necessarily not pure and mathematical logic because in mathematics there are no tools for constructing axioms and it is not scientific because science is, as mentioned, the result of applying mathematical logic to the axioms that are revealed in the experiment.
As for the development of the eye - it is possible that, as summarized in Wikipedia, the common gene is a result of the fact that all eyes nevertheless have a common past in the form of the light-sensing cells and the corresponding developments are all included around this structure.
See the chapter Evolution of the eye in the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye
What will be the subject of the book? How to write correct syntax or Hebrew without spelling errors or how to make a scrambled egg without breaking eggs
I also thought about the idea of the book
Grace
Thanks for the answer
David, at this rate, my father will publish a 1000 page book in another month with only our comments...
Grace
Nice, I liked the plumbers.
This site is intended for ordinary people who are interested (and according to Roi, you are too).
And not only for scientists, therefore the limitations of reason that scientists have agreed to take upon themselves do not bind the readers and commenters.
True, my advantage is that I am a computer person, so I will show the similarity to the program
And even you agreed that "an image for the program is required".
For the sake of argument - and listen there in Basel there are sages who make assumptions and write plans and find the antimatter and try to prove that there is an alternative universe. And if they fail to prove it? So it will be disproved?
Most of the great theories are tried to be proved in mathematics.
And about this I'm really petty, but you think that a mathematical proof has an element of refutation.
And I especially liked the example at the end.
Yes, when I see a computer I will assume that there is a creator (in your example a person) the last thing I will think is that it created itself.
Geva, I understand a thing or two about physics, so I'll tell you a little about the big bang,
The prevailing theory before the big bang was the steady state model, which held that the universe had no beginning (in time and space) and no end, meaning that the universe always exists in a way that does not change.
The Big Bang was a theory derived from Einstein's equations of general relativity, which was experimentally proven to be more correct than Newton's laws (the atomic bomb is just one of the small pieces of evidence).
Einstein himself did not believe that the big bang was true and added the cosmological constant to correct the equations so that they described the steady state model that was accepted in those days. Of course there were other people who got the same results of the big bang (ie everything started as a singular point in time and space).
The continuation of the research put the theories to the test, according to the big bang it is possible to predict the distribution of matter in the universe (a lot of hydrogen, a little helium and literally a drop of the rest), especially the amounts of hydrogen and helium with great accuracy. The riddle of how the rest of the elements were created was actually solved by the people of the stable state and showed that the rest of the elements develop in the stars in their different stages of life.
Another important piece of evidence is the expansion of the universe (a subject that is still being researched) when Abel showed that the galaxies are uniformly moving away from each other, implying that they came from a common point.
The most impressive evidence (in my opinion) is the cosmic background radiation, which is radiation whose existence is predicted by the Big Bang model. This radiation was created about when the universe was 300 thousand years old (if my memory serves me correctly) when the universe first became transparent. The original radiation was at a high temperature and therefore a short wavelength, since the universe is expanding, the wavelength lengthened and the temperature of the radiation decreased, it is possible to calculate exactly the time periods this required and the expansion of the universe since then (approximately 1100 times) according to the Big Bang model.
This radiation was observed with the help of the first radio telescopes (at first it was thought to be a disturbance) and apart from very small deviations it is uniform in every direction we look.
I already have to move, I will recommend you a good book by Simon Singh (the one who wrote Fermat's last theorem) "The Big Bang", although it did not help me in astrophysics, but it is very interesting and tells about the development of the theory.
Grace
All the best for the effort, friends, from most of the text we can conclude a. that you have a lot of free time b. that you are willing to invest it for free c. That you are good Jews who like to argue from Dana's point of view.
Michael
Very nice answers.
If you like my answer, you can write it even if you don't agree with it.
How I miss the cheerful days of Mamram where we had fun arguing all the time about every topic.
I would be happy (really) to hear your attitude to the scientific theories I mentioned - the big bang, etc. and how they can be proven. I admit and thank you that physics is my least favorite field. (In physics I believe everything they say).
And a personal request, I'm a bit dyslexic and sometimes get confused with terms, so if you understand what I meant, argue with me about the nomenclature and forgive me for the spelling errors as well. I had an employee (a genius, from your time in Ma'ram) who if I wasn't precise in terms he wouldn't understand me. According to your writing you are not like that.
Matter of fact - I am not denying the science. On the contrary. You say the logic in addition to the experiment. If possible. And if you can't experiment, then leave logic behind?
You answered yes, so this means that they will not try to build theories about things that surely cannot be proven as well as not disproved.
for a reaction to a joke.
In the case of the eye, creationists have no problem at all.
Because there are the two things that you have frozen together. On the one hand, parts are preserved, the EY gene (which is like a routine operator and is the same in all or some of the sighted) and parts that are connected to the brain that have not changed. And on the other hand, the eye evolved 40 times in 6 different basic forms of vision.
The EY body has not changed throughout this process. When all this mess is happening around it thousands of destructive and beneficial mutations that build an eye dozens of times and it doesn't change. And after all this they took him and transplanted him from a fly to a mouse (Goring) and the mouse developed an eye everywhere (kind of PERFORM eye).
I have an idea, for the question, why did the eye evolve so many times?, but it really does not belong to the discussion here (it is really imaginary and I invented it, contrary to creationism).
And according to my idea, there is a logical explanation for the various developments, but only with regard to sensory organs.
Geva,
How have you not noticed yet? This site deals with science! Not in any private or religious belief. If you want to grasp reality in any way you see fit, it is of no interest to the scientific community! Maybe it will interest philosophers, intellectuals and religion.
But when they come to examine a scientific theory, then belief/perception/logic that is not supported by evidence and experiments does not help the advancement of science and even constitutes an obstacle to progress.
Since the evidence you describe begins and ends with the argument "it seems to me this way makes more sense" then they cannot be valid, because this is your view and your reasoning is individual only to you, and is based on your life experience. "Surprisingly" you are the programmer who thinks there is a "super programmer" who wrote the running plan of life, I think you have just found your God...:), the experts may not agree with you, and I wonder what the plumbers will say...
Science has tools to examine experiments and evidence in a neutral way (at least for scientists in Switzerland...) so that theoretical models can be proposed and their compatibility with experiments and evidence can be examined.
Fortunately for us, science is no longer limited to the simple human understanding of things and has tools to analyze complex and complicated systems to understand, so we can deal with evidence that cannot be grasped by simple logic. In your opinion, apparently your favorite computers and mathematics would not exist in the world because they are beyond simple logic, any primitive who sees a computer for the first time will agree that it is magic that comes from God and say that it makes more sense that there is a God than that another human was able to create such a miracle (only because he does not equip himself with the right logic!) .
If you insist that a programmer or a magician or a watchmaker exists without scientific evidence (as logical as it seems to you) it is a non-scientific faith/worldview and therefore cannot be science, it is only faith (regardless of your religion).
Hill:
Regarding the joke - it's interesting, but it's actually an opportunity to show another side of the power of natural selection.
The common term in the subject I want to mention is that of convergent evolution - that is - arriving at similar phenotype products as a result of different genotypes.
This is a common thing in evolution.
For example - the pouched animals developed in a similar way to the pouchless animals (the ones that keep their money in the bank) and you can see a lot of parallels between the inhabitants of the different niches in both groups.
The similarity is based on different genetic "solutions".
Different lizards stick to the ceiling using a mechanism similar to that of spiders - again - using different genetics.
The same goes for the eye that has evolved many times.
An intelligent designer would have known how to copy the solution between the animals instead of creating something completely different for the same purpose.
Many times the evidence for evolution can be seen precisely in its less perfect results and this is one of the cases.
Of course, creationists will argue the opposite here as well.
When they are shown that there is a lot in common between the animals and the sharing corresponds to their development from each other, they say: "Oh well - that's also what a smart planner would do! Why plan twice".
I assume that in the face of convergent evolution they will present the opposite claim - something like: "He is so smart that he can do it in many ways" or "He wants to examine several alternatives" and the like.
The eye has evolved many times because the utilization of light waves to understand the environment gives a survival advantage and this advantage affects natural selection wherever it is.
And by the way, Geva:
The article does not discuss the discovery of laws (as you claimed in response 183) but an experiment that shows once more and more clearly the correctness of known laws.
Hill:
I don't know what this disconnect you are making between science and logic.
Logic, in addition to experiment, is the quintessential scientific method of operation.
The whole difference between science and other doctrines and religions between them is that they free themselves from at least one of these two components.
Relinquishing logic does indeed allow those who adopt them to base their claim on X and then when they show him that X is not true to say that it is actually easy and material, but it distances him from the ability to discover the truth.
As above, the waiver of the experiment.
We, as humans, simply have no other way to learn what is right and wrong. Science is only the following from the particular to the general of the proverb "Who is wise - who learns from the experience of others"
"Evolution can be easily disproved, for example you will find a person in a layer that is 2 billion years old. They have not found it to this day, so it is not disproved." - This is not an experiment. But even if they found it, they would straight up claim that it is evidence of parallel or faster than normal evolution or any Another thing. A lot of contradictory fossil evidence was found (the famous trilobite fossil for example), a fact that didn't change everyone. It can always be argued that this is a technical error of the dating or something...
"The adaptation of bacteria to antibiotics also works according to the laws of evolution, if it were to contradict it, it would be a contradiction to evolution." Because it was created following a huge step.
And millions more such experiments of nature and researchers.
joke
The claim that Ayu evolved 40 times with the help of random mutations reminds me of the joke.
The killer tells the policeman that his wife accidentally fell on the knife. And the policeman asks "40 times".
"scientific theory"
I'm not a scientist, therefore, happily, I'm not limited by scientific philosophy, and I'm allowed to think logically, and bring up, suggest and even "believe" any idea that comes into my head.
I always say that the difference between "faith" and "religion" is that in "religion" you are told what to believe and in "faith" you believe what logic (or emotion) tells you to believe.
Assuming you agree with this statement, then who is religious? Those who accept scientific proofs or those who try to think if they make sense and only then accept them.
The funny thing is, if there was no "scientific philosophy", the religious scientists would have a really hard time. On the one hand, they believe in God because it is "faith", and on the other hand, they "scientifically" believe in natural selection, because there is no other scientific theory, and sometimes they even deal with it.
Luckily for them, this sword of "scientific philosophy" is on their neck, otherwise they would be in trouble.
I don't understand at all why the phrase "this is not a scientific theory" is waved as something threatening,
"Oh my, this is not a scientific theory, you will surely go to hell" that's how it sounds.
So it's not, "scientific theory", so what?
So that immediately puts it in the category of "religious belief"?
No, there is also room for a "logical theory" which is a reasonable and logical theory even if it cannot be refuted. And I don't mind calling it an idea and sometimes even a smart idea.
And there are many such:
How can you disprove the idea that the big bang happened this way and not another way?
How can you disprove the idea that there are more than 4 dimensions
How can we disprove the idea that there was a universe before ours?
How to disprove parallel universes. and more..
A religious scientist once told me "There is faith from emotion and there is scientific faith".
I think there are three types of faith: faith from emotion, faith from science and faith from reason,
Sometimes they go together and sometimes separately.
An idea makes more sense if it resembles a process we know and understand.
If you treat the idea of the "planner" as I brought up in the previous comments as a logical interview, I will be content with that.
All three scientists I spoke with yesterday agreed that this is a logical but unscientific idea.
Grace
I know the theory of natural selection very well
I agree with everything you wrote, except for the sentence "and these laws we discover, slowly indeed, but consistently".
This is where the debate started, from a letter pretending to be such a discovery.
And I still think that for such complex software you need a programmer and that the world does not exist
Enough time for such software to be created by itself, and the proofs of feasibility, in the time limit, do not satisfy me. will be too crowded)
Geva,
In this case, Michael was right, indeed quantum theory, which is one of the sciences that has contributed the most to the progress of the past decades (the entire electronics industry is just one example), is still the least intuitive science and the most open to interpretations, even among experts there is a debate about the correct conception of the theory.
The mathematics of quantum theory was invented to explain experiments, and of course there are several ways to present anything and interpret each experiment and each way has a mathematical representation that is more convenient to use, even though they all predict the same result.
10 professors specializing in quantum theory (and its various sequels) will have at least 10 different explanations for each experiment.
The similarity you found between the genome and programming is simply required! To create the next generation, information must be transferred.
Just like with a software object, or programs to create a car, to create the next generation, you use the information of the previous generation. Since we are made of a large amount of information, the genome is one of the ways to pass this information to the next generation. There is no dependence at all on the way in which this information was created.
I will give you an example that does not need a creator:
Just as a fractal of infinite complexity can be created from only a single evolutionary law, it also seems impossible to create such a complex object from a single law, but evolution allows this only because information is passed from generation to generation. When you stand in front of the complete fractal it is difficult for you to understand the original legality without a thorough investigation of the system, you can say that it was planned in advance! Because its complexity contains infinite ordered information, which seemingly illogically was created at random. Does it still surprise you that this logic has no importance here?
This is also the case in our biological evolution, which has much more complex laws than a single fractal law, and also contains natural selection to filter out only the survivors. That's why evolution offers an infinite wealth of life forms and directions of development, just because information is passed from generation to generation. So you're still surprised it's similar to programming?
After all, the legality of evolution requires laws and not a legislator! (Even though we maintain a certain legality, we are not a clock..:) . And we discover these laws, slowly indeed, but consistently.
ermac who??? Stop copying, even so you're not successful in this either (as they say, it's surprising you didn't copy my name too...:), are you back to being a failed preacher?
Hill:
One of the sub-links is:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye_time.html
And that's where the calculation appears
What's new
how exactly
Here is the order:
Light and darkness (where does light come from?)
day and night
sky and water
dry land
grass
And only now sun and moon (day and night, grass, all this without sun)
Animals:
Large crocodiles, water animals and birds
The animals of the land are beasts
And only now insects
A really logical order - that only a child could agree to.
Michael
What you sent me is exactly the Nilsson and Felger experiment
Only without the numbers (I haven't found them yet)
Michael
I graduated in 69, but I made reserves.
I did not specifically mean these quanta for all kinds of teachings.
Thanks for the research
Hill:
In relation to quantum theory, the history is different than you described.
No one would have thought of mathematics that gave such strange results if they had not been forced to do so by the experiment.
Every science develops through a cycle of experiment - formulating a theory - setting up new experiments to test the theory and research.
Usually, when the theory confirms all the experiments, there is some sense of "understanding" reality.
This is not the case with quantum theory: even though the theory works and all the experiments that manage to do confirm it - no one really understands it on an intuitive level.
That is why quantum theory also has a number of mathematical representations (considered) - each such representation was created with the aim of representing the same reality in a more comprehensible way, but so far no such representation has achieved the goal.
Hill:
The Philco topic is not meant to test your credibility. It was more to show that I know the period.
It turns out that you are still a bit older than me - I arrived in Marram (after the reserve) at the end of 73 and the Philco was already standing as a museum exhibit (even though the conventional equipment was still working).
Professors of genetics are not necessarily experts in evolution.
The opposite is also not true.
Richard Dawkins - for example, is not a geneticist.
You might be interested in this link that calculates how long it takes for the eye to develop:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye.html
Geva,
If you say that there is an element of intelligent planning in creation, then elaborate and explain how you think it happened.
In the book of Genesis there is an amazing detail about the creation of man to such an extent that even a child could understand.
If you don't specify how you think the rational creation was done then you are arguing for the sake of argument only.
(gossip)
I spoke with three researchers in the field of genetics. (in the last few hours)
One of them was mentioned in your article not long ago. Another is a genetic statistician.
I asked them if they believed there was a possibility for natural selection.
All three said they understood the topic only in a general way. No one has delved deeper into this issue. Years said they believed it was possible. One said he didn't believe it was possible. All three had not heard of Goering's experiment in Gen ey, although one knew Goering personally.
Armac, 172. With all due respect, your summary fits Amnon Yitzchak's lecture. Evolution is easily disproved, for example you will find a person in a 2 billion year old layer. They haven't found it to date, so it's not far-fetched. The adaptation of bacteria to antibiotics also works according to the laws of evolution, if it were to contradict it, it would be a contradiction to evolution. And millions more such experiments of nature and researchers.
A short summary - evolution is not scientific, since there is no experiment capable of disproving it. Although intelligent design cannot be disproved either, it is much more logical, since a clock requires a watchmaker and not the other way around. And by the way... there are only 2 options - random or intelligent.
Grace
Thank you very much nice answer
I am not inventing this theory to explain everything, I am saying that I see a resemblance to a plan in the operation of the DNA (and what is related to it) therefore I think there is a planner.
It seems to me that the quantum theory as well as other things were first proved mathematically and only then did they search and discover the phenomena. Or they discovered a surprising phenomenon and then found its legality. This is not the case in evolution.
I agree with you on everything else.
Of course I meant Planck time...
Geva,
If you claim that a theory doesn't make sense, you should be able to say what doesn't make sense, of course it's something that is supported by an experiment (an argument such as "it doesn't seem reasonable to me" is not considered an experiment).
The theory of the existence of a planner is not scientific, again because you cannot disprove it, there is no experiment that can determine that there is no planning, in the same way I can say that planning determines everything for which science does not yet have a good model, such as:
Examples: How does the brain work in a physical sense? What happened before Falk time? Why are there anisotropies in space? How does a protein always fold the same way?
The answers to all these questions could be because there is a planner who made things work well, no one can ever disprove that.
Moreover, even things that science has proven, it can be said that the planner determined, like all the sizes of the physical constants, how does the eye work? Were we created a second ago in a computer simulation of scarabs?
All these questions can be answered with your planner, he did it all.
Do you understand the problematic existence of the planner? Even if it exists, there is nothing we can do to prove or disprove it (except of course Michael who can always disprove it :).
As of today, there is no better theory than evolution and natural selection, therefore as long as it has not been contradicted in an experiment (and it is absolutely possible to plan such experiments) and as long as it is possible to predict the future result of an experiment with its help (and such experiments can also be planned), it is a good theory. If enough experiments have not yet been carried out to remove the doubts about its correctness, all that remains is to wait for the next experiments and the next simulations, which of course will one day reach the level of complexity and efficiency required for experiments that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt the correctness (or not) of the theory or open a way to a new theory (again it is doubtful whether It will include a planner).
Or if you think there is a scientifically proven planner, please reveal your sources. The contradiction of evolution or natural selection is not proof, because the contradiction of one theory is not proof of the correctness of another theory. Only proving the other theory (your intelligent designer) can both disprove evolution and prove the existence of a designer.
As far as I understand, you do not pretend to prove the existence of the designer or to contradict evolution, since you are not arrogant enough (which is definitely a compliment compared to other people who responded), but you claim that natural selection does not make sense to you and the designer does make sense to you.
I'm sorry to inform you, there are enough theories in science that don't fit at all with human logic. The examples from physics are the quantum theory where nothing is absolutely accurate and everything is probabilistic and the theory of relativity where time and space are not similar to the ones we know. Few people really understand them (if anyone at all understands, as they have already said greater and better than me).
And yet even though they don't make sense to the average person and also to most of the average scientists who make daily use of them, they are true as far as we are able to test.
Therefore, the lack of logic, as you say, cannot be used as a scientific measure of the correctness of a theory. Many times the correct solutions are contrary to the common sense and logic that we have acquired in our lifetime, since we do not encounter quantum/relativistic/evolutionary phenomena in our daily life, therefore we do not have a correct intuition about them.
Only a contradiction that is not open to interpretation (backed by experiment) can invalidate the theory (reasoning of "don't know/understand yet/enough" cannot disprove anything).
I hope this is understood, since I took too much trouble to try to explain.
Hope you enjoy the company of geneticists in Weizmann, it sounds interesting.
Grace
Michael
I apologize if my response was read as aggressive.
I talked to some scientists including geneticists (I live in Rehovot)
Some believe in the programming of natural selection and some do not.
And basically they are not that concerned with it, they are more concerned with how it works and what can be done with it now, I assure you that my next step is to gather the things I claimed and discuss these issues with you (they listen to me patiently).
You will be surprised that a professor of genetics did not hear of the Goring experiment and did not know that the eye evolved dozens of times. (And he makes a lot of money from the evolution he includes).
I wrote, several times, the number 1800 as the number of steps that need to be done in order to create an eye and I took it from the experiment (on the computer) of Nilsson and Felger.
You are not referring to the Philco issue? When I arrived the 2000 was already there and the 1000 was in a side room.
Did you want to test my credibility?
Hill:
I told about my allergy only late in the discussion.
In your first response to what you wrote I was just reacting without thinking.
Everything I wrote before is that (in my opinion - but everything I write is in my opinion, so there is no need to elaborate) your words are not true and I also explained why I think so.
The truth is that what you wrote in your last comment about how I am not knowledgeable about the issues I am debating is not only incorrect but also belongs to the same category of disdain and aggression.
I am very knowledgeable about these topics and I assume that since my answers and conclusions match the answers and conclusions of all the scientists involved in the topic, you would make the same claim towards them.
I went through all your responses one more time and did not see any experiment where the number 1800 appears.
Michael
Yes, I worked on the Filco.
And if I was never your age and we are from the same period, then it is close to me that we know each other.
To remind you that my aggression was a reaction to your "allergy".
From your response I understand that you are not that knowledgeable about the issues you are arguing about
I suggest you read the experiment again. This is the experiment from which I took the number 1800. The experiment does not refer to destructive mutations. There is no reference to usefulness in the experiment.
Too bad for you that your responses are so aggressive.
Grace.
I'm not trying to disprove the theory of natural selection in a scientific way, I don't have the tools for that. I'm just saying it doesn't make sense. And whoever claims that she does have to prove it. The fact that there is no alternative theory is a flimsy excuse to hold on to it. Let's say they prove it wrong, so what? They will say that something gone has happened and we are facing the result. And try to find another explanation.
I repeat, I see signs of a planner. I have no idea if it can be proven scientifically and certainly not how. And I have no idea who is planning why, what he wants to achieve.
With your permission I will summarize,
Creationism is a non-scientific theory, since it is impossible to imagine an experiment that would disprove it (this is how a scientific theory is defined) and is only a belief.
Evolution is a scientific theory because it can be tested, you can try to disprove it (as Geva and Ermac try without real success),
The main reason we use it is because it's the only one! There is no alternative scientific theory to evolution to this day (since the days of Darwin).
I will point out again that whoever is comfortable believing in a creator/programmer/mechanic/watchmaker/God as the creator, science has no problem with that, because it is simply not science.
Criticism is inherent in science, if there is evidence for an alternative theory, real scientists will emerge to promote it (again, apart from the discovery of the Creator, creationism cannot be treated as an alternative).
ermac, as usual you are lazy, who has trouble counting and does not deserve to be taken seriously (when you take other people's words seriously I will take yours, i.e. never...:-).
Good Day!
Hill:
I also have a lot of time because I also work only for my pleasure and I long ago got rid of the need to work for a living.
However, since this site is only one of the frameworks in which I am active, I do not always find time to formulate long-winded responses and the laconic style sometimes offends people even though I have no such intention.
From what you tell about your biography, it seems that you were able to program on the Philco. is it true?
Aerox:
I have no power over you.
I don't argue with any nonsense.
You are still welcome to disprove my prediction and initiate the experiment I proposed.
to Michael-
"Irmak - continue to ignore the facts - for example, nylon digestion." - you are the one who ignores the facts - in the nylon digestion mutation, a frame shift occurred -
That is, a giant leap of 120 amino acids. Contrary to the evolutionists' calculations of small steps. It's funny that even in the refutation you see evidence.
"There are a lot of articles about the eye and I don't have time right now to look for them for you, maybe Roy has something available." - You probably mean Nielsen Co.'s calculation. As far as I remember, some important things are missing there.
"I read the ones I read with a critical eye (actually two and by the way, these are the only eyes I have. The eyes that evolved in me are not only seeing - they are also critical) and the scenarios described in them are completely reasonable.
Part of what I remember is the following order:
"Light-sensitive cells"-and how many mutations are required for them? 100 makes sense?
"Shkarurit in the area of these cells" - as above.
An increasing depth of the ossuary while narrowing its opening until the formation of a "camera obscura"
Controlling the size of the "aperture" opening
A "vitreous" content that improves the refraction of the rays
The development of a lens." - as above for each of the above parts.
You only forgot the optic nerve and the vision processing center in the brain, the processing of the ganglia and connection to the blood system, the reception of rhodospin signals and more.
"You cannot propose a single experiment whose failure would disprove the existence of that factor" - evolution does not provide this either. See my explanation to Roy.
Irmak - continue to ignore the facts - for example, nylon digestion.
Geva - You were never my age. The arrogance still hasn't gotten over you and your arrogance is simply repulsive and it was already expressed in your first response to his words.
There are a lot of articles about the eye and I don't have time right now to look for them for you, maybe Roy has something available.
I read the ones I read with a critical eye (actually with two and by the way, these are the only eyes I have. The eyes that evolved in me are not only seeing - they are also critical) and the scenarios described in them are completely reasonable.
Part of what I remember is the following order:
cells are sensitive to light
A tumor in the area of these cells
Increasing depth of the ossuary while narrowing its opening until the formation of a "camera obscura"
Controlling the size of the "aperture" opening
A "vitreous" content that improves the refraction of the rays
lens development.
As mentioned - there was no need for evolution to find a possible script.
The thing you disagree with is much simpler and more reasonable than the thing you offer as a replacement.
You have not the slightest idea how that planning factor could have come into being.
You have no idea why he is waging wars against himself.
You have no idea how it works.
You cannot propose a single experiment whose failure would disprove the existence of that factor.
The God you believe in is called God of the gaps. In fact it is the same God that the ancients believed in and you believe in him for exactly the same reasons.
They understood nothing and therefore attributed everything to God - including the weather, the movement of the stars in their tracks, and the like.
As your understanding of the world progressed, that God was forced to vacate some of his duties and turn to more important pursuits.
You are simply at some point on this scale and the more you understand, the less your God's roles will be.
You said that you don't know how the religions came to believe in God. Now I hope you know.
for everyone
This is the first time I participate in a comments discussion.
And I really enjoy it.
It makes me think to examine and articulate the things that have been bothering me for some time.
It takes quite a lot of time, but luckily I don't have to work anymore and I have plenty of time.
How are you coping with it?
Michael
Reply to-
quote-
"Then you came and unwittingly pointed out the fact that sometimes a mutation that is somewhat negative can survive in the population and "wait" for the next mutation that will make the whole complex positive"
Indeed (theoretically) it can happen but it does not change the probability because in this case I will treat both as one positive mutation.
And those who assessed the amount of changes required to create an eye considered only positive changes.
I don't believe that you think that an infrastructure of negative mutations can be created that, when touched by magic, will become a functioning organ. (Yes, this can happen if there is a magician).
Ermac
Your conclusion is not accurate
And with your permission, I ask that you not help me
Because your response will incite the discussion to personal lines.
Oops, one correction for 31^22.
Michael
I would appreciate it if you could direct me to proofs about the plausibility of the process of creating the eye.
And even more I would be happy if you also read it with a critical eye and check if they are reasonable in your eyes.
I personally, as you already understood, do not accept any research of course above it and automatically correct.
I never claimed that what I don't understand is wrong. But I am not ready to accept as true everything that I am told is true and is contrary to my logic.
According to you quote "But, as mentioned, even if such processes were not described, this would not be a refutation"
I claim that in terms of statistical logic it is not possible for a complex organ to be built by natural selection (and I am certainly not the first) and here we are only talking about one past (which developed at the same time as all the other Hebrews) and you claim that this is not disprovable.
After all, natural selection is a theory that people are constantly trying to prove, I don't need to disprove a theory that hasn't been proven.
Even the article that started the whole debate claimed that it was proof of the possibility of rapid natural evolution.
About the creator
When there is a creator there is no need to prove the statistical feasibility of the duration of the creation of the product.
And you, as a person who is in charge of planning, will agree with me that there are many mechanisms in our body
who mention software products, only you expect me to believe that these software products and the mechanisms they are created by themselves and this without tangible proof, I do not agree with that.
And regardless of religions (which I don't understand how they came to the conclusion that there is a creator
and I'm sorry that I'm in the same direction)
I am looking for phenomena that are difficult to explain by natural selection and easy to understand if we assume that there is a creator.
And I don't have answers about when, for what, and for what he creates them.
What more evidence do you need for the particular-theory?
Trying to help with your discussion-
From what I understand, Geva claims that Shiftagen cannot be created gradually but only in a giant step which is unlikely.
For example, let's take an example of the beginning of the formation of a garden, on the way to the trial -
"This gene is responsible for the formation of a primitive eye".
This is also the case in real life, a gene is a sequence of sentences with a specific function consisting of many words in a specific order. Let's say the letter C was created in the way of creating the word "gene", it has no point and natural selection will not leave it. The only way (even this is not certain) that it was created Eye, is that the whole sentence will appear together. The problem - the chance for such a sentence to appear at once is one in 31^20. (The number of letters A-B to the power of the number of participating letters).
Michael, personal advice from the bottom of my heart.
You are a copy of me when I was your age.
I live my whole adult life with the confidence that I can't be wrong. In Bami, who at a young age was an outstanding apprentice in a programming course at a time when all the geniuses came to their peak and founded a company that employed hundreds of employees, this arrogance develops. I learned the hard way, that sometimes even "simple" people are right or there is something in their words and always to listen to them to the end, and try to understand what they are saying. It's hard, I know, and I don't always succeed, but it's worth a try. What's more, in this way you will be a more positive person, you will learn to listen patiently and you will learn to formulate your answers so that even a "simple" person will understand. (I'm paraphrasing the rest)
One more thing for Geva:
I did not claim that every negative mutation kills - I only meant to claim that it does not become common property.
Then you came and inadvertently pointed out the fact that sometimes a mutation that is somewhat negative can survive in the population and "wait" for the next mutation that will turn the whole complex into a positive one (I also thought of certain commenters as a counter example to the claim of the extinction of negative mutations and when I wrote one of my previous comments I included this claim but Then I deleted it because it referred to a specific person and I thought it would be excessive).
All in all, you put another nail in the coffin of the "non-discharge" claim
Hill:
It is true that sometimes I get an impression of the seriousness of the response based on a few sentences and save myself the full reading.
But this is natural. When I see things that are clearly unfounded or that indicate a complete lack of understanding, my motivation is damaged to read more things like them, and even if afterwards I go back and find more things in the response, many times the sentences I responded to do indeed represent the entire response. When it seems to me that the situation is different, I make another comment.
You keep repeating the claim of the "unbreakable" systems in various guises (the eye is your favorite example) even though you have already been told that:
1. A claim like "I don't understand X therefore X is not true" is a false and arrogant claim
2. A Y-style claim is not a freak is a claim of this type
3. At the beginning of things you tried to make this kind of claim about the valves and I hope you understand now that this claim has no basis in reality
4. Regarding the specific Y that you chose in your last response - the unfolding of the eye development process - absolutely reasonable processes have already been described in which the eye develops gradually (but, as mentioned, even if such processes were not described there would be no refutation)
The most interesting thing - and in such a prominent way that I can't emphasize it enough - is that a creature whose existence you suggest we assume in order to "solve" the problems - which you exempt from all the obligation of evidence that you are so small about evolution.
Michael and Chen
First, not every negative mutation kills, some remain until the end of generations (and there are some who argue here as evidence).
But until a negative mutation disappears it takes many generations (and time).
Second, and this is the main thing, I'm only talking about mutations that occur in the same organ.
Let's take the eye for example, which Darwin already had a problem with. An organ was identified that was created by at least 1800 mutations and evolved 40 times (only the eye does not include the one related to the brain).
Any mutation that occurs in this particular organ, which is not in an appropriate and precise structure to the previous mutation and will not advance the organ to its final goal in terms of function, will be a negative mutation in terms of the organ and will prevent the creation of the final product. regardless of whether or not the mutation destroys the creature.
To this was added the fact that any such mutation must also be beneficial to the creature, otherwise it will disappear (according to natural selection).
Now try to calculate if this process has any chance, if so, how many generations do you think it will last.
Michael,
You are an intelligent guy, it seems like you only refer to one sentence or years in each comment. Do you read all parts of the comment?, sometimes they are related to each other.
Chen - I didn't really understand what question you asked me. Is it about nerve cells and thought? I didn't really understand the question and also how exactly it relates to evolution.
Besides that, even if Michael had explained the answer to you, you still wouldn't have agreed to its correctness, for the simple reason that you don't understand something you don't see as you claimed.
And Michael graciously agreed to show you that he is right, you might even profit from it, if you believe you are right, Anna proved it.
ermac, don't be stupid,
I didn't just ask a question, and this question is important to understand because you don't understand probability.
And if you don't understand anything about probability, there's no need for you to show us the stupid calculations you copied from some preacher, since you don't understand them.
As Michael proved, you do not even understand that you are wrong, and you are not ready to put your result to the test.
The difference between the question I asked and Michael's riddle is that to my question you know that your answer is wrong and therefore you refrain from responding, and to Michael's riddle you hope that everyone is as stupid as you and do not know the answer (I'm sorry to disappoint you) and therefore you allow yourself to brag about complete stupidity.
I don't feel like playing with you either, "I said my words" is no reason to talk other than laziness and stupidity.
You said your words - you don't have the courage to play games that in the secret of your heart you know you will lose a lot of money because in the secret of your heart you know that I am telling the truth.
For my part - don't call it a game - call it a scientific experiment.
Guess your answer? You have no desire for this kind of scientific experiment (what exactly is this kind? Of course, I assume that no scientific experiment is of interest to you, but that's another matter that has its roots in the fact that the truth that you're spouting in your mouth doesn't interest you at all).
So here it is - I gave a prediction based on my unsubstantiated theory and Harini conducts the experiment.
The results of the experiment are under your control and he is able to disprove my prediction (which means, as I recall, that you will not agree to conduct the experiment that before I called it a game and now it is exactly the same but seriously).
Is my other theory (the one that claims that the truth doesn't interest you and infers that you won't agree to the experiment) correct?
I said my words. I have no desire for these kinds of games.
4"* You respond partially to something I asked you to stop doing, or alternatively don't respond at all (paragraph 5 in the same response)." - Well, let it be :). Until you raise more interesting and relevant questions.
"Irwax - you are simply amazing.
Although you answered the riddle with wrong answers many times." - So why don't you do your calculation and explain to all of us what the answer is? Let me remind you... you have not yet answered your riddle yourself!
"I don't intend to go into an endless loop with you but I will occasionally remind you of this.
If you are sure that your answer is correct - organize the game" - if you are sure that you are right, then explain the answer to your question like I did.
Hill:
You don't understand what is unclear about a negative mutation so I will explain.
Natural selection does not select the negative mutation. All negative mutations die out and only positive mutations succeed.
now you understand?
I guess not because this is not about your real attempt to understand but about a war whose motives are still unclear to me.
Airwax - you are simply amazing.
Although you answered the riddle with wrong answers many times.
I don't intend to go into an endless loop with you but I will occasionally remind you of this.
If you are sure that your answer is correct - organize the game.
I'm willing to bet a lot of money that I'm right and you're sure I'm wrong, so what's more stupid than rejecting my offer? Of course - I'm not surprised by stupid actions on your part, but I'm just emphasizing it for those who don't know history.
The fact that I am willing to bet on the solution shows that I am, at least, sure that I am right.
You are sure enough that you are right to try to discredit me while ignoring my generous offer but you are not sure enough to risk your money.
It shows that the respect of others is less valuable to you than your money and it shows who you are.
Grace
How in an environment where 999 have been destroyed and 1 is left do you replicate a thousand without them being hit by the destructive machine.
And ermac, the riddle is not mine
1* Ermac, saying a car instead of a dog is not an analogy (Geva can teach you a thing or two about analogies).
2* You quoted me again, something I asked you to stop doing.
3* You only responded to 3 sections, you didn't answer my second question (response 136 section 4) which means you are still lying when you say you answer all my questions.
4* You partially respond to something I asked you to stop doing, or alternatively don't respond at all (paragraph 5 in the same response).
Geva, you must be left with one palace, with the one in which the mutation was the most useful (or the least related), duplicates it again 1000 times, lets Yam make random mutations in it again, again chooses the most beautiful/complex palace (you are the artificial selection of the experiment ), what was not clear?
Just a few comments, because I really don't feel like cat and mouse games and running out of energy
"ermac, regarding Michael's riddle,
1* I won't give you the solution, but you can easily see that you are wrong," - maybe because you yourself don't know the solution, or because I am right? I have already answered your "riddle" in detail and more than once.
"Here it is again: if the car you described is identical in every way to a dog (except for the shape) why do you insist on talking about a car?" - to better understand the analogy.
To the hill - "and according to the lowest estimate, 1800 mutations were required to create a fish's eye and more, let's say" - indeed, as I thought, you mean the creation of genes or multi-gene systems.
If about 300 mutations in a specified direction are needed for the formation of a minimal eye, then there are about 100^20 possible combinations and the entire age of the universe is nothing. In order for a functional gene to be created, a lot of mutations in a specified direction must accumulate. The problem is that there is no point in only some of the mutations but in the appearance of all of them together. This is not Really possible with natural selection choosing one by one.
Grace
If I take the mutation that survived and multiply it by a thousand, 999 of them will be deleted again, so I'm left back as a single mother. That's probably not what you meant, so please update numbers or explain in more detail.
Don't forget that the mutations have to be one on top of the other, that is, create the same organ (I give you up on the usefulness at this point) and according to the lowest estimate, 1800 mutations were required to create a fish's eye and another say (I just threw a number) 2000 to create the brain that recognizes and understands what it sees And what is it good for?
Geva, corrected your example, so that it mentions evolution.
After each mutation, duplicate the new palace 1000 times, let the sea perform new mutations on them, 999 of which will probably cause harm, 1 might not harm and a lower chance of benefit, take the palace with the best mutation and duplicate it again and again and again. I'm sure that after a very large number of such cycles, the sea will create for you a palace of impressive complexity, one that seems like it could not have been created randomly.
This is how big changes prove.
Michael
I don't understand what is unclear about a negative mutation
You walk along the beach and see a pile of beautifully shaped sand
You see the sea shaped her, it's a little mutation.
You see an amazing sand dune that consists of many designs. This is a big change. This is a change that results from a sequence of mutations built on top of each other. And any small mutation that is not exactly the right size and in the right place will be a negative mutation, and will cause the palace to collapse.
You think that if I agree with the assumption that a small mutation can occur I will also agree with the assumption that a large change can occur.
Statistically, a Boeing plane can also be created after a hurricane in a scrap yard.
Small mutations occur and there is evidence of this, but they do not prove their major changes
ermac, regarding Michael's riddle,
1* I won't give you the solution, but it's easy to see that you're wrong, firstly, you're assuming people who are stupid and lack strategy (almost like you), secondly, according to Michael's bet, you should have noticed that his victory is not certain but statistical (he is willing to invest 1% of the profit the potential and sure to win within 20 games), which suggests to you that the odds are in his favor, another hint you received, evolution as you claim is statistically impossible just as it is statistically impossible to win the game (if you are stupid), but Michael uses a strategy (look the word up in the dictionary) To change the chances in his favor, just like the factors that exist in nature that change the chance of creating a functional gene from statistically impossible to possible and occurs in a reasonable period of time for evolution to take place. Since you don't know statistics or logic and you are blind to your own sharp intellect you defend a wrong solution, both in evolution and in the puzzle. Michael already pointed out that if you believed that your solution was correct you would be willing to try to earn his money, but since you are trying to get the solution out of him (with the cunning of a 3-year-old child) it is evident that you know that you are wrong. It is enough to notice that you did not use any strategy to realize that you are wrong, there is no need to reveal the solution to you.
2* You still can't count to 6. (see previous comment).
3* Since you have difficulty reading, here it is again: if the car you described is the same as the dog in every way (except for the shape) why do you insist on talking about a car? (You can replace any car with a dog, for example Michael)
4* is another one, statistically (as proven in your method) it is not possible that you (or anyone else if you are offended) can think even a single thought, do you agree? (the reasons appear above, you are welcome to search ctrl+f)
5* Next, please do not answer or respond to words if you intend to respond to line X only. Since I showed you that you lie in public (for example in the issue of questions), either by distortion or by half-truths.
Aerox:
You repeat and try to forget the fact that I also informed you in advance that I would not explain the solution, I also explained why and offered you a way to prove the correctness of the answer I have and the incorrectness of the answer you have.
Just like you say that evolution is only possible if all kinds of improbable things exist and ignore that there are other things as well and evolution does exist, you also ignore that I offered you a way to prove myself right and say that the (explained!) fact that I'm not willing to take the only way you're willing to go (because that in your heart you believe you are wrong) is proof that I am wrong.
Logic is not your strong suit.
Hill:
I have to run to a meeting but I have to say that your response seems extremely strange to me.
You agree that there may be small changes and you don't provide any mechanism to explain the stopping of changes (note - this requires an additional mechanism to complicate the theory beyond the "complexity" of evolution) but still claim that somehow - the small changes will never add up to something big.
After that you come and add without any evidence and without a shred of explanation as to how such a thing could have come about - some intelligent factor that intervenes in organisms for unknown reasons - sometimes helping them and sometimes not and sometimes even intervening against them by improving the functioning of others (reminds you of randomness?), A factor that also limits itself to the evolution of animals and does not do what seems simpler - preventing the environment from changing because of the changes in it they need to change - a factor that is made of some dark substance or no substance at all and acts, as mentioned, in a completely random manner.
If someone is willing to accept such an addition to the complication of the explanation - an addition that in itself lacks any explanation and such that there is no evidence of its existence - and see it as an explanation - it is probably not logically convincing.
Fibonacci:
Can you elaborate?
The debate is impressive and interesting. However, it turns out that the research is somewhat fabricated from sources at the American University.
Yehuda
After you understand how the crossover works
I hope you will be able to understand, if you read the previous comment, what I meant in the previous comments (it was not organized so maybe you got confused).
You don't have to agree with me, but to disagree you first need to understand what I wrote. And if it is not clear enough, I am patiently ready, like Michael, to explain things more clearly.
I think that all the changes that are discovered in nature, sometimes instantaneous, and used as a basis for proving natural selection, happen in one of the following forms or by combinations of them.
A. Gene crossing (cultivation). Michael explained, so beautifully, to Judah (Wikipedia).
B. Tiny mutational changes.
C. Awakening of dormant genes.
In my opinion, none of the forms, nor the combination of them, can explain significant changes such as the eye (which evolved about 40 times).
Gene crossing is limited in its limits and can only develop up to a certain limit.
I wrote my opinion on tiny mutation changes and their ability to create big changes, statistically speaking, in my previous response.
The awakening of dormant genes moves the debate to an earlier period, to a period when the genes were active, and therefore the statistical chances of the change occurring are small because the duration of the process is shortened, and to the number of changes that occur, mechanisms of anesthesia and awakening are also added.
.
Therefore, in my opinion, the significant changes were not made by natural selection.
I add to this the similarity of DNA to a computer program.
Phenomena such as routines, (a routine is an independent program section that performs a regular process and can be activated in all kinds of places) an example of a routine creating an eye in all kinds of places by Gan ey. Additional examples of routines are illustrated in the book "On Flies, Mice and People" by François Zakov, he writes Most of the mutations created (in an accelerated evolutionary process) were of additional whole organs (appearing at once) in different locations.He specifically writes that no new organ was created.
And also adds the problematics that Goring's experiment raised and more...
Therefore, I think, there is a higher probability that the big changes were made by a planner than by natural selection. (And this is not the planner of the religious, the story of creation in the Torah is, in my view, a story and nothing more).
Why, in an infinite reality, is it so hard to accept the possibility that there is a planner?
Han - I answered all your questions, (if there is a question that remains unanswered, you are welcome to listen to me), you don't really want to listen but only to argue. I have no desire for such games. And just a small comment about the "riddle" - I answered you nicely and gave reasons. You didn't even explain why you think my answer is "wrong". And this only shows that I am right. If you think I was wrong, you are welcome to show it for all to see.
Michael and Roy,
I agree that there is no point in debating with Mr. Ermac about evolution since he is not qualified to debate, he is not able to answer questions just wave them away.
It is necessary to argue with him perhaps about logic, statistics and drawing conclusions, but that is not our job.
1*ermac, your answer is wrong, your reasoning for Michael does not answer my question.
Please read again, and come back with a well-founded reasoning (by the way, you are indeed bad at logic and probability according to your answer to Michael's riddle, and your bewilderment at the disdain for you).
2*Forgive me for pointing out that you excel at copying responses, and not at reading or writing them, please refrain from quoting me and refer to my response instead, this adds volume to your response and makes it look like you invested in writing it unjustly.
3* You did not answer more than half of my questions (if you have trouble remembering they still appear above), I am guessing that you are deliberately ignoring questions for which you do not have answers or the answer does not suit your belief.
4* Your standard answer, which dismisses the question as irrelevant or stupid, is again by repeating "the one who rejects something rejects", by the way insulting a claim is not an answer to a claim.
5*Of course I know that the discussion with you is fruitless and you are not a logical and logical debater, but for the sake of other people (like Geva) we will continue to show that you are always wrong (except in your imagination of course and the very few cases where you state facts of the form "This has not yet been found/discovered/proved " Of course "not yet" is the key word you suppress).
6* The points appear to make it easier for you to understand the claims, and so that you can count how many of them you do not refer to.
Of course I tried to write as little as possible (Roi is right) but it's hard for me to stop in the middle. Maybe in the future I will be able to learn to ignore the presence of the senseless ermac.
To Michael andRoey Tsezana
You don't understand that you will never be able to convince Geva and his ilk. Get off him, say it was nice to meet him, and peace be upon Israel.
He manages to drag you into idle arguments, changes his mind, has no commitment to anything, barely to his God, leave him alone!
Look how much energy you waste on him. He adds nothing to you.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Hill:
I don't understand what the problem is right now.
If you say "I agreed that there is a very low chance that one species will become another species as a result of mutations" then you actually accepted our opinion.
A very low chance, when given a lot of time, comes true.
Roy
I have not yet received a reply to my previous response
So - if it disappeared from your sight, I'll write it again -
I didn't lose my mind that crossbreeding (or crossbreeding) is limited and there is no chance that a new species will be created just from crossbreeding.
I agreed that there is a very low chance that one species will become another species as a result of mutations
On the subject of cows - I have not milked a single cow
I wrote the statistical programs (which analyze healthy milk yields, etc.) and good results were the only factor in survival. The chess program you presented is much closer to this survival than to natural survival. In the hierarchy of choices I would say: Chess-Becker-Teva (from a logical point of view)
Regarding their chances-
How many destructive mutations do you think there are against each beneficial mutation (for now I'm talking about one small mutation)?
I feel that this is where the discussion ends (perhaps you will enlighten me here).
And let's say that a beneficial mutation managed to infiltrate (and I agree that it will spread quickly as a result of natural selection).
To create a complex organ you need many such mutations (please don't mix in dormant genes because that immediately raises the question of how they got there)
What are the chances that in the same organ more and more such mutations will occur and all of them are beneficial (otherwise it will not spread in the population quickly)
And then at the end of the process, which I think is impossible up to this point, this whole business has to work perfectly otherwise it would all be in vain.
And the process I described happened about 40 times in the case of the eye.
I don't understand how the description I just described is related to Leahy's theory
And with your permission, since I am not a professional, I would appreciate it if you could direct me to the sources when you write that a certain theory has been disproved.
As I mentioned in the discussion above, beyond a test of Irowax's ability in the areas relevant to the subject of the discussion, this riddle is a measure of the question "How safe is Irowax really when it says it is safe?".
After all, if he is sure of his answer, he has a very easy way to earn easy money.
If he is not willing to put money on things he claims to be sure of, it puts all his claims in a different proportion.
Aerox:
It's a shame to repeat everything from the beginning.
You got it all wrong.
I will not explain to you what and I explained to you why I will not explain.
And as I have already said, I would be more than happy to participate in such a game that you would organize based on the details I mentioned in that discussion.
Response-to Michael-The "riddle" that you presented there was solved by me and here is a copy of the answer-"The chance that out of 100 people 50 will reveal their number is almost certain (everyone has a 1 in 2 chance). This is because they are given the permission to open about half of the holes. So far is it clear?
If about 50 have found out their number and the remaining fifty do not know where their number is, then the chance of each of them finding their number is one in 50. Therefore....if there are even only about 10 people left who have not found out their number, then their chance of finding it is one in 50 to the power of 10 I mean an astronomical number. If I'm wrong, I'm ready for you to tell me where. Maybe I missed something?"
to the hill - see here -
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
To Roy the Habib - "In short, he doesn't have real answers, but he is a great expert in diverting the subject to where he wants." - Strange... It's precisely me who always receives responses, which refer to the claimant and not the claim. See right above your response.. just yawns.
Roy:
Irwax is indeed an interesting subject for research, but in my opinion it is rather religious.
The reason why I say this is that in the discussion I pointed to in a previous response, for example in response 50. He wrote the following text:
"
There are several events in the Bible that are difficult to falsify - the Exodus from Egypt in which they share supernatural events with another people. Try to invent it today. Third... It is quite difficult to understand how they knew at the time (Hazel) about the splitting of the continents and the Kima cluster and the number of its stars. Do one. + one and you will reach the required conclusion.
"
Of course, in that discussion I showed why these are baseless and illogical claims, and of course he did not admit it and will never admit it, but the fact that he brought them up clearly indicates his agenda.
Grace,
I enjoy reading your comprehensive replies to Ermac, but you are wasting your time. You won't be able to convince him. He has already heard all the reasons several times, and he does not respond to them in a way that indicates thinking. For any logical proof you bring him, he will bring an answer like,
"Well, and where did that get us?"
or,
"But what about the losses from the research on the birds?"
In short, he has no real answers, but he is a great expert at diverting the subject to where he wants.
He does not repent, and according to him he is not religious either. If I had to guess, I'd say he's just a pre-draft teenager having fun on the forums honing his demagoguery. With his ability to draw conclusions at the moment, I would advise him to first study formal logic before entering into more serious discussions from the forums.
Best regards,
Roy.
Ermac
Which scientists think that the age of the world is less than 6000 years?
Aerox:
Good.
You confirmed my conclusion from that already.
You're stupid to the point that it's just a pleasure!
Shit. I wrote a message and it was deleted by mistake. I'll try again...
To Michael-"Of course he gave me a lot - cows with a greater yield, field crops that are resistant to salinity and dryness, and those that feed more and more and more ripe."- And what did it give you? And what does it have to do with the truth of evolution? ?
It is true that the truth of the theory is what is important, but how do you determine its truth? By the success of her prophecy! All the achievements that you are trying to plaster over their existence verify the predictions of the theory of evolution and there is not a single thing that you can place against them." -Really? So I claim that the more we dig into the "Hiriya" site, the simpler cars will be found below, and the more complex and innovative cars will be found above. Also I claim that the same cars used to have offspring and accumulate mutations, and that they are assembled on the same technological basis. Does this mean that they evolved from each other? Do you find a difference between this and evolution? We have never found a self-replicating molecule, just as we have never found matter What is created by itself reproduces. We have never seen designed systems that are created gradually, just as we have never seen this in evolution. Conclusion - there is no difference. My theory is correct and there is evidence for it.
melody-
"Get off the stupid example of the car, I explained to you (and you didn't have the education to understand) it doesn't matter if you give the characteristics of an animal to a car or an airplane or a scientific calculator" - indeed there is. See my explanation above to Michael.
"There is no logic to creationists, because it is a hypothesis without the ability to find evidence or experiments to support it, it is called faith." - On the contrary. Evolution is based on hypotheses. Intelligent design and creationism are based on common sense - millions of designed systems are not the product of a blind process. And a watch requires a watchmaker They never proved that a million of the wonders of nature could have been created by evolution.
"If creationism is not science, there are other circles that would be happy to support your views, they also do not believe in science, and write about it with the help of tools that science has developed. It is indeed a scientific theory. It has predictions and it has evidence, see above.
"And you are not carefully planned or designed, you are not a delicate structure as you describe." -Really? I invite you to create me a more elaborate person, from a soup of amino acids. Do you think you will succeed?
Benevolent => benevolent
Aerox:
I forgot to explain to you again what I meant by the challenge that you are so obliged to forget from discussion to discussion.
See response 56 in the discussion between us at https://www.hayadan.org.il/animals-one-celled-ancestors-2402081/
"It is unlikely that genes can survive without changes for such a long time," - who determined? Even in imaginary evolution there are stagnations (like cytochrome c for example or hemoglobin if I am not mistaken, which are considered very conserved)
Continue to comment 113,
And according to you, you don't think! And I will explain again: since there are a huge number of signals passing through your brain and this process is completely random (science has no idea how it works) the amount of possible combinations is enormous, we will compare it to the amount of signals that express different thoughts, and we will accept that probabilistically it is not likely at all that you think or are able perform any action that requires the intervention of the brain.
At the very least, you are planned to emit one thing or another at exactly a certain time, like a movie, you have no control over anything and the end is known and predetermined. It's no wonder you excel so much at copying things, it was easier for a planner to plan it that way.
ermac, in the hope that we despair at least as much as we despair of you:
Get off the stupid example of the car, I explained to you (and you didn't educate to understand) it doesn't matter if you give the characteristics of an animal to a car or an airplane or a scientific calculator, you could remain the familiar animals, if your wonder car has the same characteristics of a dog it is better to talk about a dog, evolution will happen without needing your opinion on it.
Creationists have no logic, because it is a hypothesis without the ability to find evidence or experiments to support it, they call it faith. If you are going through a crisis of faith and need physical evidence for the existence of God, you may not really believe and fear that you are wrong. That is why you insist on convincing us that there is something in your words to give validity to your opinion. A true believer does not need other people to believe the same thing and does not try to convince anyone that he is right.
If creationism is not science, there are other circles that would be happy to support your views, they also do not believe in science, and write about it with the help of tools that science has developed.
And you are not carefully planned or designed, you are not as fine a structure as you describe.
As Mr. Geva claimed, according to your theory of probability, he calculated the chances of the survival of the human race during 5768 thousand years (I just chose a number), it is unlikely that genes could survive without changes for that long, it is unlikely that the repair mechanisms could correct so many defects, Vital organs will not be able to develop in the body quickly enough since their genes have undergone a change in one of the bases (very likely according to you), the damage must be so great that you cannot sustain any of the species of life in their types, extinction is inevitable without ongoing maintenance by the planner, you present us with a model on the brink A collapse that is not stable, is it any wonder that we are only faith? This may be why you avoid proving to us that you are thinking.
Aerox:
Again you came back and justified the name I gave you!
I think that this thing that you say gave us nothing is exactly what your friend Geva dedicated his life to and therefore it of course gave me a lot - cows with a greater yield, field crops that are resistant to salinity and dryness and those that are more nutritious and getting darker and darker. Of course your earwax turned it all into a tyrannosaurus rex. It turns out that your brain works like a replication machine. You copy the things exactly into your response without understanding a single word.
Then, without considering the fact that the antibiotics to which the bacteria developed resistance were developed without the use of genetic engineering and only recently did they start using genetic engineering to find ways to put them back in, you blame the study of evolution for creating the resistance of the bacteria.
Well, to a certain extent it is true - the bacteria applied the principles of evolution long before us because there are no types like you among them and when they see something useful they use it, but if we are to be serious then you are talking nonsense.
It is true that the truth of the theory is what is important, but how do you determine its truth? By the success of her prophecy! All the achievements that you try to cover up their existence verify the predictions of the theory of evolution and there is not a single thing that you can put against them.
It's alright. I guess that in order for the human race to continue to develop, evolution must continue to operate and do all kinds of genetic experiments, most of which are unsuccessful, and therefore must accept the existence of people like you.
Last attempt (hop-poly) -
LeMichael - "The theory of evolution has allowed us to discover all kinds of ways to improve our lives - first and foremost by the encouragement it gave to the discovery of the hereditary material and the understanding (partly for the time being) of its effect on the organism and at the same time, to the methodological improvement of plant and animal varieties that are used by us - whether by "cultivating "(a word that for some reason there are some among you who prefer a choice but from Keftali) and if by genetic engineering." - Let it be. And what did it give you? What benefit grows, from delusional studies of testing a common ancestor for a tyrannosaurus and a rooster? And fish that count up to 4? And who were our ancestors And does the homacactus live next to the homazeptus? Millions that are wasted on nothing. The genetic code would have been discovered, even without tying it to evolution.
"It also allowed us to understand how the bacteria learned to deal with antibiotics and to develop ways to fight back against them." On the contrary, the aforementioned science created a more resistant and deadly strain of bacteria.
"Please tell us something about the contribution of your Torah to our well-being - both the contribution that has already been achieved and the one that you hope to achieve in the future." - not lacking. But again....it does not prove one theory or another. The measure of the correctness of a theory is not the contribution to humanity.
"Of course, if you answer the challenge I put before you in the past, it will be an indirect contribution of your Torah to our well-being and you are welcome to do that as well, even though that was not the intention of my question" - I didn't understand your meaning. The Ten Commandments for example?
to roi-
"To prove that the age of the earth is 6000 years. Actually, even less than a billion years is enough." - First... there are scientists who claim that the world has not existed for more than a few thousand years. Second... the hypotheses regarding the age of the world will always be hypotheses in my opinion, since no one was present and counted the time and there are also many possible technical reasons So that the dating would not be correct. Thirdly... there is a logical fallacy here for those who try to disprove the Bible through the age of the world, since the Holy Scriptures also mention worlds prior to ours and this works out well (some also argue that a year in the Bible is not a year in our understanding). Fourth... even if it is proven that the age of the world does not exceed a few million years, the researchers will still claim that evolution is possible. See for example this article about the rapid change.
.
2. "Discover a skeleton of a complex multicellular creature, for example a human, and identify without a doubt that it belongs to a time when there were supposed to be only unicellular organisms. Said, two billion years ago. This would leave only three possibilities: aliens, time travel or evolution is wrong. It won't contradict evolution immediately, but it will definitely oblige us to rethink the whole idea and change it accordingly." - If it doesn't contradict then there's no point in even trying.
"Note that you have to find many such skeletons, and associate them with that period without a doubt. The reason you need to find many skeletons is that there can be very good fakes, and not because of one fake will invalidate a theory that works so well. But if such skeletons start to appear in a number of studies, evolution is about to receive a very big shock." - In fact, they found several dozen. Evolution is alive and well. The evolutionists claim that this is probably a deviation in dating or a technical error or they do not refer to it at all. (such as the example of the trilobite)
3. "Discovery of a linguistically significant code in DNA. For example, the entire book of the Bible in Hebrew. It's a very exciting possibility, and I think I even wrote a short story about it once. Again, this will not immediately disqualify evolution, but there is no doubt that the theory will have to change from the foundation to the tefahots." - Again, there is no point in trying if it does not contradict.
"If I had to choose one option out of the three, I would go scan the human DNA for such a code, and I wish you success in your search." - In short... there is not a single test to disprove the theory. Maybe except for the test of the probability of a functional gene and a few others that I Can imagine. Even here it is not 100 percent certain.
melody-
"Of course you don't have any alternative explanation that you can present to us, since it is not valid for a scientific test." - like evolution, see above. But I was actually thinking of a test that could disprove evolution - to check how many of the combinations could be useful in a certain gene. If the chance of finding them would be low Too much, this would be a probabilistic refutation. Although here, too, evolution can be adapted to this, which would fit well with the findings.
"There is nothing new or innovative in the facts you present, only a distorted interpretation to continue to stick to your position that I still do not understand at all what it is, to present an alternative theory? Disprove the existing theory? Try to disprove anything we present? To prove that you are knowledgeable about what?" - No. Just to show that logic leans on the side of creationists, intelligent planning - to speak carefully designed needs a designer.
"Nature has time, a lot of time, in the end something wins" - so I will also say.... In the end a car will be created randomly, it's just a matter of time, okay? :)
Roy
I didn't lose my mind that crossbreeding (or crossbreeding) is limited and there is no chance that a new species will be created just from crossbreeding.
I agreed that there is a very low chance that one species will become another species as a result of mutations
On the subject of cows - I have not milked a single cow
I wrote the statistical programs (which analyze healthy milk yields, etc.) and good results were the only factor in survival. The chess program you presented is much closer to this survival than to natural survival. In the hierarchy of choices I would say: Chess-Becker-Teva (from a logical point of view)
Regarding their chances-
How many destructive mutations do you think there are against each beneficial mutation (for now I'm talking about one small mutation)?
I feel that this is where the discussion ends (perhaps you will enlighten me here).
And let's say that a beneficial mutation managed to infiltrate (and I agree that it will spread quickly as a result of natural selection).
To create a complex organ you need many such mutations (please don't mix in dormant genes because that immediately raises the question of how they got there)
What are the chances that in the same organ more and more such mutations will occur and all of them are beneficial (otherwise it will not spread in the population quickly)
And then at the end of the process, which I think is impossible up to this point, this whole business has to work perfectly otherwise it would all be in vain.
And the process I described happened about 40 times in the case of the eye.
I don't understand how the description you just described is related to Leahy's theory
And with your permission, since I am not a professional, I would appreciate it if you could direct me to the sources when you write that a certain theory has been disproved.
Geva,
I'm glad you dropped the final and absolute statement that breeding is necessarily limited, and confirmed that there is, "the possibility that one species could theoretically become a similar species and with very low chances".
How low is this chance?
One percent?
One thousandth of a percent?
A millionth of a percent?
How many insects exist in the world today? Did you know that for every person born, 200 million insects are infested? If every second ten people are born around the world, then every second 2 billion insects are introduced all over the world. What is the chance that at least one of them will undergo a beneficial mutation? And in ten seconds (20 billion insects)? And in a hundred seconds (200 billion insects)? And what about a year (6,289,920,000,000,000 = six million-billion insects)?
And suddenly it turns out that a small chance is not so small, considering the enormous variety of life. And we don't even need the huge number of insects. Detectable mutations occur even in very small populations that undergo strong natural selection.
So forgive me if I'm not impressed that you haven't seen significant mutations in the calves born in your barn. I assume that you didn't have more than a few thousand calves, at most, and that the artificial selection you applied to them was very weak (they had a vet, didn't they? They didn't have predators, right? Here went two main factors of natural selection).
But from the above article we learn that when you move animals from one habitat to another, very different one, you get rapid evolution in which their offspring adapt to the new conditions.
ermac, one more thing, we haven't seen you think yet, we have no idea how or if your mind works. Claim whatever you want, you have already claimed that evidence is better evidence, and since that is what you say we are supposed to believe that you are activated and not acting, you have already claimed that intelligence is such a complex process, it is impossible for us to believe now that you are doing it yourself. Please calculate the probability of this: each nerve cell could theoretically be connected to every other cell, there are a huge number of possibilities to transmit a signal from each cell to each cell, what is the probability of creating a complete thought consisting of masses of such signals? My conclusion is that you are not capable of thinking, because it is improbable. Now try to contradict me. Don't forget that everything you write may have been imprinted on you in advance and is not a thought but an output of something prepared, the probability that you thought of it is zero.
I remind you that we do not know what a thought is in the scientific sense, how it is created and if it exists, certainly we know even less about your thoughts.
ermac, I'm tired of your stupid attempt to pretend you're a bigot to tell us we're not. If all you claim is that we are too complex a machine to have been created gradually by evolution, then shame on you. Days will tell as you say.
All you are doing is trying quite unsuccessfully to contradict us, of course you have no alternative explanation that you can present to us, since it is not valid for scientific testing. There is nothing new or innovative in the facts you present, only a distorted interpretation to continue to stick to your position that I still do not understand at all what it is, to present an alternative theory? Disprove the existing theory? Try to disprove anything we present? Prove that you know what?
From trying to answer, you didn't answer anything, you didn't update anything.
Your analogy of a replicating car could just as well have been an electronic calculator or a horse, your strong desire to believe that you were prophesied by some kind of intelligence is backed by nothing but faith, since I can always ask who made the watchmaker? It lacks a prefix.
I answered you with a pointless analogy like yours:
You have the right not to fill in a lottery because you think you won't win. Indeed it is likely not, but someone does, if you persist with it for years your chances are greater (don't try to contradict it, it's not important).
Nature has time, lots of time, in the end something wins, however improbable it may be (not to mention your improbable and unfounded numbers).
I wish you luck with your DNA searches, I'm sure you'll be able to find familiar verses there, try in jumps of 3 every fifth line, it tells about the scads, just make sure it's not secular DNA.
How to disprove evolution? Here are several ways:
1. To prove that the age of the earth is 6000 years. Actually, even less than a billion years is enough. This is not enough time for evolution to result in the plethora of life that exists today. Of course, all the sciences of archaeology, paleontology and geology firmly deny such a possibility, but if you manage to prove that thousands of researchers were wrong and big, that radioactive carbon dating methods are always wrong, that there were no people in China with recorded history already 8000 years ago... the next Nobel Prize will be yours, and evolution will have It is very difficult to get out of this pit.
2. Discover a skeleton of a complex multicellular creature, for example a human, and identify without a doubt that it belongs to a time when there were supposed to be only unicellular organisms. Said, two billion years ago. This would leave only three possibilities: aliens, time travel or evolution is wrong. This will not immediately contradict evolution, but it will certainly require us to rethink the whole idea and change it accordingly.
Note that you should find many such skeletons, and assign them to that period without a doubt. The reason you need to find many skeletons is that there can be very good fakes, and not because of one fake will invalidate a theory that works so well. But if such skeletons start to appear in several studies, evolution is about to receive a very big shock.
3. Discovery of a code with linguistic significance in DNA. For example, the entire book of the Bible in Hebrew. It's a very exciting possibility, and I think I even wrote a short story about it once. Again, this will not immediately disqualify evolution, but there is no doubt that the theory will have to change from the foundation to the foundations.
If I had to choose one of the three, I would go scan human DNA for such a code, and I wish you success in your search.
Aerox:
Even basic science usually has some kind of vision - something useful that can be derived from it.
The theory of evolution allowed us to discover all kinds of ways to improve our lives - first and foremost by the encouragement it gave to the discovery of the hereditary material and the understanding (partially for the time being) of its effect on the organism and at the same time, to the methodological improvement of plant and animal varieties used by us - whether by "cultivation" (a word that for some reason there are those among you who prefer a choice but from Keftali) and if by genetic engineering.
It also allowed us to understand how the bacteria learned to deal with antibiotics and develop ways to fight back.
Please tell us something about the contribution of your Torah to our well-being - both the contribution already achieved and the one you hope to achieve in the future.
Of course, if you answer the challenge I put before you in the past, it will be an indirect contribution of your Torah to our well-being and you are welcome to do that as well, even though that was not the intention of my question.
Trying to answer everyone-
tune-ermac” I am surprised by the stupidity that comes from your speech,
Are you suggesting that babies are made in a factory? If you claim that the color of the eyes and hair is determined by an engineer? Have you seen or heard about the plans to create a man? Have you seen the electrical schematics? The mechanical agreements?
Oh no? Interesting, you just suggested that living creatures need a production line" - I am also surprised that you do not know the human production line - ribosomes and spisosolomes, genetic code in specific triplicates, 20 leading RNA proteins, anticodons and their carriers, etc. 'This me is the wonder and wonder of a man for all his components, features and organs. And what does this have to do with my question exactly? If I show you a car, even without you seeing its production line or the one it created, you will surely claim that it was not created by itself. Right?
"Apparently you suppressed the negligible reproductive capacity from your response...
Your analogy is stupid, there's no point in insisting on the differences because you brought it up as nonsense anyway." - Ha, no. Do you know of self-replicating + coded material? Isn't that right? Neither do we know of a self-replicating + coded molecule. And if there was a material Like this, will we get a car from him? Isn't that right?
To Yehuda-"In addition, I don't understand where the illusory numbers of 300^20 possibilities for mutation, etc., were taken from? "- Not for a mutation, but for the sequence of some gene. This is the number of possible combinations on average per gene (the number of types of acids multiplied by the number of acids participating in the gene). The question is - how many of the combinations can benefit from such an astronomical number.
To Roy - "Let's take this question from a different direction.
There are millions of different types of 'cars' in the world. Each of them is different from its predecessors to one degree or another. Some are the size of an ant, some are the size of an elephant. We know about others, which have become extinct, based on their skeletons. We can see that there is an amazing similarity between them all - whether in their skeleton, in their internal organs, or in their DNA. All of them can breed and give birth to offspring, and we already know that each offspring differs from its parents to some small extent. We also have beautiful evidence that when a certain trait is selected in the offspring, it is possible to bring about a situation where new species of those 'cars' are created. We also know that it is natural selection that selects the traits, in each and every generation." - Ok. Say from now on - "I am Roy, I believe that a car is capable of being created by itself and gradually", even without *seeing* the actual process. Going? Notice that we have never seen material Replicates + encodes that is created by itself. Nor are multi-part systems that are created by themselves.
"Now, who should we believe without reservation? For those who claim that there is an omnipotent mechanic, who created all those cars as they are - even though we see them undergoing changes all the time? There are also those who claim that he created them 'perfect', even though we clearly see that some cars are not adapted to their environment. This hypothesis, therefore, is immediately rejected." Ha, no. See above. What's more, the question of perfection in the world is philosophical and not scientific (diseases For example.
"And have we already succeeded in imitating such natural selection in laboratories and in nature?" - in organisms that multiply through sexual reproduction? Is natural selection creative or arbiter?
"The only claim that can be proven - and also disproved - is evolution" - how exactly do you disprove evolution? Offer an explanation, just don't search for fossils.
"This argument has been disproved a long time ago, because it turned out that there are no structures with unsolvable complexity." -Really? They still haven't found a solution for Shoton either. They only claimed that they found homologues for it. And even in the homologous genes they found, there is glorious complexity.
Have a nice week...
Michael,
Evolution is a complex term, you have to start with the small things...
Geva,
Your definition of mutation raises questions and it turns out that our differences of opinion on this subject are the basis on which you base your claims.
You claim that mutation in software is something that the programmer did not plan,
I would argue that any change in software whether planned or not is a mutation.
A random mutation is a mutation that does not result directly from the programmer's choice.
In the game of chess, such a mutation will appear as a random move whose effect on the game is not necessarily positive, it is possible that in the next iterations it will become part of a more complex move that will give a software advantage that placed it.
This does not mean that as a result of a computer bug the computer performed an action that the programmer did not foresee, this is not a mutation but a computer failure. This is equivalent to implanting a cybernetic hand in a person, this is not evolution but an external intervention. Or if it remains within the software, like another programmer who deliberately shortened two legs of the processor, it is equivalent to a computer bug, but it is not a natural part of the system and again this is an external intervention that is not relevant to the experiment.
In this experiment the mutations are random but their selection is predetermined, just like the DNA bases, the order is what determines the effectiveness of the move not just the mere existence of the move.
I hope (probably in vain) that you understood the definition of mutation as we understand it, what is a random mutation (and relevant) for the experiment and why it is claimed that random mutations occurred in the software in the experiment.
Grace
Hill:
Although I have already come to the conclusion that you cannot be convinced - neither by correcting your factual knowledge nor by correcting your wrong way of drawing conclusions, but since you referred to the explanation I gave you on the subject of chess programming, I still find it appropriate to say that the way you described it shows that not only did you not understand it, but that you did not You understood what it was for.
I tried to explain to you how easy it is to create those thousand original programs that play at a level inferior to that of a four-year-old child, and you attribute to me an attempt to describe a program that always wins by what is called Exhaustive Search, which I will translate here as "exhaustive search".
I repeat - I only wanted to show how to create the first thousand programs that will go through the evolution and not the software that does the perfect job (and never-ending, because of the size of the game).
Here is the beginning of an "exhaustive search" process, but not on the space of moves but on the space of plans.
I'm pretty sure you didn't understand even now but I hope others will.
Grace:
If we succeed in explaining to the hill what evolution is, we can use the experience we have acquired to explain to the spider how to play chess.
To Michael
I read, and I learned from everything I taught.
I understood why the chance of mutations is the same in relatives and strangers, for example X-rays or cosmic rays that cause mutation do not differentiate between relatives and distant ones.
But in closely related marriages, any mutation will gain validity because it is more likely that it will appear in the alleles of both spouses, and the more likely it is that the mutation will be passed on to future generations.
So if I explained well, and that's the way it is, then Mr. Michael, Zadok, you were right in your comment in your response of April 26.4 at 2.40:XNUMX.
Thanks.
And sometimes I appreciate you.
Have a good weekend
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sorry
I accidentally gave two comments
Roy
Yes I answered a quote from the previous response to you "I am not claiming that there is no random evolution at all
Definately not
I do not rule out the possibility that one species could theoretically become a similar species and with very low chances
I think there is no way that complex structures will be created randomly."
I will refer to the new article you sent later
Grace
My concepts of mutations in software are completely different
Good week to you both
Roy
Quote from my previous comment
"I am not claiming that there is no random evolution at all
Definately not
I do not rule out the possibility that one species could theoretically become a similar species and with very low chances"
(I didn't have time to think about the article you sent)
good week
Grace
You decide
The chess software is important or not
Every software is a bit complex if simple steps of yes and no and comparing results in steps and giving a clear result like the fall of the king will be considered a mutation according to your definition.
The only mutations I know of in the computer, which the programmer did not intend
They are a computer malfunction. (When the code of the software went wrong and it becomes another unexpected code) and it's like a mutation. Bugs can also be treated, but more limited.
Have a nice week too
Of course I forgot to mention that response 96 is a reply to Mr. Geva on response 93
A mutation of this software is the ability to use existing moves to create a new move that was not entered into the software in advance. Surely such a move is limited by the initial set of operations (as there are 4 bases for DNA).
You claim that evolution must include the addition of a fifth base,
And any change of any gene created is not evolution since it contains the same 4 bases.
Geva,
I quote you:
"Software that does not have a sequence of positive mutations (that are not related to the planner's intention in advance) does not prove anything. It proves that a good planner can design a smart plan that will defeat even an old chess plan"
How did you come up with this strange claim?
Geva,
I have no intention of sending you to Dawkins to convince you that complex structures can be formed randomly (which is not what evolution by natural selection claims anyway. Natural selection is explicitly not random!).
Your claim, by the way, is also represented by a guy named Michael Behey, who claims that there is something called 'unresolvable complexity'. That is, that there are structures in which each part relies on the other, and such structures cannot develop part by part in evolution, because each part by itself does not help the organism.
This argument was disproved a long time ago, because it turned out that there are no structures of unsolvable complexity. You may also be interested in this topic by another computer program that proved that in evolution with natural selection it is also possible to reach unsolvable complexity.
(I quote: "A very interesting experiment reported in Nature dealt with software that simulated "digital evolution" in computer organisms. The organisms had parts of computer code that were replicated, and had a "genome" of computer instructions, which could connect together to perform actions. They use "energy" to reproduce, and can get energy by performing logical operations - where the more complicated the logical operation, the more the organism will benefit from performing it. And here is an interesting result for the experiment. One of the organisms reached the more complicated logical operation after 111 mutations, when in the 110th mutation He actually lost a less complicated logical operation. Had it not been for the same loss of a lesser logical operation, the same organism would not have reached the more complicated logical operation. The conclusion here was that as one reaches more complex operations, there is a tendency to lose the less complex operations. The researchers also found that complex mechanisms develop Also through modifications of simpler mechanisms that already exist.
And of course, note that the cecal valves are also a complex organ in their own way... still they were created in a rapid evolution, which can easily be shown to be a discharge.
—–
I will answer your question, although I do not understand what it has to do with the discussion. I do think that evolution came about as a result of mutations and crossing over of genes.
But you still owe me an answer. You still haven't answered me why you are not ready, under any circumstances, to accept that one species becomes another species. You only answered me that you think there can be a God, one way or another, and that was not the question.
Grace
I agree with you one hundred percent.
No, I tried to associate things with the chess software that are not there.
It is indeed not related to mutation changes at all (even though they claim it is).
I'm convinced you know better than me what a mutation is.
Therefore, software that does not have a sequence of positive mutations (which are not related to the planner's intention in advance) does not prove anything.
It proves that a good planner can design a smart plan that will defeat even an old chess plan
Roy
I am not claiming that there is no random evolution at all
Definately not
I do not rule out the possibility that one species could theoretically become a similar species and with very low chances
I think there is no way that complex structures will be created randomly.
(and don't send me to Dawkins)
I have already mentioned that I see a lot of similarity between DNA and its mode of action
for software for building creatures.
If I were planning to work, probably, with limited materials (I guess he is not omnipotent), I would use the base I already have for the next model. (Let's say we are monkeys)
How it was done, when, why I have no idea
I'm picking up clues
Regarding the chess program - I don't understand, according to the article, what random mutations they allowed or why they called mutations. I guess they didn't allow computer glitches (which is for example an unplanned random mutation) to be their mutations and if so then they were surely disqualified immediately and had no effect.
Regarding your question about the yield in a particular cow.
There is a fairly regular behavior in the milk yield curve in relation to age, after a certain age it always decreases until it is no longer worthwhile to keep it.
When I referred to spider webs, I meant the software of Prof. Wallert's team that is mentioned in Dawkins' book.
You didn't answer my question
Do you really think that evolution may have come about as a result of crossing genes
and without mutations.
Geva, an experiment and a half that you focus on so much does not predict everything.
Roy did not claim that evolution is created by crossing genes, only that it exists.
There is no limit to the degree of change that can occur in a certain species to the point of turning it into another species, the only thing that is limited is the documentation and human patience.
And in my understanding, given a given interface capable of translating chess moves into the structure of the spider's webs, and of course feedback that defines the degree of effectiveness of the webs for success in chess, it is quite possible that after a few generations the software will be a glorious spider (or at least a glorious 4-year-old spider).
Regarding the opposite case, it's a bit difficult for me to think of a way to make the chess rules clear to the spider, maybe Michael has an idea.
All you need is a system with evolutionary features and an appropriate interface for the environment in which you want to perform the evolution.
Similarly, I could say that a bookworm would have a hard time adapting to an electronic library environment. You have to adapt the object (which is evolving) to its environment.
And apparently you already agreed with my words because you agreed that in the checkers rules system the software that played chess could develop into a checkers player.
Another thing you ignored is that the object's resources are limited, there is no possible situation where you will watch a tiger with infinite time to plan an attack on a herd of antelopes.
I did not understand your insistence on examining a successful object in environment A rather in environment B which is not adapted to it at all and was not built according to its rules. This is possible if the change is gradual (if this is possible) and comparable to the environment a.
Otherwise you could ask why people didn't develop on the moon, or test the survival of a rat on the moon (of course without the need for additional measures such as an atmosphere, etc.). Your conclusion is that a rat could not have evolved because it is unable to survive on the moon.
Geva,
Part of the 'degeneracy' of the race means that certain genes will show up at a much higher frequency than usual. Many times there is concern about alleles of genes that carry genetic diseases, that when they appear with high frequency in the population, they can lead to severe genetic diseases.
But some genes also bring about other changes, which can be beneficial. And when the population is small, there is more chance that they will spread quickly to the whole population. Part of the idea behind which the late Professor Bar-Anan took care to mix your herd with other herds is to mask the effect of abnormal genes - which could lead to more phenotypic mutations. Since most mutations are harmful to the organism, this makes a lot of sense. But in the case of lizards that reproduce quickly and are under strong natural selection, mutations that result in a phenotype (external change) that benefits the lizards would be easily maintained.
By the way, you say you don't remember any mutations that improved milk yield, and I believe you. But have you measured the milk yield of each individual cow, over several years? Did you measure minimal changes in milk yield, measured in single percentages?
Why am I asking about the minor changes?
Simple, because the theory of evolution does not claim that a change in milk yield will be expressed in the fact that the cow will produce an additional fifty liters of milk every day. The claim is that even an extra hundred milliliters a day could make a difference, and that this mutation would be preserved by the dairy farmer who paid attention to it (or rather, he and his family could live more healthily as a result of that extra glass of milk, once a day). These changes, which continue to be preserved from generation to generation, and are built one-on-top of the previous one, have led us to cows today that provide a very large amount of milk. Such cows would not survive in the wild without milking, because they give too much milk. They actually underwent a very strong artificial selection.
We will move on to your comment on the software.
When you quote the article about the software, you quote only part of the sentence, and neglect the rest. It is not something that adds respect to your claim, if it is impossible to trust the quotes you bring.
Pay attention, please, to the full sentence:
"In addition to the genetic mixing of the software in the transition from generation to generation, we also allowed for random mutations."
That is, the coding sections also undergo 'mutations', contrary to what you claim. Random steps are inserted at each step. And we get from the random steps, which are carefully selected, a better final software.
And now we return again to the claim that 'this software will never play checkers'. And that is very true. And similarly, birds do not dig holes in the ground and rats do not fly in the air. Each of these organisms underwent an evolution that improved its ability to adapt to its environment, in the niche of existence it found for itself. And that's also why birds don't spin spider webs, and turtles don't race with cheetahs. What here contradicts the idea of evolution, Geva?
And I repeat and ask, the same question that you ignored in the previous response. You are so confident. so convinced I *know* so much that you are right, that there is no evolution that causes one species to become another species. Why? how? You must be an intelligent person who thinks and reflects on things. What is the thought process that leads you to this very firm conclusion? Explain to us how you know this with such certainty!
But... when you quote this time, please provide the full quotes, without omitting 'negligible' parts that negate your claims.
Roy
I don't believe you think evolution came about as a result of crossing genes
And without mutations. (I agree that it helps)
From my experience in raising cattle, I know that if the same cows are used all the time
The breed is degenerating, so the late Prof. Bar-Anan made sure to constantly mix our herd
With herds from abroad, (this is in response to your claim about the advantage of a small population) I don't remember any mutations that improved the milk yield
The only mutation I remember is that once a certain cow was born with carts without hind legs, which theoretically would have allowed for easier milking, and a thought was made as to whether it would be worthwhile to make the whole herd like that.
Yes, it was possible in the game, as Michael described it, that is, each piece makes every possible move and continue only those routes that made a logical move for checkers and thus forever in checkers as well.
Even in chess you can write a very simple program that will create all the possibilities and try them and take almost endless computer time and you will always win (which is what Michael described in other words in his answer). The problem is that such a program does not at all correspond to what is described in the experiment.
In the article he describes the 1000 programs he used.
Quote - "The programs are written so that you can mix their code and get new software - better or worse. In each generation we chose the best programs and only they were allowed to have offspring. In addition to the genetic mixing of the programs in the transition from generation to generation."
Note that there are coded sections mixed with sections that know how to do something and not just a random step.
Plans are limited to six steps forward
This software will never play checkers
And even if she plays checkers (without the limit of six moves) she will never create a cobweb simulation. Like spider webs will never play chess
Yehuda:
Most animal cells have two chromosomes of each type.
Each of these two chromosomes has (in the normal case) exactly the same genes but genes can come in different versions. In other words - let's say there is a gene that determines the day of the week when you like to go to the movies, so this gene will sit on both chromosomes in the same place, but on chromosome A it will be written that you prefer the third day and on chromosome B it will be written that you prefer the fifth day. These are the two alleles of the gene.
What happens when the two alleles are different?
It depends on how they interact.
One of the concepts that comes into play here is the concept of dominance.
It is possible that the Day XNUMX allele is "stronger", meaning that when there is a conflict between Day XNUMX and Day XNUMX, Day XNUMX prevails (twice because it is good) and then you will prefer Day XNUMX.
The opposite is also possible.
When there is such a situation - the gene that takes over is called dominant and the other recessive.
A hostage situation is also possible and this can happen in several ways:
It is possible that the combined effect of the two genes will cause you to choose D (which is in the middle) and it may be that it will cause you to choose C and D alternately (just as alleles for light fur and dark fur can be expressed as fur with an intermediate color or as dark and light spots, although the second possibility can be due to Also from chimeras, but that's another story).
However, it is possible that some mutation created in people a version of the gene that states that the preferred day is day XNUMX.
It can already lead to illness.
For example - if this version of the gene is dominant then anyone who gets it will never go to the cinema and since going to the cinema is an essential part of courtship this person will not get to have offspring.
However, in such a situation, the mutation will not gain hold in the population because anyone who receives it will receive it as a result of its repeated occurrence and will not inherit it from his parents in the usual sense (that is, he will inherit it from his parents but not because it exists in them in general but only because it was created as a mutation in some water cell ).
A situation that is more similar to the one we are interested in here is a situation where the version for the XNUMXth day is not dominant.
In this situation the person still won't get to produce offspring if both of his alleles include it but if not then he will go to the movies at least occasionally and everything will be fine.
The two different alleles of each gene come to us from the two obvious sources - one from our father and one from our mother.
The gametes of our parents are formed by the reduction division of normal cells. This is a division that takes one chromosome from each pair of chromosomes, so in the gametes there is only one chromosome of each type.
When the sperm and the egg fuse, a normal cell is formed again with two chromosomes of each type, with the genes in each of them originating from either the father's or the mother's chromosome.
Let's say that Abraham carries a version of the garden for Day XNUMX (only one, because otherwise he would never take Sarah to the movies. It is said that the other is for Day XNUMX) and Sarah carries two normal alleles - it is said that one is for Day XNUMX and one for Day XNUMX.
In such a case, Isaac may come out completely normal (twice on the first day or once on the third day and once on the first day) or a carrier of the defective gene (once on the eighth day and once on the first day or once on the eighth day and once on the third day).
In both cases Yitzchak will be able to produce offspring and everything will be fine.
But what about Avraham and Sarah, they are brothers and they both have the pair XNUMX, XNUMX?
In this case, a quarter of their children will have two alleles for day XNUMX - ie - reproductively incompetent.
A less picturesque extension can be found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allele
Geva,
Cultivation is simply another term for evolution resulting from natural or artificial selection. I have no problem agreeing with you that indeed organisms change due to 'cultivation'. We've seen it in dogs, cows and now lizards. But I am very intrigued to understand why you claim so strongly that,
"The cultivation is very limited in results. The results will reach some kind of maximum and then remain there or completely withdraw."
how do you know that What is your evidence for such a final and absolute statement?
With your permission, I will raise a question for thought:
My friend Michael already explained that the simple programs (that a 4-year-old child can beat) could be produced with completely random algorithms. If the choice was not a game of chess, but a game of checkers (assuming that the simplest algorithms do not even know the rules of the game, but randomly try to move pieces on the board, and the rules of the game limit them), do you think that after a few dozen rounds of choice, the software would 'Knows' how to play checkers, instead of chess?
If your answer is yes, then it is even more difficult for me to understand why you think that cultivation in different directions cannot lead to the creation of traits that are very different from each other.
Shabbat Shalom,
Roy.
Roy
I said that the programs that participated, and were programmed by a programmer, only knew how to play chess.
And none of the results deviated from the programmer's initial intention that they knew how to play chess. And there is no resemblance to a beneficial mutation here, there is a pat and improvement that are limited in their abilities.
If the lizards, which is possible, underwent domestication then the experiment does not prove rapid evolution but rapid domestication. And there is no arguing with that (at least not with me)
We saw it in dogs and I was a participant in it in cows. But the cultivation is very limited in results. The results will reach some kind of maximum and then stay there or completely withdraw.
The very basic problem of evolution is the statistical problem
It's like claiming that you can build a sand castle as high as the Tower of Babel, because for every few drops of sand you build to the height, one drop will come and topple the entire tower.
And so Hoyle (whose titles are no less than those of our friend Michael xx) wrote the well-known example of the Boeing created after a hurricane.
Michael
Woe to us and woe to us if you represent "the entire scientific community"
To Michael
Even though I'm after a "tour" of Wikipedia, I'd appreciate it if you could add and elaborate on the definition and role of the alleles.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Geva,
You say that the programs that have evolved were determined by their ability to play chess. correct. The lizards on the island underwent selection according to their ability to eat plants - and the result is lizards that are specially adapted to eating plants. They do not know how to play checkers, and they are also not particularly adapted to eating meat. Natural selection chose only one element to focus on. If something like this happens in 36 years, imagine how much change can accumulate in hundreds of millions of years.
Grace,
I liked Ermac's question to you –
"If I claim tomorrow that I have a randomly generated car, I have no evidence for this (say a video recording), but I claim that I succeeded in some kind of mesialistic experiment (which I am unable to reproduce because I did it by randomly mixing hundreds of chemicals), to create from a piece of replicating material, which Accumulating changes, and slowly turning into a car. What will be your reaction? Will you really believe me?"
Let's take this question from a different angle.
There are millions of different types of 'cars' in the world. Each of them is different from its predecessors to one degree or another. Some are the size of an ant, some are the size of an elephant. We know about others, which have become extinct, based on their skeletons. We can see that there is an amazing similarity between them all - whether in their skeleton, in their internal organs, or in their DNA. All of them can breed and give birth to offspring, and we already know that each offspring differs from its parents to some small extent. We also have beautiful evidence that when a certain trait is selected in the offspring, it is possible to bring about a situation where new species of those 'cars' are created. We also know that it is natural selection that selects the traits, in each and every generation.
Now, who should we believe without reservation? For those who claim that there is an omnipotent mechanic, who created all those cars as they are - even though we see them undergoing changes all the time? Some also claim that he created them 'perfectly', even though we clearly see that some of the cars are not adapted to their environment. This hypothesis, therefore, is immediately rejected.
If so, and this is Geva's claim, one way or another, perhaps we should believe those who claim that there is an omnipotent mechanic who makes sure to change the cars all the time according to his needs... even though we have a much simpler explanation for their change, which relies on natural selection? And have we already succeeded in imitating such natural selection in laboratories and in nature?
We also know that there are species that become extinct in nature, without human intervention (and in fact, even before man developed technology at all). I mean, even here our 'mechanic' did not do a good job and changed his cars in time to make them more suitable to their environment.
Ok, this claim has also been rejected.
The only argument that makes sense at the moment is that it is a process of evolution involving natural selection. We can find infinitely many transitional stages that indicate the development of certain cars from others. We can find much evidence in the DNA of those organisms. We can find skeletons of the ancient cars and understand from them what happened on the road until today.
Believers will say, "But all this is only because the almighty mechanic made all the cars the way they are, so that it only looks like they have evolved!"
And of course such a claim cannot be proven or disproved (just as it cannot be proven or disproved that we are not a brain in a jar receiving sensory stimuli from aliens with the help of electrical signals).
The only claim that can be proven - and also disproved - is evolution. And in the meantime it has not yet been refuted.
Although I am in general with Yehuda's opinion on this subject I must remark that marriages of relatives do not create new mutations any more than other marriages.
This is clear because when the sperm or egg in which the mutation is created prepare for fertilization, they have no way of knowing that they will reach someone close.
The problem with consanguineous marriages is that certain mutations are only harmful when both alleles carry them and this type of event is more common in consanguineous marriages.
Hello to all commenters
I want to tell you that I read the article with all the comments in a row and enjoyed every moment.
I would like to comment that I agree with Michael on this matter.
Maybe a little late to comment, but Geva's words:-
"The fact that a small number of lizards arrived does not explain rapid evolution"
Wrong!, a small number of individuals causes "close marriages" and hence many mutations so that it is precisely the small number of individuals that spurs evolution.
In addition, I do not understand where the delusional numbers of 300^20 possibilities for mutation, etc., were taken from? Usually there are several tens of thousands of genes in the body of a creature, and several mutations are created in this body. If they are good, they will continue, if they are not good, the creature will not survive. Usually the change will not be significant and the creature will continue with the mutations.
I also agree with Michael's words about the twisted custom of the Japanese to cook live minnows in boiling soup with cold soy dumplings. I'm not a vegetarian like Michael, but I would never eat such a soup.
In conclusion, I must point out Michael's proud resistance in a previously lost battle against Geva that nothing would help to convince him.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda.
post Scriptum. Michael, gravity is another story.
Grace:
I hope that by now you have had time to read response 79 and understand that my opinion is yours.
To Michael,
I did suspect that, I'll trust your experience with ermac.
And in any case, both you and Mr. Geva, a little modesty won't hurt
Already wise and experienced elders of both of you were wrong, your experiences and your wisdom and your achievements in the past are not important in this debate.
After all, we will neither prove nor disprove anything in theory based on the sentence "Mr. Geva is a computer expert for 45 years" or the sentence "Michael won the Ila prize".
I am sure that you will be honored by others.
I would appreciate examples from your experiences that are more relevant to the topic.
I'm the little one.
for everyone:
I've been commenting here for quite some time and never presented my achievements because I wanted my arguments to stand on their own merits. I do not believe in the ex cathedra argument.
I listed some of my accomplishments in the previous comments because I'm simply fed up with all the people who, instead of dealing with the arguments, choose to attack me personally.
I ask the sane among you to forget about the biographical details and continue to refer to my argument to their body.
Hill:
You never argued with me so there is nothing new here.
I told a little about myself after your attempts to go down on me and it's a good thing I didn't tell more because you would have had a heart attack anyway.
Of course everything I said can be checked.
You are welcome to contact Chaim Wolfson - Dean of Exact Sciences in Tel Aviv and ask him.
In fact, you can ask almost any faculty member in Tel Aviv who deals with mathematics - maybe you prefer Nega Alon, Arnon Avron, Eitan Rupin, Zvi Galil, Miki Tarsi, Yehuda Afek, Zeev Shos, Shmuel Rost, Ziv My name or many others. You can also ask the head of the medical school who is one of the world's greatest experts on paleontology - Yoel Rak or some people from the physics department like Gideon Alexander, for example. In Ila there is surely a record of everyone who has ever won their awards and certainly in the army you can find records as well.
You can also look up my name on the US Patent Registrar's website and see what patents I have registered and even who I have sold them to. In short - everything is visible. Successfully!
Someone who is arrogant, arrogant and childish is a person who, without any education, allows himself to face the entire scientific community as an equal against equals.
Michael, read before you respond
I wrote that in the article it was written that they wrote a thousand programs
I won't argue with you anymore
Because you are arrogant, childish, and probably also a liar
Chen T:
Irwax's words do not imply any stupidity. It is a reversal of cause and effect. Irwax's words stem from stupidity and that's why I stopped arguing with him.
Of course, I still suggest that he accept the challenge I put before him - not because I think anything will convince him, but because I can earn a lot of money this way, which I have already promised to invest in the fight against the deterioration of the planet.
Hill:
You're just chatting.
No one gave them a prize for the first thousand programs.
The article clearly states that these were programs that every four-year-old child wins.
To remind you - four-year-old children usually do not know chess at all.
I don't know what kind of employees you fired and knowing you, I can certainly describe to me that you fired better employees than you, but the program I built solved a problem that no one had been able to solve before (something that happened to me many times - it's not just that I won the Ila award twice and once the Keshtar award for creative thinking and that It's no coincidence that I finished my master's degree in computer science in one year and with honors. I guess if I had worked under you I would probably have flown. Of course, after my release from the army, my further successes in the field already translated into a lot of money instead of awards).
When I described how the initial programs can be built, I was wrong in only one thing, and that was when I said that I assumed you understood the principle. It turns out you didn't understand, but it doesn't matter. Explaining things to a computer is easier than explaining them to you.
Michael
In the article it is written that they programmed 1000 programs that know how to play chess, who is better and who is less.
What you describe "that I would let the computer build them randomly..."
It is a primitive program (one, if several stages) that knows how to play chess.
No one would give you an award for that.
Michael
I received the response to this article when I claimed
that no application has yet been created as a result of a series of bugs
In the program that is described there is only a slap
Pat is a limited thing
I wrote the statistical programs that managed the cultivation of the cattle farm in Israel
And I was the expert on this subject so I understand the pat
Regarding your claim that you wrote a program that you didn't know how it made decisions
I also had employees like that and they flew by very quickly.
(Why do you have to waste half a comment on insults, it's tiring and not flattering to you)
ermac I am surprised at the stupidity of your speech,
Are you suggesting that babies are made in a factory? If you claim that the color of the eyes and hair is determined by an engineer? Have you seen or heard about the plans to create a man? Have you seen the electrical schematics? The mechanical agreements?
Oh no? Interesting, you just suggested that living creatures need a creature stripe...
Apparently you suppressed the negligible reproductive capacity from your response...
Your analogy is stupid, there is no point in starting to insist on the differences because you brought it up as nonsense anyway.
Even if evolution were all wrong, you still don't have a better proposition that stands up to scientific scrutiny.
Please spare me these stupid examples, go back to Bible classes and learn about allegories and imagery there.
Hill:
I know the phenomenon you demonstrate also in your reference to the subject of chess software.
This is a very common phenomenon among the mob and according to it ignorance should be turned into a weapon.
In the present case, you suggest us to buy the following argument:
I don't understand X therefore X is not true.
This is of course an excellent argument that works better the more X's you don't understand.
It says that these are programs that play less well than a 4-year-old child.
You may know how to write such stupid programs easily but for me it is such a boring thing that I would let the computer build them randomly.
For example - plan number 1 reacts to every move by moving the first free pawn. If there isn't one, she looks for a knight who can go and goes to the first place clockwise to which he can move if there isn't one... well, I guess even you already understood the principle.
The "nature" in which these programs live is such that only the top 10 remain alive - this is the competition for resources - the resources that are competed for are the first ten places in the competition. Whoever is better in this competition survives and gets to raise offspring and come back, God forbid.
Is it just a game of chess? What a wonder - the food on which he lives and through which he gains the coveted resources are chess victories. The fruit fly does not play chess and I do not come to him with claims because of this.
You ask where are the mutations? The mutations are in the reaction to situations on the field. I thought any sane person would understand that.
I guess you don't expect anyone to build here (in one of the comments) the whole system and I wouldn't expect you to understand even if it was presented here in full.
Note that this is a conference attended by many people who are all involved in the subject.
I know software that solves the traveling agent problem.
I myself built a neural network (whose principle of operation is also a principle of natural selection) to treat a certain type of medical problems.
It happened in a company that specialized in expert systems and wanted to solve the problem of identifying a certain disease based on the way the sound resonates in the lungs. When I saw this, I told them that it was a strange idea because an expert system is built with the help of an expert whose knowledge must be drawn into it, but here there is no expert at all because no doctor has ever tried to identify diseases in this way.
I suggested that they take the approach of a neural network that would simply try to learn and get a better score the more correctly it identifies who is sick and who is healthy.
In the end I built such a system. It trained on a study group and when I demonstrated it on data from the field, it identified the patients (who made up 10% of the input) with a probability of 80% and did not identify any healthy as blue. I don't know what happened to the system because I continued on my way, but it is less interesting. What's more interesting is that I never (but never! Not even in the first stage) knew (I built the system!) how it makes decisions. I mean - I knew that she somehow weighed the voice qualities that we measured and provided to her, but I didn't know how she weighed them.
Geva: "This software only knows how to play chess
Because this is what the programmer aimed for in the first place and he did it in a nice logical way
This software will never play checkers or any similar logical game"
In my opinion, you distort the nice parable that emerges from the article about chess.
The software's sole purpose is to win at chess just like your sole purpose is to reproduce. You will never be able to "play checkers".
It appears that the software does a "shuffle" between the different algorithms (genes) and a new software (mutation) is created whose chances of survival depend on the opponent standing in front of it (in our case the environmental conditions, in the case of the software, a 4-year-old child) and thus natural selection weeds out the unsuitable ones. And finally, only those who win chess/multiply are the ones who will be allowed to advance to the next level.
El Chen-"Do you offer another model that is provable (ie the watchmaker is not so much like that) please present it to us"-ummm...if I claim tomorrow, because I have a randomly generated car, I have no proof of this (let's say a video recording), But I claim that I succeeded in some mesialistic experiment (which I am not able to reproduce because I did it by randomly mixing hundreds of chemicals), to create from a piece of replicating material, which accumulates changes, and slowly turned into a car. What will be your reaction? Will you believe me?
I guess not. If so... why do you claim that man, who is much more sophisticated than any car or airplane, was created gradually? Whose burden of proof is on you? On me, who claim that the car was created by itself, or on you, who claim that it is unlikely that a car was created by itself What is your choice?
to ermac
As you claim, evolution is not just a completely random probability, there may be smarter mechanisms in nature that help this and reduce the probabilities to logical orders of magnitude, in the future we will better understand these mechanisms and how they work.
How your brain works we don't know either and there's still a lot to learn, but we'll both agree that it has a lot to do with the electrical currents between your neurons. In the past you could claim that the "controller" activates your actions, but today it is already known that nature is sophisticated enough to activate your brain.
Do you offer another model that is provable (ie the watch is not so much like this) please present it to us.
If you claim like Geva the elderly, that there are minor problems in the theory, please suggest ways of improvement and expansion, most of your claims have been refuted by the other commenters.
But apparently nature is smart enough to activate an evolution mechanism and not just your brain, which also takes place completely improbable actions which we witness from your response, but the proof is before us and you are indeed repeating the same things again. If you were to calculate the probability of this, you would find that it is very small and completely improbable, and we are still witnessing this miracle (apparently you are well versed in statistics).
If something so statistically improbable is possible, apparently we didn't take all the parameters into account and the statistics are different.
Similarly, you insist on stating that in every experiment there is a guiding hand, surprisingly you are right, but it is not always the hand of the scientist, give nature some credit, it does not need a watchmaker to explain to it how it works, we are just slow enough not to understand how it is Works (apparently we'll get to that too).
And I will add another thing, if "artificial" selection can be carried out by a machine that works without reason but only follows a number of rules, there is no obstacle to natural selection in nature as well, since in nature there are several rules for survival in a given environment. This will lead to a gradual improvement in a given parameter of the organism.
bye in the meantime,
My watchmaker invites me to a barbecue...
Response to Roi - "Growth Factors does not have an active website. They are not enzymes, but proteins (and sometimes non-protein molecules) that transmit a signal." - that's why I said "as I imagine". It doesn't matter either, there *exist* active sites with 50-60 acids in a very precise sequence. The chance of finding them is one in 50^20. Do you disagree with that? Do you agree that any mutation in the active site affects the function of the protein? Do you think there were less acids in the past or something else?
"And it is interesting to note that even though Ermac has been repeatedly explained about the gradual creation of genes, he still continues to ask the exact same questions, while using delusional numbers. Genes are not created out of thin air, or randomly, as Ermac tries to portray them. "- Ha, not true. My question still remains unanswered. I explained that there is also no point in the active site alone when it miraculously appeared, without the other necessary control sites.
And of course he ignores all the evidence for improving existing genes or changing their activity in experiments. A good example of this is the bacteria that has evolved and is now able to eat nylon." - Not true. The gene that changed and now digests nylon got this function because of a frameshift mutation. That is, a sequence of 120 amino acids that appeared at once! (120^20 possible combinations). Also The entire age of the universe would not be enough for this in my opinion, and therefore... it is very possible that this is a mutation aimed at Markian. Too like here.
"Other examples would be the new man-made enzymes, which underwent a series of random mutations that resulted in a 200-fold improvement in their activity. That is, each step along the way worked as well, but a little less well than the next step." - Not really. First, we need to make sure, what The frequency of the experimental gene appearing in evolution. (One for how many sequences did the function appear?) Second, in the experiments there is human intelligence and equipment, which checks and leverages the results that are not successful (artificial selection) and also leaves results that are not good for evolution, but are ascertained by the scientists). The opposite of natural selection.
"You don't really need the exact final sequence to perform the activity with any degree of success. This experiment, by the way, is repeated almost every day in biology laboratories, where they succeed in 'improving' different proteins by introducing random mutations into them." - Is a new protein created or an existing protein improved?
"In short, Ermac has many claims and many demands that 'must be proven!' But every time another proof comes, he claims it is impossible. And you can see his previous response to this article to understand that it is impossible to prove to the world that evolution works.
And I quote Ermac:
"Hence, the mutation was probably intentional."
In other words - if the result does not correspond to the falsified calculations that have already been refuted in the scientific literature (but Ermac continues to quote them in every corner), then it is a..."-
Not true. I explained above - even the evolutionists do not claim that a gene appears all at once (ask any evolutionary biologist). If a gene miraculously appeared not according to the normal probability of its occurrence. Hence the mutation was intentional, simple!
my father
Regarding Prof. Zipper's software.
In the article it is not clear who wrote the first 1000 programs.
I assume that the researchers wrote them, otherwise, as a computer person, I don't understand how they managed to mix different off-the-shelf software.
So the researchers wrote some programs where each program has a collection of routines with each routine doing a predetermined function, and they mixed the routines and got the better collection of programs.
It's reminiscent of what happens in patting dogs.
So where are mutations here?
This software only knows how to play chess
Because this is what the programmer aimed for in the first place and he did it in a nice logical way
This software will never play checkers or any similar logical game
Growth factors do not have an active site. They are not enzymes, but proteins (and sometimes non-protein molecules) that transmit a signal.
And it is interesting to note that although Ermac has been repeatedly explained about the gradual creation of genes, he still continues to ask the exact same questions, while using delusional numbers. Genes are not created out of thin air, or randomly, as Ermac tries to portray them.
And of course he ignores all the evidence for improving existing genes or changing their activity in experiments. A good example of this is the bacteria that has evolved and is now able to eat nylon. Other examples would be the new man-made enzymes, which underwent a series of random mutations that resulted in a 200-fold improvement in their activity. That is, each step along the way worked just as well, but a little less well than the next step. You don't really need the exact final sequence to perform the activity with any degree of success. This experiment, by the way, is repeated almost every day in biology laboratories, where they succeed in 'improving' different proteins by introducing random mutations into them.
In short, Ermac has a lot of claims and a lot of demands that 'must be proven!' But every time another proof comes, he claims it is impossible. And you can see his previous response to this article to understand that it is impossible to prove to the world that evolution works.
And I quote Ermac:
"Hence, the mutation was probably intentional."
In other words - if the result does not correspond to the falsified calculations that have already been refuted in the scientific literature (but Ermac continues to quote them in every corner), then it is a...
miracle!
It is much easier to believe in miracles than to make a person think again about things that do not correspond to his current point of view.
A slight clarification regarding Giva - in my opinion, he means that if an average gene has 300^20 different combinations and only a minority of them are considered beneficial, then how exactly is a new gene created? There must be mutations in a very specific order and in a long line, that there is no point in a single mutation without the entire chain of mutations. If we only look at an active site (that every mutation affects) of 50 acids (of a growth factor as I imagine), the chance of finding it is one in 50^20 mutations (I'm not talking about bacteria at the moment and even there it's a point mutation most of the time). The entire age of the universe won't really be enough either For this. Of course, a lot of hypotheses can be made, but it also needs to be proven.
An article on the subject - chess software written using an evolutionary method
Hill:
And regarding your claim that there is no program written by a sequence of bugs, as Chen pointed out in this discussion and as I have pointed out in many other discussions on this site - in fact there are and there are such programs.
There are programs in them that were "written" in an environment designed solely to prove evolution, but there are also many cases that take advantage of the great ability of writing a good program by accumulating bugs and "natural" selection to achieve real results. Of course, in these cases, the natural selection is one that chooses the programs that provide a better solution - not to the problem of finding food, but to the problem that they want to solve.
In other words - contrary to what I argued before - you don't always accept the facts and adjust the logic - sometimes you ignore the facts so that you can stay with the previous logic.
I understand that you have not read anything about gene expression, if there is a mutation in a certain gene that damages the organism in a destructive way, it cannot develop, if there is a possibility for the organism to survive and develop with the mutation, it is either not beneficial or its damage is less, in extreme cases it is even beneficial, the natural selection It is the intention you are looking for, since significant mutations are rare, beneficial mutations will spread quickly, bad mutations will exterminate those who carry them, is a natural debugging process for you. Of course there are many cases, a harmful gene is not expressed, as you know most of us contain one gene or another that contains a devastating genetic disease, luckily, these genes are still dormant most of the time.
And you still haven't presented your alternative theory/hypothesis, you just looked for failures in evolution...
Geva,
You ignore the fact that thousands of bugs are created in every generation (in every person born there are 100 new mutations, for example), and out of them, under extreme conditions, the only bug that helps the organism to survive better or produce more offspring will be found.
The choice is a natural choice, and it can occur at any discrete stage, as the 'intention of the programmer'.
Grace
Short answer
There is not a single program in which the programmer did not indicate the direction of development
No application has yet been created as a result of a series of bugs
For every bug that creates an improvement in the program there are thousands of bugs that spoil and destroy the program and the chance that an application will develop by itself, without the programmer's intention, is zero.
Geva my friend, I thought my style was aggressive and logical enough to make it clear that I'm not a girl, but let's put the chauvinism aside for a moment.
If you are a seasoned computer person as you claim, you must know first hand how to create software with an understandable evolutionary capability.
From the few experiments I've read about it, a model of this numerical entity is able to evolve, that is, to create an imperfect copy of it (mutation) within a rigid framework of rules under a virtual environment that activates natural selection in a way that we call environmental conditions.
It has been experimentally proven that evolution exists in such a system, that is, new individuals differ from their previous generations in everything except the building blocks, so that they are optimally adapted to their environment.
If evolution is possible in such a limited system that is a simple model, certainly in a system with so many possibilities of change (our humble world) evolution is possible.
You mentioned that there are problems with the theory, surely there is room for improvement in research and experiments.
Quantum theory also has problems, also relativity, they are still the best theories that science has to offer.
If you have an alternative theory (which I have not seen you propose so far) you are welcome to present it to us along with the facts (supported by experiment) on which you base it.
If you have a mere unsubstantiated hypothesis, feel free to come back when you have actual evidence to support it.
If you only claim that there are problems with the theory of evolution, I doubt any of the other commenters will contradict that, no theory is perfect and there is always room for improvement.
The concept you are talking about is not clear to me? Do you offer a smart programmer instead of a watchmaker? Did your background in biology expose you to the variety of sophistication "and intelligence" needed just to manipulate a single cell? From just a quick glance at the variety of systems and contexts we know, it is clear that the complexity is very great compared to any project you have seen in your lifetime, if you claim that nature is too "stupid" to create such a thing, why don't you raise issues about the complexity of the operation of a single cell? After all, DNA alone does not contain instructions for building an entire cell and there are many systems that are not written in it. Please don't forget that all the operations that exist in DNA are statistical and are not similar to any standard programming language, why do you attack a proven statistical mechanism of evolution but are indifferent to much more complex mechanisms that we understand less about?
I'm sorry, but your intelligent programmer theory would also require an operator and technical support on a daily basis, just to keep everything running.
Is it improbable to you that at some point in the not too distant future machines will build better machines without a human guiding their steps?
What did you claim then? Don't worry, from the moment that day comes, you will have a lot of time to think about it because you will be unemployed just like me.
Although I will mention one caveat for the comparison, such evolution will be intentional, as opposed to evolution in nature which is a statistical evolution that relies on a long period of time and a high number of individuals (over time).
If your intelligent programmer existed, I think the code would be closed, that is, not changeable to avoid mutations (bugs) and a sophisticated model like ours would have to be bug-free or at least unreasonably rare.
Or do you think the programmer is not that intelligent, just a little?
What will it say about the programmer if we who are less intelligent are able to read the code, understand it, and even fix or change it? And it is not far today that we will be able to write it ourselves. He arranged a "back door" for us?
I don't understand what you are trying to show.
Back to homework...
Hill:
Although your whole approach points to a lot of misunderstanding, but you made it worse when you called my point about the contradictions in your words childish. This is stupidity for its own sake.
I don't need grades from people like you and for my part think what you want.
As far as I'm concerned, it's enough that any reasonable person understands, according to the example you kindly gave us - the example of the example, how the mechanism of drawing your conclusions works and therefore, probably, will not be impressed by your conclusions about my mental age either.
By the way, when you reach my mental age, you might also know how to deal with the problem of countering the comments and understand that it depends on the browser you use. There are browsers where you see the brochure and there are those where you don't - just like there are minds that understand that contradictory reasoning is proof of stupidity and there are those that don't.
Michael
Just a technical question
How do you see the response tax?
I have a character like this instead of the number
Grace
I'm not really religious
If you want, I will write you a response on Saturday
I agree that we and the monkeys are family
It is enough to see the behavior of my fans in order to agree
To that
Imagine that you came across a robot that is capable of replicating itself and has a built-in program how to do it, and next to it is another slightly more sophisticated robot that is built according to the same principles but a little more sophisticated, it would occur to you to think that it was created by itself. You wouldn't think so even if you saw the entire production line.
I've been a computer guy for 45 years
When I look at the DNA I see a base 4 supercomputer language with commands
Instructions on what to do and how, there are routines
Every planner knows that if he wants to export a new plan, he will not start all over again, but will use what he has already done and change and add.
In this view, every phenomenon that is explained by evolution can be explained by this view, but on the other hand, there are many things that are not explained or whose explanation is not serious according to evolution, but can be easily and simply understood in this view.
It is true that every programmer knows that programs have bugs (malfunctions) and here too (nature is not perfect), and environmental conditions change and programs are sometimes not suitable and they disappear (extinction). (That's really in a nutshell)
A small note to "Chen" - there is no evidence for evolution. Not in any of the areas you mentioned. I have expanded on this quite a bit in other articles.
Michael
Moshe Dayan, after they pointed out that he had not changed his mind, he said "only idiots continue to stick to the same opinion all the time"
For decades, Darwin's theory was a candle to my feet, although I always wondered how statistically it happened. I began to think that maybe there is something else here, after reading Richard Dawkins' book "Climbing the Improbable Mountain"
A book that is supposed to explain the possibility of evolution and there on page 216 it describes Goering's experiment in the garden, an experiment that, according to my logic, shows that things are not as smooth as they seem.
Even Dawkins as a reasonable person had a big problem with this experiment and he solves it with maybe there was some common ancestor. I don't want to get into a discussion about this garden on this topic. I have a lot to say about both the meaning of the experiment and the lack of seriousness in Dawkins' answer.
Since then I've been looking for strange things that happen and the explanation for them is not satisfactory like in the wandering experiment and there are many others.
I'm sorry Michael, but your comments are sarcastic, superficial, and clichéd, they sound to me now like the answers Darwin received from the establishment when he started his career, (not that I'm comparing myself to him) and you're the one trying to get caught up in the words
I guess you are still very young, if not young then childish
The truth is that I thought of this scenario but if the creator was intelligent enough I would expect to find these fish swimming - healthy and intact - in the sewers of Japan.
By the way - the Japanese themselves, of course, would have risked death from malnutrition and then the intelligent creator would have intervened in their favor and against what he himself did to the fish (it is known that intelligent creators and that something is a generalization of what children's stories describe in humans. These stories talk about two entities that fight within us - a creature Good and created evil. The intelligent creator has many such instincts that fight with each other - the creation of the lizards versus the instinct to eat them versus the instinct to eat them and so on. It is not easy to be an intelligent creator these days. I would even say that the one who takes on such a conflicted role as that of an intelligent creator is really stupid)
It is certainly possible that such fish evolved, but the Japanese also ate them...
And it is known that a Japanese's stomach is an environment that digests both live and dead fish and regardless of the amount of soy, rice and seaweed that is served with them.
The Japanese have some horrible customs.
One of them is to prepare a hot soup and when it boils, pour in cold pieces of soybeans and immediately after them many tiny stingrays (while they are still alive).
The stingrays swim with all their might and burrow into the cool soybean clumps to protect themselves but it doesn't really help them and they, of course, cook along with the soybeans only to be eaten by human animals.
It is interesting how after all the years of its existence, the intelligent creator (or whoever is responsible on his behalf for the maintenance of the animals) for this custom has not yet developed fish that will go through the process without being harmed.
What's great about the Wakuz:
It is that they will always interpret any finding as supporting their position.
example:
In response 40 Geva writes:
"Why are the genes expressed only when there is a danger of extinction?
After all, this is exactly what I claim."
And when I show him that the situation is the other way around, he simply writes - in response 44:
"You were right when you drew my attention to the fact that in this case there is no sign of any danger of extinction. And it even increases the delay"
This is an even more interesting situation than the situation of those who say "don't confuse me with the facts" The method here is, as mentioned, to accept every fact and adapt the "illogical" (by the way, it is highly recommended to buy your children this book by Ephraim Sidon and read it yourself - simple celebration!) so that the necessary conclusion follows from it.
I'm willing to bet you that Isaac Sde will react the same way when Craig Venture completes the development of the synthetic genome and also when in the more distant future he constructs a complete living cell synthetically.
Yitzhak Sade, for those who haven't come across him yet, is a philanthropist (or at least tries to be one - I hope that at least here he doesn't succeed). As such, he tries to claim that creating life from a still life is impossible, even though this is exactly what the sages (I suggest that everyone try to have fun privately with the meaning of these initials. At the time, when I served in the IDF, I thought to myself what a stupid initials these are - they are exactly Like the attack army to Syria or the pilgrims of the righteous Lot) claimed all the time when they said that lice and mice are created from inanimate matter. Science has already proven that it is not as simple as they thought and now they - after many years of war - have decided to turn the conclusions of science against him and are trying to make us forget what they said in the past.
For creationists it is even simpler.
I have already participated in a debate where a creationist told me that he would accept evolution only if someone managed to build a complete genome synthetically and when I told him that such a project was nearing completion he said "You see?! This proves intelligent creation!"
The experiment described here indeed seems to be another thing that supports evolution, but not necessarily the mechanism of natural selection. There is no sufficient description to see if the change is due to mutations and/or changes in the distribution of alleles that gave an advantage to the survivors - especially when the founding population is so small. With such a small population it was more likely that extinction would occur.
It seems that they did not check whether another mechanism of species formation occurred here - hybridization to obtain viable hybrids. All they compared was mitochondrial DNA, meaning that the mothers of the lizards (assuming the lizards have no paternal inheritance of mitochondria) are from the original species.
The findings of the article may allow a layman to support Lamarck's mechanism of evolution.
Nicely summed up.
Evolution is development translated into Hebrew, theory (a theory for the skeptics among us) Darwin's evolution is the development of species as a result of small changes in the offspring to improve their chances of surviving natural selection (in a very abbreviated summary).
The case before us shows the development of a new species of lizard from another species.
Each zoologist will classify them in separate species (look different, different food, different living habits, different internal structure). That's why it's evolution.
If the cause is gene expression, the development of new genes, or even bumps created by an allergic reaction to a plant-digesting bacterium, it doesn't matter!
Because all processes are possible and occur (and documented).
Many small changes throughout such a long and documented history (for those who accept fossils as fact) can create both supporters and opponents of evolution from historical cow bacteria from the same ancient biological broth, since the brain (the pinnacle of evolution, if intelligence is considered an evolutionary advantage), however large it may be, does not guarantee intelligence …
The idea of creationism appears in the book of Genesis, its entire modern incarnation is a tool of disputation in the hands of the creationists, as if they have a scientific tool, in my opinion it is simply their way of instilling their values outside of Bible lessons (whose dignity is placed in their place), in a way that will give them "scientific" credibility. It is certainly possible that they would tend to teach quantum theory so that there is a timer (or sequence) that determines where the electron should go, since nothing that is probabilistic is possible, then a process as complex as the existence of an atom will not be able to exist in this way and must disintegrate. I guess it's just luck that Genesis doesn't tell about the creation of the atoms and the angel who holds them together so they don't fall.
Tell me Geva, isn't it strange to you why only the creation of species on this small planet has an alternative theory that fits so perfectly with the story of creation?
Why is there no such alternative theory to quantum theory? to the big bang? For nuclear physics? and so'..
My answer is incredibly simple, since at the time when the Bible was written, no one knew about the Big Bang or quantum theory or any other modern science. But animals were abundant and God was more popular then, so they were included in the creation story.
Hence, the whole practice of creationism, which is led by religious men, some of whom even pretend to be scientists, is a religious and not a scientific practice.
Evolution is a process that science has been investigating for a long time, no contradictions to the theory have been received, only confirmations. It is not important to discuss creationism because it cannot be investigated or experimented, therefore it can never be a real science. Evolution can be examined in dozens of ways, computers, biology, zoology and many other methods, have not yet encountered phenomena that contradicted it.
And if we come across such, I am confident that even in the new theory that will be, there will be no trace of the creationist idea, because the only proof of it is the finding of the miraculous watch or its revelation on Channel 2's prime time, as far as I am concerned, he can send a messenger with scientifically admissible proofs.
To this day, evolution is the best theory science has to offer.
Grace
The title is exaggerated instead of "evidence for evolution" it would have been better to write "evidence for evolution".
To prove that evolution is correct, one must see the formation in nature of a dead cell, and of an organelle from a single cell.
This research does not yet prove that new species are being created. It proves that there is a possibility of significant changes within the same species. This has been known for a long time.
Michael
You were right when you drew my attention to the fact that there is indeed no sign of extinction in this case. And it even increases the delay
How in 36 years from a population of 5 pairs without danger of extinction
A number of changes occurred at the same time that were not observed elsewhere and all of them help the lizard eat plants.
And I don't buy the claim that these changes are minimal.
Unfortunately, I don't see any proof of evolution here.
I do not find any mention that the genome of the lizards was mapped before they moved to a new territory, so it cannot be said that those "bumps" are actually a mutation that demonstrates evolution and natural selection or the use of a sequence of genes that were dormant and then selected.
Real proof would show that a mutation was created that was not seen before among lizards that live in similar conditions, and this gives a clear advantage to the nation of other lizards that live in these conditions.
In my humble opinion, it is possible to repeat the "experiment" in many families of beehives with rapid reproduction cycles and find that within a relatively short time they adapt to new conditions using dormant genes that will lead to something like the "Zizim" - evolution? Depends on what the definition is, to me It just seems like a mechanism by which nature works and we confuse it with the concept of evolution.
Tomorrow some priest can harness the research to his aid and say that the genetic information that God gave to animals in their creation, allows them to adapt to a new environment (as in the case of dormant genes that existed in an organism from DNA development).
Hill:
Why do you say it was endangered?
Who says there was?
Maybe this is just an advantage?
And maybe the extinction resulted from the competition with those with the advantage (or maybe it didn't happen at all and currently the population with the old traits still exists but is small and the chance of catching a mutant is great compared to the chance of catching a lizard in the old structure?).
When horse and donkey split there was no extinction.
Even if the lizards moved to another island were extinct, the species would not be extinct! All in all - if it was not possible to live on this island (and of course it was indeed possible to live there because it is a fact that the lizards survived there until bringing offspring!) then how many lizards would have died - it happens all the time! Lizards die every day because an enemy was waiting for them in the puddle where they walked or because they couldn't find food or because they crossed the road at a red light. Why don't they mutate instead of becoming extinct?
The mutations happen without direct connection to the danger of extinction! The point is that when there is a danger of extinction and the relevant population for mating is small - it is easy for a beneficial mutation to spread to the entire species (and we have already said that). If this is the case - why aren't there constantly beneficial mutations? It is clear that there is always room for improvement! There are none because the factor you are talking about does not exist! That's why he also doesn't intervene when he is really (but really!) needed and in those cases the species really becomes extinct.
A small correction according to:
There are silenced genes waiting to be expressed under certain circumstances (in fact, a large part of the control mechanism of the genome is based on this), but the control in most cases is not inherited.
Grace
Why are the genes expressed only when there is a danger of extinction?
This is exactly what I am claiming.
Fountain,
The article does not mention testing hybridization between the lizards. As for myself, I suspect that the researchers did the test (because it is hard to see how it is possible not to do such a test), but did not reach unequivocal results and therefore did not publish them. As you said, it is quite possible that in another decade or two the lizards from the two islands will no longer be able to breed with each other.
Geva,
It is of course possible that this is an ancient gene system that has been preserved. But in this case we must also ask why the same gene system was not externalized in other lizards that need it. It should also be noted that any evolution can be explained in this way, including the resistance of insects to man-made poisons, which they and their ancestors were never exposed to in nature.
Either way, it seems to me that this is an overly complicated answer, and unprovable based on morphology alone. We already have a theory that explains the results in a simple way. I see no reason to switch to other theories that are very difficult to prove, when the theory of evolution can explain the results in such a beautiful way.
One way to prove the 'origami DNA' theory (which can 'fold' and externalize new-old genes each time according to the demands of the environment) would be to check the complete DNA sequences of the organisms in question. In humans, for example, we did not discover silenced genes that are just waiting to be expressed according to circumstances, but we did discover a variety of degenerate genes that accompanied us during our evolution (different types of hemoglobin, for example). Such genes may be responsible for rapid evolutionary processes, since they are already 'semi-perfect', and only a relatively small number of mutations are needed to bring them into action - for better or for worse. Either way, this is also evolution, which relies on genes that have degenerated during evolution, and require repeated evolution to change and return to activity.
Hill:
You can wonder about anything, but there is a long distance between that and offering things that are clearly illogical as a substitute for something that you only have doubts about.
If you didn't understand this before I hope that the fact that you can't answer my questions helped you.
I guess you wanted to hurt me again with the allergy stories but in your heart you know that I didn't show even one sign of mental failure in my words.
You didn't point out anything to me that I hadn't noticed before, but for my part you can think so - it really doesn't interest me. Yes, I am interested in you seeing the error in the idea of creation.
These things are also referred to the spring to a certain extent.
I don't think any of the supporters of evolution close their minds to new ideas, but the ideas raised here were rejected because they are wrong - not because they are new (on the contrary - they are older than evolution and the fact that they are still with us indicates the closure of others)
Geva, please look for some material on gene expression.
Outbreaks as you call them only occur when the organism is on the brink of a kidney and not randomly in time. Since expression of the genes becomes partly random, we may be lucky to see some of the phenomena described, it is certainly possible that many lizard mutations have died out in the process.
To answer the many questions that arise here, you need to know whether there is a change in the lizards' genetic code (the DNA itself) or just a change that resulted from gene expression and a change in dietary habits (to answer this question, you need to conduct an experiment under more controlled conditions than you have ever visited in 36 years) .
The experiment is very impressive, but raises many questions about the nature of the change that took place in the lizards.
It is quite possible that if lizards eat different food, their development will be different (this is also a result of gene expression), things need to be examined in depth. We need to check whether this experiment can be reproduced (science certainly has a lot of patience after 36 years).
We will definitely expect surprises.
Michael
I apologize if I caused you an allergic attack
And I understand that when you are in an allergic attack it is a bit difficult to think
I hope I may have made you think a little about the problematic nature of the article
Maybe the title of the article was a bit bombastic
I have to admit that I don't know the answers to your questions
Something that does not diminish my doubts
Grace
If indeed there were ancient genes here, it is likely that we see their outbreaks in other populations of lizards, and the article states that there are none
How does it happen that an ancient garden suddenly appears and helps to survive without it trying to peek every now and then even when there is no need.
The strangest thing is that several changes happened here at the same time that were not observed elsewhere and all of them help the lizard eat plants.
It was not written if the ability to produce offspring was tested between the 2 populations of the lizards, the original and the one that underwent changes.
If such a test shows that the ability to produce offspring has been impaired, is this not significant evidence that a new species has been created?
If in 36 years it still hasn't happened, maybe we'll wait a little, another jubilee years and then we'll foresee such a situation.
Also a small note,
Perhaps the theory of evolution is not perfect and it raises difficult difficulties for which there is currently no solution that satisfies everyone, this does not mean that it should be abandoned and on the other hand it does not mean that other ideas should not be objectively examined.
At the end we will synthesize and get a more comprehensive theory.
Mental fixation, in any direction, is a trap that should not fall into.
Merry christmas,
Ami:
I respect your request for a cultural discussion, but when you bring personal examples, I ask you not to ignore the facts.
I didn't write "you just react without thinking".
It is true that this response was given as a response to a laconic and decisive statement on my part, but my statement was completely to the point and its brevity stemmed, apart from the shortness of time, also from the fact that the response to which I was responding was a creationist response and I am already allergic to this strange phenomenon (however, I did not go as far as referring to a person and spoke only to the point). Let's just say I have a guess as to the motivation behind determining the list of names in brackets.
While I was in the gym I was also thinking about the argument that Chen brought about the possibility of reactivating an old gene system - I thought that when I came back I would write it but when I came back Chen had already written it.
However, I repeat that it can be a small change with a big result. Such things also happen in nature (remember the example that came up here many times about the nylon digestion gene?).
Mutations exist non-stop - in fact every person has several and their probability is not small. What is smaller is the probability of a mutation having a significant effect, but these also occur occasionally and when they occur, they occur all at once and not gradually. Therefore, it is possible that we are witnessing here an event whose probability is low (a fact also confirmed by the simple finding that, despite our many searches, we have not yet found such a clear example in the past).
One more thing for the hill, to finish.
How, in your opinion, does that miraculous entity or mechanism determine when and how they should intervene?
Why was there so much concern for these specific lizards and not for extinct species?
An interesting experiment they presented to me on gene expression in yeast raises another point and perhaps explains others.
Sometimes a change in an animal is not reflected in a change in the genetic code but in the expression of the genes, that is, it is possible that the valves in question are an ancient "lizard" genetic code that was once common among more ancient lizards, due to the environmental conditions on the island of origin there was no need for the same "code" and simply in the process of natural clarification Lizards in which this code was not expressed had an advantage that made them survive.
Similarly, when the group of lizards was transferred to another island, the lizards in which these genes are again expressed have a higher survival capacity and therefore survived the natural barra.
I'm not here to argue about evolution, God forbid, but the opposite. But it is important to remember that gene expression causes far-reaching evolutionary changes in animals long before real genetic change occurs. The evidence that supports my words is that there exist in the world lizards with such valves (and they all have a common ancestor).
It is possible that this is the result of a new genetic sequence, but this was not stated in the article, it was only stated that valves were created that exist in other species of reptiles.
I have to partially agree with heretic ermac, creating new genes is very slow. I would be happy if someone adds material on the subject about observational evidence of this.
Did anyone read in the article about a change in the genetic code that occurred in lizards?
If so, I would appreciate more details.
There is no proof of evolution here for a number of reasons-
1) It is discussed in changes of existing genes and not new component genes - bigger head, stronger bite. 2) In relation to the new anatomical structures this requires an examination - has a new gene been created here? Because if so we are in a problem - from studies I have seen beneficial combinations appear one in 60^10 Combinations of genes are possible (also according to Shannon's information theory). Hence the mutation was probably intentional.
3) Even if a new gene was created here, it should be remembered that a new multi-gene system did not appear here. And this is what evolution is supposed to show
4) Even if the mutation that appeared was useful at an amazing rate of 10 percent, it will disappear as if it had not been, this is because of the percentage of diploid extinction. And in fact it is considered a neutral mutation. From data I have seen only one in 10000 neutral mutations spread in an average population and only after about 100000 years!
Geva,
The process of survival and natural selection is happening all the time. I'm just throwing out numbers now, but if we say that every year several hundred new lizards are born, and ten of them are better adapted to the environment than others, then they will survive 10% longer than the others. Each lizard spawns dozens of new lizards every year, so even the small change in survival of 10% leads to a large amount of lizards with the new trait. This amount is increasing every year, until it constitutes the majority (or all) of the population.
That is, even minor changes that contribute a few percentages to the lizard's survival, will result in the distribution of its new feature in the population over time. And although for us 36 years is not a long time, for the lizards it is a very long period of time, because each lizard spawns twice a year.
Two examples of minimal changes and their effect on survival:
1. Increasing the bite force, to obtain plant food. Those who lack this feature will be able to eat less plants, will be more hungry, thinner and weaker. That is, less chance to survive and/or produce many offspring.
2. Internal 'lugs' in the intestine that slow down the passage of plant food, thus allowing more efficient digestion of the food, and more nutrients can be absorbed in the intestine. Those who do not have this feature, again, will be hungrier, thinner and weaker.
Roy
Where in the process of expansion that you described comes into play the process of survival, the destruction of the unfit?
Indeed, in a process that lasted 36 years, such a process cannot be described
And it is not possible to understand the gradual construction of jaws
And this begs the question, so how did it happen anyway?
And there are no signs of the beginning of a process in other lizard populations.
(sorry for the language and style, I'm just in a hurry)
Interesting article. Thank you.
I am not directing my words to any of the commenters above (and in any case not to Roy, Geva, Point, Adam Adom or Matan) but: it seems to me that a little modesty and mutual respect will not harm anyone. Science is indeed a mass profession and devoid of manners, but it is appropriate to try to come to terms with one another in a respectful manner. Usually, in order for a person to be able to say something decisive and completely rule out the other person's opinion, that person needs to have many receipts and years of research (and preferably some Nobel Prize somewhere in the background).
Wishing you a pleasant dealing with the heavy heat,
Ami Bachar
Ami,
right. I will, and thanks for the correction.
"...the theory of evolution is a theory that has already been proven in many spot experiments..."
Experiments do not prove anything.. they can only disprove.
Geva,
Any change in itself is minimal. We see the result of many such changes, which amount to an active structure. Since it is understandable why any such small change in itself is beneficial to the lizard, I see no reason to dismiss evolution or immediately look for new mechanisms for how it works.
As for the explanation of the rapid evolution, I repeat that the size of the population at the beginning of the experiment could have contributed to this rapid evolution. The size of the population is of great importance, when trying to think what the rate of spread of a certain mutation within it will be. The small number of lizards at the beginning of the experiment can explain rapid evolution because it is enough for one of them to develop a mutation, and from there it can quickly spread to many lizards (as opposed to the situation where one lizard out of millions of existing lizards develops a mutation, and then the mutation takes a long time to spread to the rest, if at all).
Regarding the head and jaw, these are also changes that most likely occurred gradually, with a gradual improvement in the strength of the bite. I don't see what the problem is with them.
Roy
If indeed the change was so minimal then it contradicts the bombastic headline
that this change proves evolution.
The fact that a small number of lizards arrived does not explain rapid evolution
Because the more lizards there are, the greater the chance of mutation
But after a mutation has occurred it doesn't matter how many normal lizards there are
Because they will disappear anyway according to Hi
The survivors. And what if the head and the jaw are all minor changes?
Geva,
The development of such cicatricial valves could be extremely simple, especially given the fact that only five pairs of lizards were transferred to the new island. It is enough that one beneficial mutation occurred in one of the pairs, which resulted in the creation of small bumps inside the intestines. Those bumps delayed the food moving through the gut, thus giving the lizards more time to digest it, even without the help of the microbes. In the next stage, the microbes also joined, and the protrusions became more and more perfected until they reached a specialized level of valves. Each such 'upgrade', in turn, gave a survival and cultural advantage to the lizards who were endowed with it. There is nothing here that contradicts the theory of evolution.
Regarding the speed of evolution, it can be due to several factors. It seems to me that it is mainly the result of the transfer of only five pairs of lizards to a completely new island, with very different living conditions. The many new environmental pressures, together with the speed with which a single mutation can spread through the population, apparently resulted in the rapid evolution.
The great objection of those who are called "creationists", and I refer only to those
who do not treat the Torah as the words of God, stems from the statistical difficulty of creating such complex creatures and within the creatures such complex organs and processes, in the given period of time in the invention of mutations.
This article refers to a segment of development that took place in 36 years
When there is no document for the process, there is only a result.
A process that even more arouses the wonder, how in such a short period of time such a process took place?
This greatly strengthens the initial question.
What they are doing is a simple exercise, they say: if the processes are so complex and took place in 36 years, there is no problem in proving everything else.
They took a section and turned it into a symbol and built a tower to it.
But the big question that is asked here is how in such a short period of time such significant things happened.
Michael
You are really fixed
I was released from the evolution interview, because that's where I come from
There are too many difficult questions to which the Darwinists, led by Richard Dawkins
They did not provide satisfactory and logical answers
Therefore, an article like this should open your and mine's eyes regarding the expressiveness of evolution.
Your evasion of trying to deal with the missing or trying to disprove a theory because the alternative is not clear, is ridiculous
No science would develop with this approach
And besides, I wasn't talking about any prophetic ability,
I did not claim that this mysterious creator knows the future
I wrote that it seems that a solution to the problem created in the field has been provided.
If this species of lizards will continue to survive or not, here I definitely agree with you, survival will be determined.
(pleasant fitness)
Geva - The article treats the whole thing with wonder because there is indeed a case of faster development than expected.
Part of the wonder expressed in these things is actually an expression of joy that we were lucky enough to see the processes in action.
This does not say anything about the complexity of the mechanism and in my opinion it is a fairly simple mechanism.
This whole debate shows how hard it is for people to free themselves from ideas of intelligent creation and guided hands of sorts.
When things happen slowly we are told that there was no chance that evolution would lead to the multitude of life forms and when they happen quickly we are told that it is impossible for evolution to work so quickly.
All of this while ignoring the fact that there is no explanation for this type of intentional factor but rather a complication because instead of explaining the development of the valve we now have to explain the development of that factor, its prophetic ability and much more.
This.
I'm going to the gym now.
The responses should be numbered
Machel
But I'm only talking about the chances of a beneficial mutation forming
Michael
I don't know and neither do you
But the article treats with great wonder the development of the valve
and states in detail that there is no such valve among all lizards
This valve is the highlight of the study
So I guess it's not just a bump
Hill:
You didn't understand what I said about the size of the population.
I wasn't talking about the chances of the mutation forming (which might have been high anyway) but about the chances of it becoming public domain.
You should read the things you comment on.
Hill:
Wrong again.
Any addition of bump or roughness that inhibits the passage of food is helpful in this case.
I do not know what the structure of the valves in question is. Maybe these are just bumps? You know?
vice versa
In a large population there are more mutations and more changes as a result of matings, therefore the smaller the population, the lower the chances of changes that will suit the needs of the environment
By the way, if you add to this the fact that in the beginning it was a very small population, the ability of a beneficial trait to spread among the entire population becomes even more understandable.
How a single mutation can create a valve
instead of the previous comment:
Will you agree with me, Michael, that when the formation process of such a valve begins, it is initially inactive and ineffective, so according to your method, since the formation process has a disadvantage, it will disappear, so how is it that a complex structure is created in the environment that needs it, and there are no signs of this in other environments
Hill:
I say wrong because your words are not true.
There is no need for that obviously illogical mechanism of a system capable of understanding the problems and finding the appropriate solutions for them when natural selection explains things easily (and I explained how).
Each of these traits could have developed in a single individual easily and it is possible that each of them is even the result of a single mutation or even that the entire change is due to a single mutation.
You will agree with me Michael that when the formation process of such a valve is contained in the beginning it is inactive and ineffective then according to your method since the formation process has a disadvantage it will disappear then how is it that a complex structure is formed in the environment that created it and there are no signs of this in other environments
To Michael
Based on what you say is wrong
When the article in the spread says so about the digestive system
You just react without thinking
Continue to previous comment
The following section further strengthens my claims:
"Lizards have developed cecal valves that cause food to pass slowly and thus allow microbes to break down the harder-to-digest food. These structures exist in less than a percent of all scaly reptiles and were never discovered in the original population or in other lizards of this species." (free quote from the article)
And suddenly, when the need was discovered, within 36 years these wonderful lizards managed to develop these wonderful valves. And all this from one pair of lizards.
I assume that these valves are not so simple and therefore they had to be created in several stages and not at once...perhaps dozens of stages, perhaps hundreds of stages.
And all this happens only here, only with this couple, who exactly need this miraculous process and quickly, and there are no signs of similar processes (according to the article) in other lizards.
So how does this prove that evolution works?
This article puts a big question mark about our knowledge of how and how changes in nature occur
Geva,
Not true.
The mutations also occur in the original species, but they do not gain priority there, but on the contrary - a disadvantage. As a result, they themselves become public domain.
This is exactly the mechanism of natural selection.
Evolution consists of two parts: First, the creation of different mutations in a random way. and then the survival of the mutations more suited to the environment.
What this article proves is that survival does work.
But the big question that is asked is how in 36 years such big changes were able to occur, when, I assume, there is no evidence of these changes happening in the original population as well. (meaning they only start to occur when there is a problem)
This article more acutely raises the question of how such changes can take place in such a short time.
It seems as if there is some internal mechanism or external intent that is aware of the predicament the species is in and finds a way out
solve the problem that has arisen.
What about Aerowax? Has anyone heard from him?
The Jews also underwent rapid evolution. In 100 years we have become the dumbest nation. with channel 2.
giving,
I couldn't find any relevant images without copyright. You can find pictures of the cical valves in the article itself. If you have access to PNAS, you can find the article there.
A similar claim of extremely rapid evolution also exists regarding the findings of the dwarf human bones discovered on the island of Palau. The main claim there is that the descendants of humans with normal height and weight found themselves trapped on the small island of Palau, in Southeast Asia, when the food supply that was available to the population was much lower than what they were used to. Therefore, over the course of hundreds or at most several thousand years, this human population became a population of dwarfs (about half the height of normal humans), their skull structure also changed. The transformation into dwarfs was caused in order to burden the general population less with private food consumption, due to the constant lack of food, as mentioned.
Is there a situation for pictures???