Responses to the article 1:0 in favor of evolution

1:0 for the benefit of evolution: the mutation that led to the creation of the light receptors in primitive eyes was discovered - an article that received many reactions. I moved them all to a new page, for ease of reading

For the article, byRoey Tsezana

  1. Mike 23-10-2007 | 2:33 |
  2. What are genetic pathways that allow hydras to sense light?
    Like, it's not clear, she's blind but she reacts to light?

  3. Ori

    23-10-2007 | 7:37 |

    "1:0 in favor of evolution"... tired of the fruitless debate between creationists and believers in evolution. After all, it is clear that those who choose creationism cannot be convinced through science (because the choice is not logical!) and therefore, it is a waste of our strength. Let's just decide that we ignore them and peace be upon Israel.
    Good Day,
    Ori

  4. Roy Cezana

    23-10-2007 | 7:39 |

    Mike –
    This is a good question, and the wording here is indeed problematic (so in the original English).
    I believe the explanation is that the hydra does not have complex organs for sight, like real eyes. All it has is the opsin gene, and a relatively simple primitive pathway that makes it possible to transmit the 'signal' that is received when light hits the opsin.
    In more modern organs for absorbing light, such as the eyes, there are many additional mechanisms to improve the absorption of light, to process it quickly, to protect against excess light, etc.

    So the hydra is not really blind - it can sense light, but apparently it cannot receive complex messages from it, which are possible with more advanced organs for receiving light.

  5. Ofer

    23-10-2007 | 7:40 |

    There is no such thing as an assistant professor, assistant prof is the entry level in academia in the US that is equivalent to a "senior lecturer" in Israel (the next step is associate prof, which is a fellow professor).

  6. Roy Cezana

    23-10-2007 | 7:50 |

    Ori -
    The belief of the creationists is indeed based in the original on faith and nothing else. However, the debate between creationists and evolution is based on rational arguments on both sides. One of the main arguments of creationists is about the complexity of the eye. They claim that it is impossible for an organ as complex as the eye, where each part relies on the other but is useless on its own, to have been created through a process of gradual evolution (even if it is based on natural selection).
    Usually, those who study evolutionary biology in depth come across a wide variety of different animals throughout evolution, and see how their eyes developed gradually. Here we encounter what can be called the 'primordial eye', and the source of the ability to see in evolution.
    This gives additional evidence to the theory of evolution, and the issue is actually important, because people can be convinced with logic and evidence. Beyond that, this is the only way, in my opinion, to convince people. If we simply sit quietly and ignore everyone who does not think like us, then we will miss important problematic points they raise against evolution (and they must be resolved in order to confirm evolution). Worse than that - those who are silent, do not have the ability to influence and change things in society. The silence of the scientists is probably the reason why one of the US states passed a law that allows creationism to be taught in schools as a science equivalent to evolution, for the rest of the world.

    Long response. I hope you enjoyed the article.

  7. Roi_Cezna

    23-10-2007 | 8:00 |

    Ofer -
    A senior lecturer is defined in Israel as Senior lecturer. In the Hebrew Academy, as you mentioned, there is simply no Assistant Professor position.
    Since I saw in the Hebrew CVs of several professors that they served as 'Assistant Professor at **** University', I preferred to translate the term this way. In the end, although the position may be parallel to the senior lecturer position, I suppose there are differences between them, and it is better not to confuse one with the other.

    Thanks for the attention and correction.

  8. Nir

    23-10-2007 | 12:08 |

    1:0 for evolution???

    Before it was 79263476:0 for evolution.
    Now 79263477:0

    Good Day

  9. י

    23-10-2007 | 16:06 |

    As a believer in creation, I see no contradiction between the theory of evolution and belief in creation.
    Do we believe that the first man was born as an adult and so were the trees, rivers and mountains (and coal and oil) etc. So even if the theory of evolution is correct it still does not necessarily contradict the belief in creation.
    Even those who believe in the theory of evolution do not have a clear answer as to where it all started. Who created the thick soup of hydrogen? Who established the laws of physics and mathematics, etc. And of course who designed and established the theory of evolution.
    So the theory of evolution does not contradict the belief in creation but only explains according to human logic that at a certain point millions or billions of years ago there was a possibility of gradual development and nothing else. but does not explain what happened before that point.
    Today, with the development of the computing world, we can parallelize and understand that just as we are able to create a whole world (virtual-seem, second life as an example) at a late point, the Creator of the world can also create the world at a certain starting point along with the laws of evolution that will apply from that point on.

  10. biologically

    23-10-2007 | 16:17 |

    Biochemical pathways that make it possible to sense light are like biochemical pathways that make it possible to sense smell, for example. Substances scattered around the world react with all kinds of things, we have developed a mechanism that is actually able to analyze an image based on light, but for example in the sense of smell or the sense of taste it is all about the fact that certain receptors located in the right organ pick up particles that are scattered in the air and create a biochemical reaction.
    Similar to the sense of the hydras described in the article, there are all kinds of senses in the natural world that we are far from grasping. Flies are able to sense the horizon line, bees are able to see ultraviolet (and thus instead of seeing the colors of a flower, if you see the nectar tracks on it), various insects are able to sense if they are on food or poison with the tips of their legs...

  11. age

    23-10-2007 | 18:16 |

    The whole article is based on extrapolation hypotheses, which I don't know where to start. I actually studied biology, so I will respond about the development of the eye. The researchers conclude that mutation mutations in a duplicated gene can lead to a new functional gene. an active site and a surveillance site and an activator site and an allosteric control site and a methylation mechanism) and therefore there may be about 100^100 possible combinations (higher than the number of electrons in the universe). How many of them can be used as a light receptor (photoreceptor)? A hundred trillion? A hundred quadrillion? We wouldn't be able to get them even if the entire universe was infested with organisms on each individual planet for a trillion years, when every second the creatures reproduce and with each reproduction about a thousand mutations occur!
    What's more, there is no way to pass from a replicating gene to another gene, since a change is required in all control areas of various kinds (what I mentioned) and among them are trillions of garbage situations - therefore evolution will never be possible! Yours very much appreciated.

  12. Roy Cezana

    23-10-2007 | 18:39 |

    Hello Gil -
    First of all I would like to point out that the article describes the results of the study on the tip of the fork. If you would like to examine the methods by which the researchers reached their conclusions, I suggest you go to the link to the original news.

    And now regarding your claim -
    I also studied biology, and there is a lot of evidence about duplicated genes that have mutated and are now used in different roles. For example, there is a different hemoglobin for fetuses and adults, and science currently believes that these are genes that have duplicated and mutated until each of them now serves a different function.

    Your argument about the unlikely statistics of the proteins only takes into account the final product. You yourself say that your protein, which consists of 100 amino acids, includes an active site, a surveillance site, an activator site, an allosteric control site and a methylation mechanism. But what about a much simpler protein, which in the process of evolution goes through changes and more and more roles are added to it?
    In this case, the chances are much higher that such a protein will be created and find a use for it.

    Besides that, don't forget that in nature there are many cases where genes connect with each other as a result of a mutation, creating a new protein consisting of a combination of the two genes. I don't see a problem with the claim that genes coding for very simple proteins that contain very simple sites will join together and create a more complex protein. The chance of that, you will surely agree with me, is very high given enough time...
    And here we have the finished protein, the light receptor.

    Good day to you.

  13. age

    23-10-2007 | 19:17 |

    Hello Roy. It's nice to see that there are guys here who have learned a thing or two (unlike other places where I write on a regular basis). And regarding "and there is a lot of evidence regarding duplicated genes that have undergone mutations and now they are used in different roles" - if you are talking about genes that evolved in bacteria (nylon digestion, decomposition enzymes, etc.), so it does not belong to the evolution of larger creatures (mammals, reptiles, etc.) since the bacterial culture rate is trillions of orders of magnitude higher. )."For example, there is a different hemoglobin for fetuses and adults" - this is a homologous gene, so again it is not a question of the formation of a gene with a new function." And science currently believes that these are genes that have duplicated and mutated until each of them now serves a different function" - the key word here is " I believe" and that is what the discussion revolves around. I argue and reason why this is not possible.
    "Your argument about the unlikely statistics of the proteins only takes into account the final product. You yourself say that your protein, which consists of 100 amino acids, includes an active site, a surveillance site, an activator site, an allosteric control site and a methylation mechanism. But what about a much simpler protein, which in the process of evolution undergoes more and more changes and more and more roles are added to it?" - Not accurate.. The benefit of any gene, which folds into a spatial structure with a specific purpose, is only achieved given the entire context of the various control regions, and therefore we need all The above.

    "I don't see a problem with the claim that genes coding for very simple proteins that contain very simple sites will join together and create a more complex protein. The chance of that, you will surely agree with me, is very high" - no, and I explained why - what is the chance that a functional gene will appear from the union of 2 DNA segments, let's say 100 amino acids in length? Let's take the milk system as it developed, so to speak, in evolution - let's say that mammals already have a mammary gland and a duct Milk. What is the chance of winning complementary colostrum milk? What is the chance of winning a complementary receptor after that? And the hormone that activates the aforementioned receptor? Even if there are a trillion sequences that create all of the above, they constitute zero squared from an astronomical space of 100^20 combinations, therefore Evolution in the above system will not be possible. Regards.. Gil.

  14. Benjamin May

    23-10-2007 | 19:44 |

    The small difference between ignorance and irrationality

    When I have to choose between evolution and creationism
    There are two possibilities: the first is
    A long road full of bumps, which begins, as
    As noted by one of the writers here, "a thick soup of hydrogen"
    And Supa may be an evolving human race or creatures
    Big ones with a cockroach - or (if you want) a nasty cockroach.
    There is no doubt that the other possibility, which claims its existence
    of a "creator" or higher power, more sorceress and there is
    And it has a solution for every bump and drop along the way
    which she offers - except that she contradicts
    My way of thinking (and maybe not only that..)
    In two essential matters:
    The first thing is "Ockham's Razor", which determines
    that the way to decide on the right one between two options
    that we don't know enough about is quite simple:
    Choose the option that involves the least discounts
    - and indeed to believe in the possibility of evolution we have to
    to receive a very large number of discounts - but to receive
    the possibility of the existence of a capable "creator" or "creator".
    To create a person - we have to make several assumptions
    Greater than that of evolution itself - which it created in the end
    of speaking the person.
    The second problem with the existence of the "creator" or "creator"
    She, whose very existence raises the thought of the existence of
    A "creator" greater and more powerful than him (who created him)-
    And brings us, in the end, to infinity
    Creators, that everyone is "all-powerful" - and still all-powerful
    The former among them is stronger, more powerful, and more powerful than its predecessor
    (since he created it), hence a double contradiction (and this
    Only in the second problem I posed...).

  15. Roy Cezana

    23-10-2007 | 19:46 |

    "It is a homologous gene, so again it is not a question of the formation of a gene with a new function."

    The different hemoglobin genes have different functions. They all transfer oxygen, but some bind it more strongly than others, and without them the fetus would have a serious problem of 'robbing' oxygen from the mother. The gene in this case replicated, changed and got a new function.
    There are other examples of genes that have duplicated and acquired other functions. Of course, it is impossible to prove beyond any doubt that these genes are duplicated - but this is the most logical assumption, beyond "God created the genome this way, because he felt like it".

    "The benefit of any garden, which folds into a spatial structure with a specific purpose, is only achieved given the entire context of the various control areas, and therefore we need all of the above."

    You are referring to the benefit we receive today from a certain shield. How do you know that in the past it didn't have a different and simpler role, and that's where the basis for that protein came from?
    By the way, you are probably aware that in today's genetic engineering it is easy to take a certain gene, cut out of it the site with a protein that does a certain action, and attach it to a protein that does another action. As a result, you get a protein with a new function that works in a different way. A similar process occurs through viruses, which alternate and splice segments of chromosomes. Mutations of this type are created all the time during evolution, and if they are useful, then they will be preserved in the process of natural selection.

    "And I explained why - what is the chance that a functional gene will appear from the union of 2 DNA segments, let's say 100 amino acids long?"

    Not high, but I already explained that the functionality of a garden is determined every time. I don't see a problem that a gene will be created that codes for a very basic protein, and that this protein will become more and more complex as evolution progresses through natural selection - perhaps by splicing with other genes, as I have already explained. Why is it so difficult to think of a gene that was duplicated, then with the help of random mutations and splicing of other genes, got a very basic new function? If such a basic protein consists of only 10 or 20 amino acids, for example, then there is a good chance that this will happen.

    "Let's take the milk system as it developed, as it were, in evolution - let's say that the mammals have already gained a mammary gland and a milk duct. What is the chance of gaining milk from complementary udders? What is the chance of gaining a complementary receptor after that? And the hormone that activates the aforementioned receptor?"

    Again, you are taking the perfect system here, as it is today. There are many theories of evolution, and some claim that significant stages of evolution occurred in very short periods, with very specific environmental pressures. In these cases, there is a chance to receive a loan that has changed significantly over a short period of time.

    In conclusion -
    I can't tell you for sure that evolution does exist, because I can't go back in time and document it. However, following all the evidence accumulated in our genome and in the fossils we find, I can say with certainty that currently evolution, with all the problems and gaps it still has, is the most successful scientific theory that man has about the origin of species.

  16. borrowed

    23-10-2007 | 22:46 |

    It is always pointed out that a religious scientist cannot be objective because he supposedly has a conclusion that he must reach or alternatively he has a conclusion that he must not reach. When you read the article and the comments, you see that even a non-religious scientist is bound to the conclusion that he must reach... basically, everyone has basic assumptions: some admit it and some don't.
    Bottom line: there is nothing preventing a religious person from believing in evolution. After all, even those who believe that G-d created the world are allowed to ask themselves what are the processes that G-d 'used' until the final result. The difference between the believer and the unbeliever will only be where science has no way to explain the skips. The religious will find God there, and the atheist will write applications for grants to conduct research that will help him continue to adhere to his worldview...

  17. age

    23-10-2007 | 23:35 |

    Summary-"You refer to the benefit we receive today from a certain shield. How do you know that in the past it didn't have a different and simpler role, and that's where the basis for that protein came from?" - If today we know that for the gene that creates colostrum milk, we need all the amino acids, then it is impossible that it once consisted of a smaller number of acids - that is He was never milk and therefore could not be useful in the milk system. So how was his milk made? What is the minimum number of acids needed for a minimum milk fluid suitable for ovulation + differentiation to the gene that produces milk only for the breasts and not anywhere else in the body + controlled timing of milk production only In a pregnant female? Do you think 50 amino acids would be enough? How many other milk-producing combinations exist? A trillion? A trillion squared? These are zero numbers out of 50^20 possible combinations, and therefore we cannot accept them even in the evolution that lasts for a trillion years of mutation scanning.

  18. Roy Cezana

    24-10-2007 | 6:40 |

    Shaul -
    I think that the main problem is not necessarily the belief in God, but the belief in the Bible. Those who believe in the Bible in a literal form (as is the case in the USA) find it difficult to accept another explanation for the creation of the world other than the 'six days of creation'. In this case, it is difficult to fit the theory of evolution into the story, because it requires hundreds of millions of years of variation.

    Age –
    You return to the same point, but still refuse to accept that system development can be gradual. The initial milk could equally well have been amniotic fluid or some type of secreted fat - something that can be found without serious differentiation in the direction, and babies can digest even without differentiation on their part. As this direction in evolution proved to be more successful, organisms with slightly richer milk evolved. Regarding the timing of the milk, etc. - it is about several genes that create several proteins. There is no reason to believe that everything lies in one very complicated gene. Throughout evolution, more and more genes and proteins joined - by mistake and slowly - the process of milk development, its location in the body, its timing, etc.

  19. borrowed

    24-10-2007 | 8:17

    Roy,
    Thanks for treatment.

    Your words are completely acceptable to me. If we widen the canvas we will find that the contradiction you are standing on (regarding the concepts of time according to the Bible as opposed to these concepts in science) arises more strongly from cosmology and to a greater extent from biology. The cosmology on the one hand 'pushes' for singularity, which not only for me is associated with the belief in one God (although, the extreme believers in modern string theory insist on claiming that new universes are constantly created by themselves at the same time...), but on the other hand it talks about orders of magnitude of time of 14 A billion years.

    Addressing the Bible in a dry, literal way - and especially in relation to the first sections of the story of creation - was already explicitly opposed by Rambam and many more after him.

    In conclusion: science is so beautiful in itself. Please let everyone deal with 'proper' science, and the interpretation that he will leave to the viewers. Every time I read an article that doesn't hold back and adds an ideological interpretation to scientific conclusions - of any kind - it reminds me of the Soviet scientists during Stalin's time who always had to come to a conclusion from any research about the superiority of the Marxist method and the decline and decay of the West.

    It's time to grow up…

  20. Roy Cezana

    24-10-2007 | 8:37 |

    Shaul -
    Judaism treats interpretations of the Torah in a more forgiving way than Christianity. Although I also oppose the introduction of ideological interpretations into scientific articles, we live in an era where there is no other choice in the US. The Christian religion tries to impose a fixation on the system and its opinion only, which is not based on scientific evidence. Science, on the other hand, tries to impose its own opinion - which is definitely based on scientific evidence, and has already shown countless contributions to humanity as a result of the scientific way of thinking.
    Therefore, I actually see positively the attempt to make people see the 'message' in popular science articles. When you are competing for public opinion against the talented orators of Christianity and Judaism, who know how to manipulate people and sway a crowd of fans after them, you have no choice but to use the same tools and stimulate the imagination and appetite of the people, but through science.

  21. Beelzebub

    24-10-2007 | 8:44 |

    An interesting report and I also liked Roy's comments, they are detailed and learned and add to the article

  22. borrowed

    24-10-2007 | 10:11 |

    Roy,

    It seems to me that in your very words you reveal to what extent it is not (!!!) correct to add the researcher's subjective interpretation, because as soon as you add the interpretation by translating the findings into ideological conclusions (whatever ideological they may be), your research becomes suspect in the absence objectivity.

    In other words: just as Judaism or Christianity are essentially 'religions', so atheism itself has become a religion (much more blatant in my view than many other religions) and thus the basis for trust in any conclusion from any research has been undermined.

    Example: Steven Gold's (Head of the Department of Paleontology at Harvard, to the best of my recollection) books on evolution ('Panda's Toe', 'Hail to the Brontosaurus' and more) are amazing in terms of the knowledge revealed in them, and I stopped to read another one that, at least for me, loses all proportion in its obsessive drive to reach any conclusion scientifically to his ideological conclusion - atheism.
    His zeal to convince of his conceptual truths totally reminded me of the evangelical preachers in the USA who passionately preach their ideas. So who decided that he is a more scientific person than them???
    Rather his atheistic fervor casts doubt on the authenticity of his science. It seems to me that only science loses this way, and it's a shame.
    In conclusion, it was possible and desirable to submit the research in a dry form and only to add that there is support in this research, etc. The title and the structure of the article, at least for me, are only harmful.

  23. Roy Cezana

    24-10-2007 | 12:40 |

    Shaul -
    There is truth in what you say, but I believe that scientific interpretation can be divided into two categories.
    The first category is the scientific interpretation given in the articles by the scientists who conducted the studies. If you read scientific articles, you will surely agree with me that the authors of the article are usually very careful in interpreting their results and use as many caveats as possible before they reach an unequivocal conclusion.

    The second category is the interpretation given to the research while it is being communicated to the general public. This interpretation must be less reserved, partly because the general public usually does not delve into the issues in question. A popular article on quantum theory for the general public cannot contain differential equations, and a popular biological article cannot contain full detail about the genetic analysis methods used by the authors of the article. Any such detail will only keep potential readers away from the article.

    It turns out that the scientific world uses much more difficult and reserved language, but the general public accepts the results with less scientific criticism.
    In my opinion, this is required by reality. You cannot convey the science as a whole to the public, without the general public having scientific knowledge in the fields in question - knowledge that usually no one has except the very specific scientists who deal in the aforementioned fields. Real scientific conclusions are obtained from that limited group that deals in the scientific field. The 'enthusiasm' of certain science communicators on certain subjects, or of the media on other scientific subjects, does not reflect on the critical and rigorous scientific attitude that these subjects undergo among the population of scientists.

    So in conclusion - two aspects to science - the research and the publication, and the publication does not affect the research (and it is good that it is, or it was not science but an ideology that supports itself).

  24. age

    24-10-2007 | 16:23 |

    I will explain again…” You return to the same point, but still refuse to accept that the development of the system can be gradual. The initial milk could equally have been amniotic fluid or some type of secreted fat" - not accurate, from the moment mammals entered the milk system, the duct and the gland already existed. Now they have to add milk or another nutritious liquid. The point is that there is no Gradualness. You must have some kind of nutritious liquid (it must be liquid + sugar or nutritious protein), and this is in order to exponentially dominate the population. Moreover, you must have some kind of differentiation mechanism, so that the production of milk will be only in the breasts and, God forbid, in the rest of the body. (otherwise The female will die because she will secrete milk from her entire body). Therefore you must have all the impressive minimalistic functions mentioned above and there is nothing to do with gradualness. Therefore you remain with the same orders of magnitude.

  25. Jonathan

    24-10-2007 | 23:26 |

    Roy –
    The very approach of considering evolution versus creationism, in X:Y terms, is correct and welcome. That is, there are complex issues, the decision on which is not simple and trivial, and there may be evidence, or opinions, that lean one way or the other, and both scales must be tested, weighed, and chosen.

    Except that the moment you put 0 next to the rational creation, you discovered that you do not consider anything and that you are forced and forbidden under the belief that you have become accustomed to, and your eyes are blinded by the matter.

    I suggested to you, and to anyone who thinks to examine the issue objectively, without being enslaved to his current faith, that he carefully read the words of Richard Dawkins in his book "The Blind Watchmaker", pp. 19-20 in the Hebrew edition, about the ease and material of a watch, and about the fact that he, Dawkins, He is unable to imagine how it was possible to be an atheist before 1859, the year Darwin's book was published.

    Howie says, first you have to start from 0:0 (objectivity). After that, you must assimilate in your mind all of Dawkins' words in the second chapter of his book, about the "seemingly" intelligent design found in nature in every protein and every mechanism, about how sophisticated the above-mentioned design is, about how the ways of solving problems in that design are similar to intelligent human engineering factories (Dawkins , ibid.), on what is the reason why when we see a watch our mind undoubtedly decides that it is the product of intelligent design, and not because we know from reading or seeing that watches are made in Bihar, but because they are composed of many components, each of which could have infinite values ​​(wheel size teeth, thickness, hole and axis, number of teeth, etc.) but the special thing is that each gear, each screw, each axis and each spring in the clock, each brother of these received values ​​adapted to the common general purpose of the clock, when from a probabilistic point of view the accumulation of all these adjusted values It is infinitely zero, and the theory of probability as it is, quantifies probabilities for us so that we can *consider* in our mind if this turns out. You must understand then (Dawkins, ibid.) how great the light and substance is from a clock to the eye, or to the heart, or to a bat sonar, or to any other biological mechanism, which consists of many, precise, sophisticatedly adjusted components and thousands of counters from each clock.

    Now, if you are a free person, you will understand that the starting point is 1000000000:0 in favor of "intelligent creation".

    Only by understanding the above, will you be able to examine the "plausibility" in favor of evolution.

    For example: there are characteristics in living things that do not exist in clocks - living things reproduce, change randomly in mutations, and are subject to natural selection, that is - evolutionary mechanism belongs in living things and not in clocks.

    is that so? Does the complex nature of biological mechanisms support the possibility of their creation from random mutations in an evolutionary mechanism? Are there intermediate routes of "small advantageous steps" between one functional system and a system with different functionality? Is it because it is likely, for example, that a random mutation can cause a functional improvement in an existing system, do we therefore believe that a chain of random mutations can lead to a system with different functionality? In watches, computers, or any complex electronic system, is it possible to add one component after another, slightly change existing components, etc., and gradually move from a watch to a computer, with each step improving the function in some way? Is it even possible to think of a gradation between a watch and a computer, between a sweat system and a breastfeeding system, or between a few simple systems that allegedly existed in the beginning of life, to the many existing biological systems? What is the size of the possible concatenation spaces (10000^20 for a simple system coded with 10 genes)? What is the percentage of garbage scavengers and what percentage of scavengers in this space are successful systems in any habitat? Do random mutations have the power to cover a permil of a permil of a billionth of a billionth of the end of zero end of the aforementioned space, even in a billion squared imaginary creatures that reproduce a billion times a second, for a billion squared years? And what is the probability that a compound constituting some new system will arise in mutations in the organism and in the habitat where that system may be useful?

    Only by understanding the above (1000000000:0), will you be able to examine the "evidence" in favor of evolution.

    Such as, if we accept as fact, the age of many fossils dating back millions/billions of years. Many jump from here to conclude 1:0 in favor of evolution, but this is vain.

    1) Because it is not 1:0 but 1000000000:1 in favor of evolution, as above.
    2) Because it remains 1000000000:0. The creation vs. evolution debate is not about the Torah of Israel vs. evolution, and 5768 years from creation to today, as the Torah claims, are not at all being discussed.

    And, if we accept as a fact the correlation, which is found in many places, between the age of the geological layers and the complexity of the fossils found in those layers, then apparently we will have 1000000000:1000 (I awarded 1000 points to this argument which is the strongest of the evolution arguments).

    is that so?

    What findings do you think will be obtained if we excavate layers in the Hiria landfill? Are there not electronic processors there that are arranged before the level of complexity, starting from the garbage layers of the sixties until the year 2000? Does the correlation between the layers of freedom and the complexity of the processors indicate, conclusive evidence, or some kind of evidence, that these processors evolved from each other? of course not. As long as we do not have a reasonable mechanism that explains how complex processors can evolve, without intelligent intervention, from each other, then it is clear to us that they are all creations of intelligent engineering. We can only conclude that either those engineers evolved over time, or that for some reason, whatever, they gradually discovered their ability.

    And also regarding the common mantra - "Evolution is an observed fact", which is mainly based on the observed phenomenon of beneficial point mutations in bacteria. Only, and only because the supporters of evolution never understood that the starting point is 1000000000:0, only, and only because of their horrifying mistake that as a starting point they assign a weight of 0 to an intelligent creation, only, and only because against a weight of 0, "evidence" that has a weight of 0 is also good , only because of this we are witnessing this horrifying mental regression, bringing about point mutation phenomena, whose probability of coming sooner or later is 100%, which create neither a new system nor new functionality, and which at best improve the functionality of an existing system, and in other cases protect The strain against a specific antibiotic, as "evidence" for the feasibility of complex development with thousands of coordinated components, timed concerts of dozens or hundreds of genes, each letter of which is precise and compatible with all the others, in the contiguous spaces of 100000^20.

    And not to mention horrifying "evidence" from phenomena such as the well-known "industrial moth butterfly", phenomena in which there was not even a point mutation but only the selection of existing alleles.

    To sum up: only because the believers of evolution put 0 next to creation, and did not internalize Dawkins' words about the light and matter of a watch, and did not internalize the extent to which the design "seems to be apparent" as it were, and never internalized that without a proven theory of evolution, the fact of divine creation shines like the sun and is clear as daylight and rises From every protein and every mechanism, only because for a moment they did not internalize the starting point of 1000000000:0, that is, the burden of proof rests on the theory of evolution, and the weight of evidence in favor of divine creation in their opinion is 0, only because of this in their opinion, the theory of evolution meets the burden of proof - zero burden.

    ======================================

    And as for the quoted article and the evolution of the eye, and whether it is a discharge or not, Gil has already answered you with several answers, and I recommended to you that Review this message with moderation and patience - In the second half, starting with the first link given there, and please follow the links, and you will see some gradual close-ups of a small part of the components of the eye, think about the twin, the interdependence between the components, the amount of genetic code that stands behind each detail, the amount of genetic code that stands even behind The simplest eye spot that is sold to you as the "beginning" of the evolution of the eye, and if you win you will see through and understand what made you come out with a 1:0 announcement. Successfully.

  26. point

    25-10-2007 | 0:44 |

    From those who do not understand the theory of evolution (the creationists) I heard only one claim:
    "I'm afraid"
    All the other syllables and consonants emitted from them come to forget this fact.

  27. Roy Cezana

    25-10-2007 | 19:29 |

    point –
    I believe that most creationists argue from a motive that is perhaps the highest that humans have: the desire to find logic and order in an apparently random system. There are different ways of thinking to reach this logic. Creationists choose God, whose existence is not proven. The scientists choose the scientific method, which has proven itself over and over again throughout history and achieved amazing achievements in all areas of life. Each in his own way.
    In any case, the only way to treat different people in a serious debate is with mutual respect, and not by making accusations.

    for age
    I already explained to you that in your reasoning you only take the final result into account, not the steps along the way. For me this is a sufficient answer, and I hope it will be so for you as well, if you think about it deeply and also use your imagination to conceive some of the steps on the way to the final result.
    I see no point in continuing the discussion with you on this point. It has become a dialogue of the deaf, and I don't believe that one of us will be able to change the other's mind.

    Leontani –
    You formulated a long and detailed answer. I will respond to her paragraph by paragraph.
    "Does the complex nature of biological mechanisms support the possibility of their creation from random mutations in an evolutionary mechanism? Are there intermediate routes of "small advantageous steps" between one functional system and a system with different functionality? Is it because it is likely, for example, that a random mutation can cause a functional improvement in an existing system, do we therefore believe that a chain of random mutations can lead to a system with different functionality? In watches, computers, or any complex electronic system, is it possible to add one component after another, slightly change existing components, etc., and gradually move from a watch to a computer, with each step improving the function in some way? "

    As you probably know, there is a very large amount of 'junk' in DNA - duplicated genes, inactive genes, areas that were once genes but now do not undergo transcription, and on and on. These genes can store a large amount of information that a number of random mutations occurring at the right times and in the right places can 'unlock' at once, thus creating a new function and a whole new pathway at once. Of course, the new route will falter and not be perfect, but these things can undergo selection and evolution over time. The point is, that tracks can indeed be created.
    Beyond that, you must remember that the selection is not always in the direction of the 'good' mutation. The selection can often preserve many mutations that are not essential for the fate of the cell. These mutations can serve as the basis for initial primitive pathways. The pathway is not created all at once in this case, but is based on a number of proteins that until now had no real use in the cell.

    "And yes, if we accept as a fact the correlation, which is found in many places, between the age of the geological layers and the complexity of the fossils found in those layers, then apparently we will have 1000000000:1000 (I awarded 1000 points to this argument which is the strongest of the evolution arguments)."

    You are very generous in distributing your points. Do not forget other points in favor of evolution, such as the fact that new species are definitely created (for example a fly of a new species created in the laboratory). Or perhaps the fact that an amazing similarity can be found in the non-influencing parts of the genome of different organisms - a similarity that should have no reason, if an 'intelligent creator' did indeed create us all. You can also get additional support from experiments in evolution through artificial selection on computers. A very interesting experiment conducted several years ago showed that when a silicon chip is subjected to forced 'evolution', a complex is created in the end that is able to perform tasks more efficiently than the researchers were able to understand. You have another nice proof of the power of evolution through selection. Now you just have to understand that natural selection does not always mean that the strongest/fertile organism is selected, but the organism that is suitable for the time. When you have enough different environments, you can end up creating enough new features in many, many paths.

    "And what findings do you think will be obtained if we excavate layers in the Hiria landfill? Aren't there electronic processors arranged before the level of complexity, starting from the garbage layers of the 2000s until the year XNUMX?"

    Do processors have DNA, as some fossils do, that supports the theory of evolution and connections between them and their descendants? Can processors mate and produce offspring?
    Come on, my friend. Oratory is one thing, but please avoid corny metaphors.

    "And not to mention horrifying "evidence" from phenomena such as the well-known "industrial moth butterfly", phenomena in which there was not even a point mutation but only the selection of existing alleles."

    I refer you to Dobzhansky's famous experiment from 1971, in which a new species of flies was created in the laboratory through evolution and selection. Also, the evolution of a new species of fish from the old species of the tilapia fish, in lakes in East Africa, was studied.

    "In conclusion: only because the believers of evolution put 0 next to creation, and did not internalize Dawkins' words about light and clockwork material, and did not internalize how much design is "seemingly" as his language"

    If Dawkins were dead, he would be turning over in his grave at this point.
    I hope you'll forgive me for saying that you didn't get his point in his book. Dawkins brings out the full complexity of nature, and indeed explains that in a completely random way such complexity cannot be reached. At the same time, the process of evolution is explicitly -=not=- random. Evolution is guided by natural selection, whose requirements change all the time and according to each place and environment. By way of natural selection, we can indeed reach results with a very high level of complexity.
    In fact, Dawkins in his book 'The Blind Watchman' completely dismisses the myth of a random evolutionary process. He gives his own example, which stars a monkey who is placed next to a typewriter. The argument is that if a monkey is given infinite time to tick, then at some point the randomness will lead him to write all of Shakespeare's works. The problem is that this time will be longer than the lifetime of the entire universe.
    But, what if a choice was imposed on the monkey's ticks? What would happen if every time the monkey typed the right letter in the right place, the letter would be saved there, and he would not be allowed to change it anymore? In this case the monkey will tick off all of Shakespeare's works in a very short time.
    Natural selection does not know in advance what the correct letters are and what their correct place is, but it certainly imposes a strong element of neutralizing mistakes from the 'output'. Under the right conditions, it forces the tickling monkey to type only in certain directions, or only certain sentences that will be accepted. And finally, we get a finished piece, after so many spoons and choices.
    Evolution is blind and random. Natural selection is the one that steers it, and as a result there is no point in all the arguments about the zero chance of creating a complex protein or creating a system that depends on its thousands of parts. One can say that there is a 'creator', but he is not an 'intelligent creator'.

    1:0.

  28. borrowed

    25-10-2007 | 20:09 |

    Roy,

    These are celebrations of running discussions here.

    I prefer to continue to focus on the question of ulterior motives.

    The division between scientific publications intended for the scientific community and popular science publications is well known.
    What I meant to say is that when a person writes to the public out of such strong emotions, I really find it hard to believe that at the same time his scientific articles are so objective that even when he has results that 'spoil' him, he will have the courage to present them and admit it.

    To all those interested, I highly recommend the book 'The Lonely Hearts of the Cosmos' by Dennis Overby, which very nicely reviews the development of astronomy in the second half of the last century through the life stories of prominent astronomers. Alan Sandage - one of the seniors - came to believe in God the Creator through his research. What will they say about him? who is a shaky and weak person... on the other hand, a researcher who comes from his research to heresy, is a brave person who follows his research...

    In conclusion: any research can be interpreted in several ways. All emotions only make noise and only divert from the trend. How did that famous speaker write to himself on the page he prepared for himself for the speech: The things here are not convincing, so you have to shout...

  29. Roy Cezana

    25-10-2007 | 22:14 |

    What do I say to you, Saul, and what will I say? Researchers have egos like everyone else, and I am indeed not sure that a researcher who has strong feelings about any subject will publish results that contradict his expectations.
    Fortunately, there are many groups in the world working on any scientific topic, so the scientific method is preserved. And if, God forbid, one of the researchers publishes false results, you can be sure that all the other groups will check his results and find the false claim in them.

    "In conclusion: any research can be interpreted in several ways. All emotions only make noise and only divert from the trend."

    Research by itself is meaningless. Mixing test tubes with no real purpose. The research gets its true meaning from the interpretations obtained from it, which are what move the researchers in the field forward. Still, it's hard to mix test tubes all day without thinking there's some important purpose beyond the daily craft.
    So I don't believe that it is possible to keep emotions away from research, and still get interesting and brilliant research from researchers who are really interested in their work and love it.

  30. Jonathan

    26-10-2007 | 1:26 |

    Roy –

    Sorry for the length. The fault is not mine but the complex issue and the many deceptions that are found.

    "As you probably know, there is a very large amount of 'junk' in DNA..."

    A. not known to me. Please see here:  And personal information - there is a company in Israel that is their entire business, to say the least, they decipher sections of so-called "junk DNA", register patents on them, and laugh all the way to the bank, about the junk DNA joke. These things are said mainly towards repeated sequences that were once called junk by junk scientists, because they did not understand what their role was, and today they have been found to have critical purposes in gene control, and uses in cancer research and medical research in general. And the day of so-called pseudo-genes, so-called residual genes and the like will come and someone will laugh at them on the way to the bank. The concept of junk DNA is a good example of the loss of science, from a proper scientific point of view, which resulted directly from the evolutionary philosophy and paradigm, because if the working assumption was that creation is divine, already 30 years ago the functions of junk DNA would have been deciphered, because they would not have assumed that they were junk.

    B. I do not dispute that there are mutations, random, and that some of them are gene duplications, which with zero frequency, but exist, are determined in the population and actually constitute redundant and dysfunctional DNA. The dispute is about whether these replicated DNA segments can, with random mutations + natural selection, form a successful combination that constitutes a new biological system, and about that in the next comment.

    third. "These genes can store a large amount of information that a number of random mutations occurring at the right times and in the right places can 'open' at once, thus creating a new function and a whole new pathway at once. "

    Where do you draw such faith strength from? "At the right times and in the right places" is a matter of probability. See, in the section you responded to, I emphasized the distinction between improving an existing system and evolving from a system to a system with a different functionality. Think about a programming function, for example, that performs a "paste" operation, let's say. If a mutation occurs in one bit, which determines, let's say, the size of the buffer assigned by the programmer, the buffer will double and it will be an improvement in functionality, let's say. But if we duplicate the code of the function, and allow random mutations in the code, does it turn out that some random mutations will be applied "at the right times and in the right places" and turn the duplicated code into the play_mp3 function? Answer - it does not appear. why? Because this is a different functionality. So what? So there is a big difference in the internal processing of the function. One copies text to a specific buffer, and the other receives the name of a file, passes it to an mp3 reader module, receives output from it and directs it to a specific driver. Even if the internal processing changes in all the "right places", the function will still not be usable, because the parameters it receives are different. The code that determines the parameters in all the "correct places" will also change, it will still not be usable, because the program does not call it with the correct parameters, and so on. If the code of the function, of its parameters, of the places in the program that calls it, that needs to be changed is 10000 English letters long, the space of combinations is of the order of magnitude of 10000^26, and there is no limit to the strength of faith required to believe that in this space the necessary adjusted changes will be applied "at the right times and places The right ones", and the same is true of genes and biological systems with different functionality.

    Which is why Dawkins went to the trouble and wrote an entire chapter in his book called "Accumulation of small changes", in which he emphasizes the fact that evolution can only progress along the path of small advantageous steps. So if we are talking about a small system X, which is encoded by let's say about 10 genes, and which evolution claims it developed from a system Y that has about 10 genes, then what do you propose? Are we to believe that the 10 genes of Y randomly jumped and duplicated? Or two genes from Y, and one from system Z, and three from W and four from M, jumped, and some changes took place in them "at the right times and in the right places" and a new circle was closed and we got a new system X, with new functionality, coded by about 10 new genes, that are operated with a new target organ, with a new special control, etc.? forget about it. This is not a Darwinian evolution of "advantageous small steps".

    And to summarize this point - "There is a very large amount of 'junk' in DNA - duplicated genes, genes that are not active" —— a large amount of junk DNA, if there is such a thing, is likened to a liter of ink. A liter of ink *enables* writing the Encyclopedia Britannica, but this possibility is not enough. Encyclopaedia Britannica will not write from a liter of junk ink.

    And not exactly garbage, but even if you take this message, or your message, or any other message, and change letters randomly, or not randomly, you will not be able to create a new message with a functional message by changing the correct letters in the correct places different. Not just a complete message but even the sentence:

    "The sweat system is based on sweat glands that draw fluids and salts from the blood and secrete them to cool the body"

    You will not be able to change in small steps, while maintaining the syntax and coherence of the message, to the sentence:

    "The breastfeeding system is based on mammary glands and clusters Ships Milk that produces nutritious proteins and sugars and secretes them for nursing babies"

    Because even if in a miraculous mutation the word "sweat" is replaced by the word "milk", you will get:

    "The milk system is based on sweat glands that draw fluids and salts from the blood and secrete them to cool the body"

    which is a clearly improper sentence.

    And although some of the above sentences are the same, only "a few changes in the right places" are needed.

    Try to move from the first sentence in two advantageous small steps, and you will understand what it means changes "in the right places and at the right times" that bring from one functional system to a system with another functionality.

    And the above sentences are the length of a tenth of a gene, and their complexity is infinitely less than the complexity of a gene or 10 genes that make up a functional system.

    =========================================

    "1000000000:1000... don't forget extra points for evolution..."

    No problem, I can find more points in favor of evolution. But I tried in my previous long message to suggest that you not forget the starting point - 1000000000:0 to the detriment of evolution, because the intelligent design, at least "apparently" found in every protein and every mechanism, and because it is as simple as a clock, and because of Dawkins's firm statement that it does not raise In his opinion, how can one be an atheist before the publication of the theory of evolution, that is, if we have two scales here, and if we are not blind about one side, then the starting point, before discussing the plausibility of evolution, is that a huge weight rests on the balance of intelligent design. But you seem to forget that anyway, and still, the weight of evidence in favor of intelligent design, in your eyes, is 0.

    =======================================

    And that's why you continue to load evolution with "evidence" that is only good against weight 0:

    "Such as the fact that new species are definitely created (for example a fly of a new species created in the laboratory)"

    Has one new functional gene been created in the lab? Has a new functional system been created?

    ====================================

    "Or maybe the fact that you can find amazing similarities in the non-influencing parts of the genome of different organisms"

    If you mean "junk DNA", see above.

    ====================================

    "You can also get additional support from experiments in evolution through artificial selection in computers" ——– the topic of evolutionary algorithms is familiar to me. It is about efficient search algorithms, finite and relatively small possibility spaces compared to 10000^20 spaces, most of which are garbage. Such as some kind of pipe, through which the passage of air is supposed to do something, and that this is done better if the pipe is thick in some places and thin in others, and playing with some parameters and in a way of replication, variation, and precise selection, we reach better results than we would have reached with another search algorithm. It is not similar or reminiscent in any way to "intelligent design" as it exists "apparently", in carefully coordinated multi-component biological systems. And for evidence, no one uses evolutionary algorithms to develop new software code from other software code.

    "When you have enough different environments, you can end up creating enough new features in many, many paths."

    Right. The question is what is "enough" and what is "a lot". Let's face it: with regard to a system with 10 genes, whose possible cluster space is 10000x20 clusters, then also a billion per squared species, a billion per squared individuals in each species, multiplying at a rate of a billion per squared generations per second, for a billion per squared year, with 1000 mutations being experienced at each birth News - not even a billionth squared of a billionth squared of zero will cover the edge of a billionth squared of the space of the Hashfarian concatenations for 10 genes. agreed upon? So is that much and is that enough?

    ==========================================

    "If Dawkins was dead, he would be turning over in his grave at this point.
    I hope you will forgive me when I say that you did not understand his point in his book"

    I hope you will forgive me too, when I say that you did not understand, neither my point, nor Dawkins's.

    I think I understood the point "in his book". And there is no doubt that Dawkins advocates and believes in the correctness of the theory of evolution. But the way Dawkins built his book is that he initially presented the weight that leans towards healthy versus intelligent design. And then he presented the second spoon, in favor of evolution, which he believes is decisive. And therefore, anyone who thinks that 0:X is in favor of evolution, did not understand Dawkins, and as a result of this there is no chance that he will understand why Dawkins' X actually strives for 0, contrary to Dawkins' opinion.

    And so he opened his book with disparaging statements to all those who think that the intelligent design "apparently" does not mean desirability. And that's why he said that he couldn't imagine how it was possible to be an atheist before 1859. And that's why he devoted an entire chapter, the second chapter of his book, which is all designed to strengthen the claim of the creationists, in which he shows, regarding the sonar of bats for example, how it looks exactly like a design Intelligence of human engineering. Like, but a thousand times. Indeed, I have already encountered blind readers who, even from this second chapter, from the wonderful descriptions of the bats' sonar, left full of pleasure and strengthened in their opinion in favor of evolution, but there is no greater blindness than that.

    So please take a look at the first two chapters of "The Blind Watch" and tell me if you still think 0 is placed on the palm of intelligent design.

    ===================================

    "He gives his own example, which stars a monkey who is placed next to a typewriter... But, what if a choice was imposed on the monkey's ticks? What would happen if every time the monkey typed the right letter in the right place, the letter would be saved there"

    A wonderful example of the X placed on the evolution scale, equal to a round zero.

    This is a process of "cumulative selection", where by randomly placing letters, we try to write the sentence "I think he resembles a rabbit".

    At the beginning we get meaningless gibberish - "XXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX"

    However, as soon as we happen to get a correct letter in the right place, such as: "SXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX", we fix it and continue trying only with the rest, and so on. But this is exactly what natural selection *cannot* do. Natural selection cannot choose/figure out the letter s instead of the institute, based on the fact that in the future, when 20 more letters are added in the right places, we will get a sentence that makes sense. The blind watchmaker, as his name suggests, is blind. That is, he does not predict the end of the act in his first thought. And elsewhere Dawkins compares evolution to a drunk driver who drives like a madman and can't see a meter ahead.

    And Dawkins himself, explicitly, stands for this division and admits fully that this is not a good example. So what did he bring? As a demagogue? I've already come across dozens of idiots who list this example wonderfully, how by randomly placing a sentence as complex as "I think he resembles a rabbit" was obtained very quickly, and this absurd example is enough for them to decide X:0 in favor of evolution, and peace be upon Israel. Credit to Dawkins for being able to convince the blind in what even he admits is not convincing. The sentence "I think he resembles a rabbit" is a successful sentence, and can be chosen by natural selection, only if it appeared in its entirety, which will not happen even in billions of years of experiments. The letter S can only be chosen by an intelligent, human choice, having the virtue of seeing the end of the act with foresight, which we will not call evolution, and long live the small difference.

  31. point

    26-10-2007 | 3:56 |

    For Roy Cezana, the approach that says one should treat each other with mutual respect may be true for idle arguments of a different kind.
    In a real debate where one side believes that he himself is right and the other is wrong and vice versa, there is no room for mutual respect.
    In the natural sciences, truth is more important than mutual respect.

  32. age

    26-10-2007 | 4:53 |

    To Roy - "I already explained to you that in your reasoning you only take the final result into account, and not the steps along the way, - excuse me? ... There are no intermediate steps from one garden to another. It's either that all the control areas and the necessary acids exist, or nothing!
    Therefore, your claim regarding intermediate stages is imaginary and recycled and I also explained why.
    Regarding the rest of your words - "these genes can store a large amount of information that a number of random mutations that occur at the right times and in the right places can 'open' at once, thus creating a new function and a whole new pathway at once" - not accurate at all. You must be talking about neutralistic evolution Kimura's. It is not possible for silent mutations to be coded all at once because of a small change and suddenly cause a huge change. And even if it were true... again, what is the chance of 100 neutral mutations (let's say) to create functionality that adapts itself to an existing system? How many amino acids are involved? 30? The chance Therefore it is around 1 to 30^20! And that's more for a tiny garden!
    "And yes, if we accept as a fact the correlation, which is found in many places, between the age of the geological layers and the complexity of the fossils found in those layers, then apparently we will have 1000000000:1000 (I awarded 1000 points to this argument which is the strongest of the evolution arguments)."- Woe to the ears that heard this Is this the winning argument of evolution? Homologous similarity between animals "proves" in your opinion a common origin? And leave you nonsense about the ability to reproduce, etc.
    It has never been proven that an animal can turn into another animal, with organs with multiple new genes. Not even in a fly or bacteria or worms. They all remain the same animal only in other organisms (alleles, change in control areas, etc.).
    And so this "winning" argument is based on innocent wishful thinking!
    Regarding everything else - I just answered you about it right now.

  33. Roy Cezana

    26-10-2007 | 7:20 |

    point –
    The truth is always important, but it is difficult to reach it without arguing. There must always be a side that will dispute the 'truth', and sometimes it is right, sometimes it is wrong. Without debate, it is difficult to understand who is right and who is wrong.
    This is why I don't like it when people immediately dismiss creationists and refuse to address their arguments point by point. If we act in this way, then we ourselves resemble strict religious people, who are not ready to listen to the arguments of science. The only way to convince people is with logic - not with insults.

    Age –
    I have already answered you about the existing fact that one animal can turn into another animal. This fact was proven through experiments and observations in the 20th century (as I already explained to Jonathan).

    "There are no intermediate stages from one garden to another. It's either that all the control areas and the required acids exist, or nothing!"

    This is where I stopped arguing. You are clearly distorting the truth here, or you do not know the material in question. I suggest you take a course in comparative biology and see how different genes can be from each other and still perform the same action. A small example is cytochrome C, which in almost every species differs in a number of amino acids (and in species such as bacteria it actually differs in almost all of them), but still performs the same action. In fact, according to the degree of variation in it, the time spans between the splits between species are measured (with us and the chimpanzees, this protein is completely identical, in its entire amino acid sequence, and from this we get knowledge of the amount of time that has passed since we split from our common ancestor).
    Genes can have action sites, inhibitory sites, visitor sites, binding sites and many others. All of these can be obtained by combining several genes - each of which contains a different site - with each other. This kind of combination happens in nature all the time through replacements and breakages of chromosomes, through transpososomes (DNA segments that jump from place to place in the genome with each division, and are responsible for a great many mutations), through point mutations and more. And I already explained this to you a few days ago, and you continue to systematically ignore this fact.

    I already told you that I find no point in this debate, and right now you are only reinforcing my words. If you are willing to read and study in more places, and receive evidence and proofs also in the direction of evolution, and not only in the direction of creationism, then you will find plenty of such proofs. I hope that you will not continue to write such harsh claims that have already been refuted by science, thereby biasing the minds of people who do not know the material and information better. If you continue to do so, you are knowingly twisting the truth and 'selling' wrong information.

  34. Jonathan

    26-10-2007 | 11:18 |

    Roy –

    Sorry for the length. The fault is not mine but the complex issue and the many deceptions that are found.

    "As you probably know, there is a very large amount of 'junk' in DNA..."

    A. not known to me. Please refer here And personal information - there is a company in Israel that is their entire business, to say the least, they decipher sections of so-called "junk DNA", register patents on them, and laugh all the way to the bank, about the junk DNA joke. These things are said mainly towards repeated sequences that were once called junk by junk scientists, because they did not understand what their role was, and today they have been found to have critical purposes in gene control, and uses in cancer research and medical research in general. And the day of so-called pseudo-genes, so-called residual genes and the like will come and someone will laugh at them on the way to the bank. The concept of junk DNA is a good example of the loss of science, from a proper scientific point of view, which resulted directly from the evolutionary philosophy and paradigm, because if the working assumption was that creation is divine, already 30 years ago the functions of junk DNA would have been deciphered, because they would not have assumed that they were junk.

    B. I do not dispute that there are mutations, random, and that some of them are gene duplications, which with zero frequency, but exist, are determined in the population and actually constitute redundant and dysfunctional DNA. The dispute is about whether these replicated DNA segments can, with random mutations + natural selection, form a successful combination that constitutes a new biological system, and about that in the next comment.

    third. "These genes can store a large amount of information that a number of random mutations occurring at the right times and in the right places can 'open' at once, thus creating a new function and a whole new pathway at once. "

    Where do you draw such faith strength from? "At the right times and in the right places" is a matter of probability. See, in the section you responded to, I emphasized the distinction between improving an existing system and evolving from a system to a system with a different functionality.

    Dawkins yrj and wrote a whole chapter in his book called "accumulation of small changes", in which he emphasizes the fact that evolution can only progress along the path of small advantageous steps. So if we are talking about a small system X, which is encoded by let's say about 10 genes, and which evolution claims it developed from a system Y that has about 10 genes, then what do you propose? Are we to believe that the 10 genes of Y randomly jumped and duplicated? Or two genes from Y, and one from system Z, and three from W and four from M, jumped, and some changes took place in them "at the right times and in the right places" and a new circle was closed and we got a new system X, with new functionality, coded by about 10 new genes, that are operated with a new target organ, with a new special control, etc.? forget about it. This is not a Darwinian evolution of "advantageous small steps".

    And you also emphasized and pointed out that evolution is not random. Well, 10 genes that randomly jumped and duplicated, and the right changes took place in the right places until a circle was closed and the ten genes adapted to each other, to a new function, in a new organ, under new control - you don't have a greater randomness than this and this is not the Darwinian evolution of "advantageous small steps".

    And to summarize this point - "There is a very large amount of 'junk' in DNA - duplicated genes, genes that are not active" —— a large amount of junk DNA, if there is such a thing, is likened to a liter of ink. A liter of ink *enables* writing the Encyclopedia Britannica, but this possibility is not enough. Encyclopaedia Britannica will not write from a liter of junk ink.

    And not exactly garbage, but even if you take this message, or your message, or any other message, and change letters randomly, or not randomly, you will not be able to create a new message with a functional message by changing the correct letters in the correct places different. Not just a complete message but even the sentence:

    "The sweat system is based on sweat glands that draw fluids and salts from the blood and secrete them to cool the body"

    You will not be able to change in small steps, while maintaining the syntax and coherence of the message, to the sentence:

    "The breastfeeding system is based on mammary glands and clusters Ships Milk that produces nutritious proteins and sugars and secretes them for nursing babies"

    Because even if in a miraculous mutation the word "sweat" is replaced by the word "milk", you will get:

    "The milk system is based on sweat glands that draw fluids and salts from the blood and secrete them to cool the body"

    which is a clearly improper sentence.

    And although some of the above sentences are the same, only "a few changes in the right places" are needed.

    Try to move from the first sentence in two advantageous small steps, and you will understand what it means changes "in the right places and at the right times" that bring from one functional system to a system with another functionality.

    And the above sentences are the length of a tenth of a gene, and their complexity is infinitely less than the complexity of a gene or 10 genes that make up a functional system.

    =========================================

  35. Jonathan

    26-10-2007 | 11:21 |

    Continue replying to Roy-

    "1000000000:1000... don't forget extra points for evolution..."

    No problem, I can find more points in favor of evolution. But I tried in my previous long message to suggest that you not forget the starting point - 1000000000:0 to the detriment of evolution, because the intelligent design, at least "apparently" found in every protein and every mechanism, and because it is as simple as a clock, and because of Dawkins's firm statement that it does not raise In his opinion, how can one be an atheist before the publication of the theory of evolution, that is, if we have two scales here, and if we are not blind about one side, then the starting point, before discussing the plausibility of evolution, is that a huge weight rests on the balance of intelligent design. But you seem to forget that anyway, and still, the weight of evidence in favor of intelligent design, in your eyes, is 0.

    =======================================

    And that's why you continue to load evolution with "evidence" that is only good against weight 0:

    "Such as the fact that new species are definitely created (for example a fly of a new species created in the laboratory)"

    Has one new functional gene been created in the lab? Has a new functional system been created?

    ====================================

    "Or maybe the fact that you can find amazing similarities in the non-influencing parts of the genome of different organisms"

    If you mean "junk DNA", see above.

    ====================================

    "You can also get additional support from experiments in evolution through artificial selection in computers" ——– the topic of evolutionary algorithms is familiar to me. It is about efficient search algorithms, finite and relatively small possibility spaces compared to 10000^20 spaces, most of which are garbage. Such as some kind of pipe, through which the passage of air is supposed to do something, and that this is done better if the pipe is thick in some places and thin in others, and playing with some parameters and in a way of replication, variation, and precise selection, we reach better results than we would have reached with another search algorithm. It is not similar or reminiscent in any way to "intelligent design" as it exists "apparently", in carefully coordinated multi-component biological systems. And for evidence, no one uses evolutionary algorithms to develop new software code from other software code.

    "When you have enough different environments, you can end up creating enough new features in many, many paths."

    Right. The question is what is "enough" and what is "a lot". Let's face it: with regard to a system with 10 genes, whose possible cluster space is 10000x20 clusters, then also a billion per squared species, a billion per squared individuals in each species, multiplying at a rate of a billion per squared generations per second, for a billion per squared year, with 1000 mutations being experienced at each birth News - not even a billionth squared of a billionth squared of zero will cover the edge of a billionth squared of the space of the Hashfarian concatenations for 10 genes. agreed upon? So is that much and is that enough?

    ==========================================

    "1000000000:1000... don't forget extra points for evolution..."

    No problem, I can find more points in favor of evolution. But I tried in my previous long message to suggest that you not forget the starting point - 1000000000:0 to the detriment of evolution, because the intelligent design, at least "apparently" found in every protein and every mechanism, and because it is as simple as a clock, and because of Dawkins's firm statement that it does not raise In his opinion, how can one be an atheist before the publication of the theory of evolution, that is, if we have two scales here, and if we are not blind about one side, then the starting point, before discussing the plausibility of evolution, is that a huge weight rests on the balance of intelligent design. But you seem to forget that anyway, and still, the weight of evidence in favor of intelligent design, in your eyes, is 0.

    =======================================

    And that's why you continue to load evolution with "evidence" that is only good against weight 0:

    "Such as the fact that new species are definitely created (for example a fly of a new species created in the laboratory)"

    Has one new functional gene been created in the lab? Has a new functional system been created?

    ====================================

    "Or maybe the fact that you can find amazing similarities in the non-influencing parts of the genome of different organisms"

    If you mean "junk DNA", see above.

    ====================================

    "You can also get additional support from experiments in evolution through artificial selection in computers" ——– the topic of evolutionary algorithms is familiar to me. It is about efficient search algorithms, finite and relatively small possibility spaces compared to 10000^20 spaces, most of which are garbage. Such as some kind of pipe, through which the passage of air is supposed to do something, and that this is done better if the pipe is thick in some places and thin in others, and playing with some parameters and in a way of replication, variation, and precise selection, we reach better results than we would have reached with another search algorithm. It is not similar or reminiscent in any way to "intelligent design" as it exists "apparently", in carefully coordinated multi-component biological systems. And for evidence, no one uses evolutionary algorithms to develop new software code from other software code.

    "When you have enough different environments, you can end up creating enough new features in many, many paths."

    Right. The question is what is "enough" and what is "a lot". Let's face it: with regard to a system with 10 genes, whose possible cluster space is 10000x20 clusters, then also a billion per squared species, a billion per squared individuals in each species, multiplying at a rate of a billion per squared generations per second, for a billion per squared year, with 1000 mutations being experienced at each birth News - not even a billionth squared of a billionth squared of zero will cover the edge of a billionth squared of the space of the Hashfarian concatenations for 10 genes. agreed upon? So is that much and is that enough?

    ==========================================

    "If Dawkins was dead, he would be turning over in his grave at this point.
    I hope you will forgive me when I say that you did not understand his point in his book"

    I hope you will forgive me too, when I say that you did not understand, neither my point, nor Dawkins's.

    I think I understood the point "in his book". And there is no doubt that Dawkins advocates and believes in the correctness of the theory of evolution. But the way Dawkins built his book is that he initially presented the weight that leans towards healthy versus intelligent design. And then he presented the second spoon, in favor of evolution, which he believes is decisive. And therefore, anyone who thinks that 0:X is in favor of evolution, did not understand Dawkins, and as a result of this there is no chance that he will understand why Dawkins' X actually strives for 0, contrary to Dawkins' opinion.

    And so he opened his book with disparaging statements to all those who think that the intelligent design "apparently" does not mean desirability. And that's why he said that he couldn't imagine how it was possible to be an atheist before 1859. And that's why he devoted an entire chapter, the second chapter of his book, which is all designed to strengthen the claim of the creationists, in which he shows, regarding the sonar of bats for example, how it looks exactly like a design Intelligence of human engineering. Like, but a thousand times. Indeed, I have already encountered blind readers who, even from this second chapter, from the wonderful descriptions of the bats' sonar, left full of pleasure and strengthened in their opinion in favor of evolution, but there is no greater blindness than that.

    So please take a look at the first two chapters of "The Blind Watch" and tell me if you still think 0 is placed on the palm of intelligent design.

    ===================================

  36. point

    26-10-2007 | 12:01 |

    to roy,
    Why not argue with a monkey?
    Experience shows that this does not make the monkey change its mind. And this can be understood because the sounds the monkey makes are not related to the debate at all. Even to observers from the side sometimes it seems so.

  37. Roy Cezana

    26-10-2007 | 12:17 |

    point –
    If monkeys could understand complex languages ​​and ideas, I would try to explain the principles of evolution to them too.
    But let's not forget that we are all human beings in this debate. We all have the ability to consider evidence and come to conclusions. Some of us simply choose not to. I do not delude myself that in a debate here I will be able to convince someone on the other side. The debate is mainly for all the people who read and don't participate. These people hear the loud and 'intuitively convincing' arguments of the creationists, but it is very difficult for them to find good responses from science. I am trying to bring here the arguments of science, and how it refutes the arguments of creationists.

    In any case, you are welcome to join the discussion and contribute from your knowledge. The more the merrier.

    Jonathan -
    I have not forgotten you, but your long response, as before, forces me to think and reflect before I respond, so that I can provide an adequate answer to all your questions.

    With the blessing of Shabbat Shalom,

    Roy.

  38. Jonathan

    26-10-2007 | 12:23 |

    to Roy -

    take your time, and thank you for the serious and respectful attitude.

    Actually there was one more part to my message, and no matter how many times I try to upload it, for some reason it is not displayed, and although I do not receive any error message or explanation. Too bad.

    Shabbat Shalom and Blessed.

  39. Jonathan

    26-10-2007 | 12:38 |

    Another experience:

    Regarding the sample from the correlation found in the Hirayah landfill, you responded:

    "Do processors have DNA, as some fossils do, that supports the theory of evolution and connections between them and their descendants? Can processors mate and produce offspring?
    Come on, my friend. Oratory is one thing, but please avoid corny metaphors. "

    Come on, my friend. After all, he is what I said - "As long as we do not have a reasonable mechanism that explains how complex processors can develop, without intelligent intervention, from each other, then it is clear to us that they are all creations of intelligent engineering. We can only conclude..." - that is, separate and compare, and examine every evidence or opinion about the body. The mere correlation between the age of layers, by itself, without having a reasonable development mechanism, does not constitute evidence of the matter. And in sight - the Hiria dump.

    =========================================

    "He gives his own example, which stars a monkey who is placed next to a typewriter... But, what if a choice was imposed on the monkey's ticks? What would happen if every time the monkey typed the right letter in the right place, the letter would be saved there"

    A wonderful example of the X placed on the evolution scale, equal to a round zero.

    This is a process of "cumulative selection", where by randomly placing letters, we try to write the sentence "I think he resembles a rabbit".

    At first we get meaningless gibberish, but as soon as we happen to get a correct letter in the right place, such as: "S_____ ____ ___ ___", we fix it and continue trying only with the rest, and so on. But this is exactly what natural selection *cannot* do. Natural selection cannot choose/figure out the letter s instead of the institute, based on the fact that in the future, when 20 more letters are added in the right places, we will get a sentence that makes sense. The blind watchmaker, as his name suggests, is blind. That is, he does not predict the end of the act in his first thought. And elsewhere Dawkins compares evolution to a drunk driver who drives like a madman and can't see a meter ahead.

    And Dawkins himself, explicitly, stands for this division and admits fully that this is not a good example. So what did he bring? As a demagogue? I've already come across dozens of idiots who list this example wonderfully, how by randomly placing a sentence as complex as "I think he resembles a rabbit" was obtained very quickly, and this absurd example is enough for them to decide X:0 in favor of evolution, and peace be upon Israel. Credit to Dawkins for being able to convince the blind in what even he admits is not convincing. The sentence "I think he resembles a rabbit" is a successful sentence, and can be chosen by natural selection, only if it appeared in its entirety, which will not happen even in billions of years of experiments. The letter S can only be chosen by an intelligent, human choice, having the virtue of seeing the end of the act with foresight, which we will not call evolution, and long live the small difference.

  40. age

    26-10-2007 | 16:11 |

    A small addition to Roy. Regarding the number of combinations of the cytochrome. A researcher named "Yuki" checked and found that the above protein you mentioned can have about 10 to the power of 93 possible combinations to create it out of 10 to the power of 180 possible combinations! (This means that the acids that make it up can change like the number of atoms in the universe and still function as cytochrome) that is, in order to obtain it, you will have to scan about 10 to the power of 87 combinations, and even a trillion years will not be enough to obtain the combination that creates the above-mentioned protein! Therefore, the example you gave (a change of some amino acids) is not good and is in fact far-fetched.

  41. age

    26-10-2007 | 16:17 |

    Addendum to Tasfat - "I have already answered you regarding the existing fact that one animal can turn into another animal. This fact was proven through experiments and observations in the 20th century" - again not accurate.. A dog can change a little to another dog. But a dog will never become a different animal, with new genes or new organs. You have to differentiate between alleles and a completely new creature.
    "Ganes can have action sites, inhibitory sites, visitor sites, binding sites and many others. All of these can be obtained from a combination of several genes - each of which contains a different site - with each other" - you repeat it again. What are the chances of a few relatively small parts of a genome of 50-60 nucleotides in length to create new and useful functionality from a random selection of 50^ 20 combinations? The answer is zero chance of course and that is clear.

  42. What's new

    26-10-2007 | 19:49 |

    For creationists
    1. Do you mean that according to the book of Genesis God created all creatures in seven days if you believe this then this is a violation of all the laws of physics. If so according to your belief when did the laws of physics begin to operate and where is it written in the Torah.
    2. If you are trying in a rational way to prove that because of the complexity of life it is not evolution that works then please prove in a rational way that God exists.

  43. What's new

    26-10-2007 | 19:56 |

    Continue to creationists
    In connection with section two in the previous article, my intention is not to deny evolution, these are rational proofs
    In my opinion, if you succeed in this, then you will hide yourselves..

  44. certain

    26-10-2007 | 20:29 |

    What's new - the current discussion is about the truth of the theory of evolution in particular, and expanding it to the general question of creation and the existence of the Creator will only harm at this point. In order to reach any conclusion on the subject, I think we should stay focused on one thing

    By the way, the denial of evolution is not necessarily proof of the existence of an intelligent being, it is not a question of one or the other 0 and 1, yes and no, but two separate theories (let's say creationism is a theory...) to explain an existing phenomenon out of the crowd. So there is no point in canceling one just to prove the other.

  45. Ofer

    27-10-2007 | 22:47 |

    Beneficial mutations are indeed obtained in laboratory experiments.

  46. Roy Cezana

    27-10-2007 | 23:00 |

    Jonathan -
    I marked the abbreviations of your arguments with == at the beginning and end of each argument. I marked my responses with ++ at the beginning and end of each response. We have already reached 6 Word pages of overflowing text here, and I can only hope that we find a more convenient way to argue.

    =="As you probably know, there is a very large amount of 'junk' in DNA..."
    A. not known to me. Please refer here: and personal information - there is a company in Israel that is its entire business, to say the least, they decipher sections of so-called "junk DNA", register patents on them, and laugh all the way to the bank, about the junk DNA joke. These things are said mainly towards repeated sequences that were once called junk by junk scientists, because they did not understand what their role was, and today they have been found to have critical purposes in gene control, and uses in cancer research and medical research in general. And the day of so-called pseudo-genes, so-called residual genes and the like will come and someone will laugh at them on the way to the bank. The concept of junk DNA is a good example of the loss of science, from a proper scientific point of view, which resulted directly from the evolutionary philosophy and paradigm, because if the working assumption was that creation is divine, already 30 years ago the functions of junk DNA would have been deciphered, because they would not have assumed that they were junk.==

    ++If you read my response in full, you will see that by 'garbage' I meant all former genes, pseudo-genes, duplicated genes, etc., and that all of these can help create complex mechanisms from an almost zero base.++

    ==c. "These genes can store a large amount of information that a number of random mutations occurring at the right times and in the right places can 'open' at once, thus creating a new function and a whole new pathway at once. "
    Where do you draw such faith strength from? "At the right times and in the right places" is a matter of probability. See, in the section you responded to, I emphasized the distinction between improving an existing system and evolving from a system to a system with a different functionality. ==

    ++No. No, no and no. Probability is not the issue here. We are not talking about probability but about a principle of natural selection that works in different forms in different periods.++

    ==Dawkins yrj and wrote a whole chapter in his book called "accumulation of small changes", in which he emphasizes the fact that evolution can only progress along the path of small advantageous steps. So if we are talking about a small system X, which is encoded by let's say about 10 genes, and which evolution claims it developed from a system Y that has about 10 genes, then what do you propose? Are we to believe that the 10 genes of Y randomly jumped and duplicated? Or two genes from Y, and one from system Z, and three from W and four from M, jumped, and some changes took place in them "at the right times and in the right places" and a new circle was closed and we got a new system X, with new functionality, coded by about 10 new genes, that are operated with a new target organ, with a new special control, etc.? forget about it. This is not a Darwinian evolution of "advantageous small steps".

    ++You forget that "advantageous small steps" can also be non-advantageous given the limitations of natural selection. In times of rapid change in conditions (for example, in times of catastrophes, or extreme climate changes), natural selection can "decide" that a particular step is advantageous at this moment, even though it will be a failure in future generations. And see it's a miracle - future generations use this 'failure' and exploit it to develop a more complex route. I don't see any problem at this point. ++

    == And to summarize this point - "There is a very large amount of 'junk' in DNA - duplicated genes, genes that are not active" —— a large amount of junk DNA, if there is such a thing, is likened to a liter of ink. A liter of ink *enables* writing the Encyclopedia Britannica, but this possibility is not enough. Encyclopaedia Britannica will not write from a liter of junk ink. ==

    ++My friend, again you are using rhetoric here. Encyclopaedia Britannica will not be written from a liter of junk ink, but it can be written from a liter of junk ink, most of which is already in the correct configuration of the sentences and letters. If all that is needed is steering and rearranging - things that happen all the time with the help of evolution and natural selection - then the Britannica will indeed be written. Indeed, as you wrote yourself - this liter of junk ink is actually a huge amount of pseudo-genes, duplicated genes, inactive genes and who knows what else - and they are all waiting for the small mutation that will allow them to work and open new pathways.++

    ==No problem, I can find more points in favor of evolution. But I tried in my previous long message, to suggest that you do not forget the starting point - 1000000000:0 to the detriment of evolution, because the intelligent design, at least "apparently" found in every protein and every mechanism, and because it is as simple as a clock, and because of Dawkins's decisive statement that it does not raise On his opinion, how can one be an atheist before the publication of the theory of evolution, that is, if we have two scales here, and if we are not blind about one side, then the starting point, before discussing the plausibility of evolution, is that a huge weight rests on the balance of intelligent design. But you seem to forget this anyway and still, the weight of evidence in favor of intelligent design, in your eyes, is 0. ==

    ++ There is no doubt that the design is indeed excellent, but let's not forget that God is the 'zero solution' - that is, a solution that does not lead us anywhere. In contrast, the evolution solution has already produced thousands of studies that use the theory of evolution to better understand the processes of life, history and science.
    And although the design is indeed excellent, one must ask: Is God the only solution? And the answer is no. Evolution provides another solution, and equally acceptable - and even testable and provable.++

    ==”such as the fact that new species are definitely created (for example a fly of a new species created in the laboratory)”
    Has one new functional gene been created in the lab? Has a new functional system been created?==

    ++You are asking for the creation of things that take thousands of years to be created, and this is difficult to achieve in a few decades of work. I hope you will be content with the fact that three new species of animals were created that cannot interbreed with the early species, and as a result are primary ancestors of the new lineage that will be created for that species and will in fact form a new branch in the phylogenetic tree. ++

    ==”Or maybe the fact that an amazing similarity can be found in the non-influencing parts of the genome of different organisms”
    If you mean "junk DNA", see above.==

    ++I mean the similarity in the genes of different organisms. Cytochrome C, for example, as I have already written to Gil, is present in all living organisms, but it differs in each of them in a number of amino acids, in a way that does not affect its function. It is difficult to understand why the "intelligent creator" decided to create a protein that is different in every creature, and its level of variation corresponds to what we expect to find depending on the creature's genetic distance from us. For example, our cytochrome C and that of chimpanzees is exactly the same, because we diverged from the same ancestor only a short time ago, and the protein did not have time to undergo a long-term mutation. On the other hand, between our cytochrome C and that of the frogs there is a difference of several amino acids, because we split from the reptiles a very long time ago, and the protein had time to accumulate many mutations. So... either the intelligent creator is very negligent because he creates mutant proteins for no reason, or cytochrome C is another beautiful proof (which also backs up other proofs about the points in time when we split from our ancestors) for the correctness of evolution.++

    ==”You can also get additional support from experiments in evolution through artificial selection in computers” ——– the topic of evolutionary algorithms is familiar to me. It is about efficient search algorithms, finite and relatively small possibility spaces compared to 10000^20 spaces, most of which are garbage. Such as some kind of pipe, through which the passage of air is supposed to do something, and that this is done better if the pipe is thick in some places and thin in others, and playing with some parameters and in a way of replication, variation, and precise selection, we reach better results than we would have reached with another search algorithm. It is not similar or reminiscent in any way to "intelligent design" as it exists "apparently", in carefully coordinated multi-component biological systems. And for evidence, no one uses evolutionary algorithms to develop new software code from other software code. ==

    ++And if in evolutionary algorithms and complicated pathways (which cannot be broken down into discrete and advantageous parts - like the eye, according to you, or all combinations of garbage) their business -
    A very interesting experiment reported in Nature dealt with software that simulated "digital evolution" in computerized organisms. Organisms had parts of computer code that had been replicated, and had a "genome" of computer instructions that could be linked 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 it actually lost a less complicated logical operation. Had it not been for the loss of a lesser logical operation, the same organism would not have reached the more complicated logical operation. The conclusion here was that as you get to more complex operations, there is a tendency to lose the less complex operations. The researchers also found that complex mechanisms also develop through changes of simpler mechanisms that already exist.
    Beyond that, the original claim about unbreakable orbits (that cannot be decomposed into small advantageous parts) was originally put forward by Michael Baah, in his book "Darwin's Black Box". Bah claimed there that there are other unbreakable pathways, such as the bacterial cell and the immune system. Both were later exposed as definitely freaks (in the studies of Matzke and Inlay). Now we just have to wait for the research on the discharge of the eye. ++

    ==Correct. The question is what is "enough" and what is "a lot". Let's face it: with regard to a system with 10 genes, whose possible cluster space is 10000x20 clusters, then also a billion per squared species, a billion per squared individuals in each species, multiplying at a rate of a billion per squared generations per second, for a billion per squared year, with 1000 mutations being experienced at each birth News - not even a billionth squared of a billionth squared of zero will cover the edge of a billionth squared of the space of the Hashfarian summaries for 10 genes. agreed upon? So is this much and is this enough?==

    ++You are using numbers here with a broad hand, and the question cannot be answered that way. When you ask a scientific question and transfer it to numerical models and statistics, you must ask a very specific question, and your model must be exactly right for the question. You are again basing yourself on the randomness here, and it does not fit the discussion. I hope you get off that line of thinking, because I repeat it over and over again. There is no randomness here. If every progress in evolution does indeed result in progress towards a certain trajectory, then it will take much less time to reach the final goal. To use a simple metaphor: if you try to get from the starting line to the finish line by taking many random steps, it will take you a very long time to reach the end, because half of the steps will be in the wrong direction. But if there is a little elf, that with every right step you take will prevent you from going backwards, then you will reach the finish line in a very short time. So it could be that the space of possible steps is 20^10000, but if you don't use randomness but some choice, then you can only choose the right steps to reach the finish line.++

    ==And therefore he opened his book with disparaging statements to all those who think that the intelligent design "apparently" does not mean dorshni. And that's why he said that he couldn't imagine how it was possible to be an atheist before 1859. And that's why he devoted an entire chapter, the second chapter of his book, which is all designed to strengthen the claim of the creationists, in which he shows, regarding the sonar of bats for example, how it looks exactly like a design Intelligence of human engineering. Like, but a thousand times. Indeed, I have already encountered blind readers who, even from this second chapter, from the wonderful descriptions of the bats' sonar, left full of pleasure and strengthened in their opinion in favor of evolution, but there is no greater blindness than that.==

    ++My friend, there is no doubt that the body is a wonderful and great thing, but this is no proof of the existence of an intelligent creator, if we have a theory that allows the creation of such a body even without an intelligent creator.
    By the way, a small question. If the design is so intelligent, why does the python have a pelvis? It has nothing to do with it, and you can't see it from the outside. Other snakes get along great without a pelvis... but actually the python's skeleton includes a hip pelvis. Not very intelligent from the same "intelligent" creator, don't you think?
    Well, evolution actually has an answer for that. The python is an extremely ancient snake, and did not lose its hip pelvis, unlike more modern snakes.
    This example is just one of many cases where the "intelligent" creator is not really that intelligent. These cases make a lot more sense if you look at them from the point of view of evolution and natural selection.++

    ==So please take a look at the first two chapters of "The Blind Watchman" and tell me if you still think there is a 0 on the intelligent design scale.==

    ++Sorry, I'm short on time right now, and I won't be able to repeat the same chapters. I read the book several years ago and I don't have time to go back to it now. If it helps you, I have a bachelor's degree in biology at the Technion and am now working on a master's degree at the Technion in tissue engineering and nanotechnology. Believe me when I say that throughout my years of study I have been amazed at the complex and intricate mechanisms found in the living things I have studied about, and now that I am trying to replicate them in tissue engineering, I am even more amazed at the difficult task in front of me.
    And yet - evolution can explain the same complications. The 'intelligent creator' is simply trying to deflect the problem, not explain it. Where would we end up if we used a similar approach in all fields of science? If every time a problem proved to be particularly complicated we would say "Well, it's because of God, and there's nothing to be done."? After all, this was the way of solving problems throughout the last 1600 years. Did the Black Death, which killed a third of the European population, disappear because the English doctors claimed that it "comes as a result of a triple conjunction of Saturn, Jupiter and Mars."? Those doctors chose the easiest solution, just as the "intelligent creator" is the easiest solution. But it is not true, and does not advance us anywhere... just like the solution of those English doctors to the Black Death. It is interesting to note that if they had used the scientific method, they would have been able to find a vaccine for the Black Death, since the Indians had already found a vaccine for it around the same time. But... why bother? "God gave, God took away - everything is from God." or from Saturn, Jupiter and Mars. The easy solutions are always easy - but do not bring results. Evolution has already produced so many results and given us so many tools for calculation and thought, that it is difficult to understand how people are able to ignore its existence. For proof - a search in the scientific literature databases will yield thousands of articles that used the theory of evolution to support their claims. When I looked for an article that used "Intelligent Design" to support its claims, I couldn't find a single one.++

    ==Come on you, my friend. After all, he is what I said - "As long as we do not have a reasonable mechanism that explains how complex processors can develop, without intelligent intervention, from each other, then it is clear to us that they are all creations of intelligent engineering. We can only conclude..." - that is, separate and compare, and examine every evidence or opinion about the body. The mere correlation between the age of layers, by itself, without having a reasonable development mechanism, does not constitute evidence of the matter. And in sight - the Hiria dump.==

    ++See cytochrome C, above. One of many methods for verifying the development of organisms from one another throughout history.++

    ==”He gives his own example, which stars a monkey who is placed next to a typewriter.... But, what if a choice was imposed on the monkey's ticks? What would happen if every time the monkey typed the right letter in the right place, the letter would be saved there"
    A wonderful example of the X placed on the evolution scale, equal to a round zero.
    This is a process of "cumulative selection", where by randomly placing letters, we try to write the sentence "I think he resembles a rabbit".
    At first we get meaningless gibberish, but as soon as we happen to get a correct letter in the right place, such as: "S_____ ____ ___ ___", we fix it and continue trying only with the rest, and so on. But this is exactly what natural selection *cannot* do. Natural selection cannot choose/figure out the letter s instead of the institute, based on the fact that in the future, when 20 more letters are added in the right places, we will get a sentence that makes sense. The blind watchmaker, as his name suggests, is blind. That is, he does not predict the end of the act in his first thought. And elsewhere Dawkins compares evolution to a drunk driver who drives like a madman and can't see a meter ahead.
    And Dawkins himself, explicitly, stands for this division and admits fully that this is not a good example. So what did he bring? As a demagogue? I've already come across dozens of idiots who list this example wonderfully, how by randomly placing a sentence as complex as "I think he resembles a rabbit" was obtained very quickly, and this absurd example is enough for them to decide X:0 in favor of evolution, and peace be upon Israel. Credit to Dawkins for being able to convince the blind in what even he admits is not convincing. The sentence "I think he resembles a rabbit" is a successful sentence, and can be chosen by natural selection, only if it appeared in its entirety, which will not happen even in billions of years of experiments. The letter S can only be chosen by an intelligent, human choice, having the virtue of seeing the end of the act with first thought, which we will not call evolution, and long live the small difference.==

    ++ Nicely said and nicely claimed. But as I already explained above, complicated pathways can be obtained from simpler pathways, and natural selection can certainly lead to the creation of the simple pathways. From the moment they exist, it can also bring about the existence of more complicated routes by adding and returning simple routes. In the end, this is a problem of non-free tracks, and I have already discussed the solution of this problem in the text above.++

    post Scriptum.
    I hope we get away from the statistics you use all the time, because it explicitly relies on completely random selection, not natural selection.

    Best regards,
    Roy.

  47. Roy Cezana

    27-10-2007 | 23:44 |

    I have one request for you, Yonatani. I hope you will agree with me that I took the arguments you raised with due seriousness. In places where I wasn't sure of the answer, I took my time, thought, delved deeper, read a little further and arrived at the answer.

    I ask that you treat my answers with the same seriousness that will lead to a fruitful scientific discussion. If you don't understand something I said, think about it before you respond. If I included links to articles in my response (and I did include three - by Lenski, Metzka and Inlay), please review them before responding, just as I reviewed the links you added in your response.

    Without these rules, it will be difficult to reach a real scientific discussion, which will progress beyond the "dialogue of the deaf".

    with gratitude,

    Roy.

  48. Ami Bachar

    28-10-2007 | 1:18 |

    I want to go off-topic to say that I am thrilled by the lively and deep discussion that took place following the announcement. Also, hats off to Roy the writer who invests in in-depth and very thoughtful answers to talkbackists. Kudos also to the respondents who participate in the interesting and infringing public debate. We are with the book and we see it in this article and in the talkback thread that follows it. Well done to all of you

    Ami Bachar

  49. Roy Cezana

    28-10-2007 | 6:51 |

    Nice-nice, my people.

    I am now reading the link that Ofer brought, which contains ten examples of articles in which new traits were created in the laboratory, and four examples of studies in which new metabolic pathways were created in the laboratory.
    It is hard to think of a better answer to the requests of the creationists, regarding the creation of genes or new metabolic pathways.

    Thank you, Ofer.

  50. age

    28-10-2007 | 17:45 |

    New traits do not result in the formation of a new animal, certainly not in creatures larger than bacteria. Their microbes have different and different patents. (stabilizing genes, enzymes that break down nylon, exchange of plasmids, etc.). This is not evidence of the formation of a new gene with a new active site in a creature that multiplies at the end of the human hair.  Here is the full article that I participated in andI refuted all the evolutionary claims. (also in relation to cytochrome) Please read starting with commenter number 2 this season nicknamed "Mike". And continue with my messages regarding the creation of genes in evolution. Also in bacteria.


  51. Roy Cezana

    28-10-2007 | 18:31 |

    Age –
    Science has already disproved the 'non-freak tracks' claim that you endlessly use in your comments.
    Science has already disproved the claim that evolution is based on randomness, which is based on a misunderstanding of the theory, and on which all your astronomical calculations are based, which don't really show anything.
    Science has already disproved your claim that new species cannot be created - both in bacteria, in fungi and in fish and flies.
    Your claims at this point simply miss the point, and try to address secondary details that we didn't specifically touch on. Certainly and certainly when you put forward a delusional argument such as "new features do not lead to the formation of a new animal, certainly not in organisms larger than bacteria. Their bacteria have different and different patents. (stabilizing genes, enzymes that break down nylon, exchange of plasmids, etc.). This is not evidence of the formation of a new gene with a new active site A fortress that reproduces at the edge of human failure."
    I won't even bother responding to that. Use your mind. think Try to understand for yourself how things can be created, instead of sticking to an example. Until you do that, I see no point in debating with you in a real discussion, because you just repeat your claims over and over again.

  52. Jonathan

    28-10-2007 | 23:15 |

    Roy,

    I will address a few points in your words.

    First, a philosophical, principled point:

    "++ There is no doubt that the design is indeed excellent, but let's not forget that God is the 'zero solution' - that is, a solution that does not lead us anywhere. On the other hand, the evolution solution has already produced thousands of studies that use the theory of evolution to better understand the processes of life, history and science"

    A. When I argue with you about evolution yes or no, I am arguing about True/False values ​​and not about utility. Moreover, I am not even debating True/False evolution but rather the "evidence" and "beliefs" of the theory of evolution. Is her evidence evidence and are there logical/mathematical errors in her reasoning, yes or no.

    Therefore, the reasoning of utilitarianism does not play here. In many respects, for example, for many practical calculation purposes, it is convenient and useful for us to look at the Earth as stationary. Is that why you will claim that the Earth is stationary?

    B. You are also wrong from a utilitarian point of view.

    B.1 - There is, has not grown, and will not grow, any benefit from the belief that mammals evolved from reptiles, that a leg evolved from a fin, that our ancestors were fish and their ancestors were molluscs... and their ancestors were bacteria, etc. Show me one benefit that grew out of these beliefs.

    B.2 - Natural selection, genetic drift, bottlenecks, extinction of alleles, methods of acquiring resistance to antibiotics by point mutations in bacteria, etc. - these are existing phenomena, it is good that they are studied, it is good that they are studied, and no one disputes them. Do you want to call these phenomena "evolution" as well? Read, with respect, and I tell you that I have no argument about this "evolution". The dispute is about the development of systems and organs from other systems and organs. The debate is about systems with inextricable complexity, at least those that look like that "at first sight", is it so, or only at first sight they are only at first sight indecipherable. And this debate has nothing to do with the aforementioned phenomena that are useful in their research.

    B.3 - I have already pointed out to you at least one benefit, which would have grown from an intelligent healthy assumption - if they had not assumed junk DNA, many parts of it would have been decoded long ago.

    If you think about it, you will see that on the contrary, research that is led out of religious fervor, from the assumption that there is no end to the wisdom that can be explored in the wonders of creation, from infinite admiration for the wisdom that shines from every protein and every mechanism, could have yielded more than research that assumes that everything is garbage, until proven otherwise. Newton, Kepler, Maxwell, Mendel, and many other giants, were devout believers, their research stemmed from religious fervor, and they contributed and promoted science more than seventy thousand evolutionists, you name it.

    third. Your words about the "creator in creation" solution as the "zero solution" - that is, a solution that does not lead us anywhere", remind me of a scientist I spoke with who claimed that even he, let's assume, hypothetically, will be proven tomorrow, in some way, that a week after the creation of the , it already had elephants and whales and humans, and it will be proven, let's say, that it is impossible that they came from space, even then, even though we don't have any evolutionary mechanism that explains their creation within a week, he, as a scientist, will believe that they were created by some unknown evolutionary process. Because, he said, "Creator created" is a statement outside the scientific paradigm.

    But if so, then there is no point in waving any X:0 in favor of evolution, since 0 is placed next to creation *by definition*, for philosophical reasons.

    Well, whoever thinks so, I have no argument with him. I am not debating philosophies or beliefs and concepts. His science is not scientific and his paradigm is not paradigmatic. The science I am familiar with contains the theory of probability. And if, let's say hypothetically, the probability of creating life through natural processes, and the probability of the development of life mechanisms from other life mechanisms, in the evolutionary mechanism proposed by the existing theories of evolution, tends to zero, then the probability that life was created by an intelligent creation, tends to 1. Scientifically. point. And without any connection to benefit or unnecessary assumptions - until proven otherwise.

    d. Between us, and outside of this debate, which is not about religion or theology, oh how wrong you are. By and large, I would say that there is nothing more useful in the world, a real benefit, than the understanding that the Creator created, if it is followed by a search for the purpose of creation, but that is outside the context of this debate.

    =============================================

    Two other recurring points in your words are:

    1. Evolution is not random.
    2. “No. No, no and no. Probability is not the issue here"

    Well, evolution is random, and yes. Yes, yes and once again yes, probability is everything.

    And it would be very useful in my opinion, if you would give me just a little bit of credit, and assume that I know the claims of evolution, about natural selection, cumulative selection, and about "evolution is not random". And as a result, you will try to understand why I still claim that evolution is indeed random, and that the probability of its scenarios is zero, and then we will cease to be a dialogue of the deaf.

    Evolution is random:

    Natural selection does not create any mechanism. As her name is, she is just an arbiter. It is nothing but a missing force.

    The abundance of mechanisms and developments, which are supposedly presented to natural selection to sort out, are supposed to be produced by the mutations. And the mutations are random.

    In which case would I agree with you that random mutations + natural selection can lead to the development of organs and mechanisms, in a non-random way?

    In case the space of possible combinations was small, relative to the scanning space covered by the mutations.

    Or alternatively, if the space of combinations was as large as we wanted, but it was a given that a very high percentage of it are combinations that can constitute effective biological mechanisms.

    In such a space, saturated and overflowing with good possibilities, with miraculous mechanisms, it was possible to believe that functional systems could develop from other functional systems, in intermediate paths of small advantageous steps, the probability of which is not zero.

    But this is not the reality.

    The possible concatenation space for a simple 10-gene system is 10000^20 concatenations. It can be described as a matrix with 10000 dimensions, about 20 possible values ​​for each dimension. Every existing biological system is a point in this matrix, which is a meeting of 10000 scalars, which are adapted to each other and constitute a functional system. Around each such point, you will be able to define a small island, of displacements that can be moved here or there, in this and that scalars, and get similar systems. For example, from the point that constitutes the sweat system of a dog, by exchanging the values ​​of several scalars, you will get the sweat system of a cat. Another point in its vicinity will give you an elephant's sweat system and many other points will give a sweat system that will be effective in other created or uncreated creatures. But the lactation systems of sorts, are a small island, around some point, which is a galactic distance away from the sweat systems, in the pure matrix. And the immune system is another point, a galactic distance away from both of them. And the blood system, the bone, the feather of the wings, the kidney, the brain, etc., each of them is an isolated system in a frightening ocean of the size of garbage cans.

    According to the belief of evolution, all the various and varied systems that exist today in the world of organisms, all evolved from some ancient systems. The existing systems are scattered throughout space, and the belief that it was possible to reach from a small set of systems, to all the existing systems, through intermediate routes of small advantageous steps, is actually equivalent to the belief that the entire space is saturated and replete with such systems, and therefore it was possible to jump, in small steps from system to system.

    It's a belief, in my opinion, but I don't argue with beliefs. The question is what *evidence* does the theory of evolution have that this is the case?

    From a study I saw, on behalf of linguistics experts, it appears that out of 100^26 possible sentences of 100 letters in the English language, only about 25^10 are meaningful sentences. Do you understand what a zero percent that is? And why would you think that in genetic simplifiers, the percentage of biological systems, that have meaning, the situation is different? And if the situation is not different, and the useful meeting points in the matrix of possibilities, are diluted in an ocean full of garbage, how will it be possible to move from one to the other in small steps?

    Evolution is random:

    Even if we were to assume that the space of shards is saturated and overflowing with good possibilities, what is good for one is not good for another. An electric flashlight growing from the forehead, good for deep-sea fish, but not for cows. Therefore, the probabilistic encounter between some successful path, a creature in which those mutations are supposed to be useful, in the habitat where that creature lives, is zero among zeros. Did the fish of the depths scan the entire possible space until they came across the shroff that brought an electric flashlight to the forehead anyway, and it turned out to be shrunk with them by natural selection anyway?

    Evolution is random:

    Genes that jumped and duplicated, and mutated in them, in the right places and at the right times, which adapted them into new systems - all of this is completely random and there are endless probabilities of zeros. I am forced to repeat this again, because you called my words "rhetoric", unjustly, and missed the point. You claimed that the genome is full and overflowing with such pseudo-genes and gene remnants, which in your opinion is sufficient raw material for creating new clusters.

    A. I'm not sure that the genome is indeed full and overflowing with such, and most of what is called junk DNA is repeated sequences that have a role in gene control and so on, but let's assume as you said.

    But this multiple raw material is exactly like a liter of ink, and the distance between it and the creation of new systems, operating in new organs, under new control, is exactly like the distance from a liter of ink to the Encyclopedia Britannica. what are you saying? It's not the same. Evolution does not speak of a random scattering of ink (mutations) that creates a script (new genes). Right. But what you were talking about is not a gradual evolution of small steps. Just as (Derwinian) evolution does not believe in the accumulation of neutral mutations into large steps, because of the zero probability of this, it also cannot believe in the successful combination of 10 genes that have changed, to close a new circle that constitutes a new system. If there is a gene for a key, which opens a specific lock, and if you are given an abundance of key halves, what is the probability that connecting two such halves will open a random lock that happens to be in front of you? What is the probability that connecting two key halves + a few small changes in the right places will open a random lock that happens to be in front of you? And what is the probability that 5 genes that formed one system and jumped to a random place in the genome, with another 5 genes that jumped from another system to a random place in the genome, and some random changes occurred in them, will together form a new system, a new circuit, whose parts are adapted to each other, and that there will also be a new control system, which routes the The new genes for a specific target organ? Isn't it a matter of probability?

    Evolution is random, and probability is everything:

    I recommend that you consult the book "From Mendelism to Genetic Engineering" published by the OP, Unit 8, in the chapter entitled - "The Appeal to Classical Darwinism", where the reason for the existence of the "Neutralist Evolution" school of thought is explained, which is that the Darwinist theory of evolution predicts a certain picture that we were supposed to see in the comparison Genomes of different creatures along the evolutionary tree, and in practice the emerging picture is completely different. Darwinist evolution, because of *clear probabilistic calculations*, which Dawkins explains in his book "The Blind Watchmaker" in the third chapter "Accumulation of small changes", believes that evolution can only progress by small adaptive steps. Evolution of small adaptive steps predicts a certain molecular picture and it is said there - "If only selection was responsible for the evolution of DNA and proteins, then we would have to expect that the molecular distance between the shark and the gram fish, for example, would be much smaller than the distance between the shark and the eagle in the sky... But the findings contradict this prediction." And later there - "These and other findings and calculations formed the basis for the neutralist theory of molecular evolution. Its main claim - in contrast to that of the selectionist (Darwinian) theory is that the vast majority of mutations in DNA have no adaptive value" - are you following? Due to a molecular comparison between genomes, as well as due to Kimura's genetic calculations, it appears that evolution often progresses by the accumulation of *neutral* mutations. And at the end of one of his articles, Kimura wrote - "... after all, at the basic level of the genetic material - most of the evolutionary changes are driven by the power of random drift."

    did you hear But please say again "not random", at least not according to the more modern currents in the world of evolution belief.

    Dawkins, who advocates Darwinian evolution, the development of "advantageous small steps", does not agree with this approach. But what to do if studies of molecular comparison between genes contradict the prediction of Darwinian evolution?

    and fossil findings. Check out this article -

    Regarding Gold's findings from Makar Fossils. See there the continuous graph that predicts Darwinian evolution, and compare it to the fragmented graph emerging from Gould's research.

    So how did Gold solve the problem? No problem. If not continuous gradual evolution, then "evolution of jumps". That is, no more advantageous small steps.

    And what is the probability of this evolution? And what about all of Dawkins's just arguments, *on probabilistic grounds*, regarding the necessity of continuous gradation and small steps? Gold and Kimura have solutions. And at the end of his aforementioned article, Kimura, who felt the probabilistic problem, wrote as follows: "And although this *random* process seems slow and meaningless during the short days of man's life, on the scale of geological time, this process causes a change of huge dimensions."

    Well, such mantras are only good for those whose definition "Creator created" is out of the question, but not in a school setting, and not in the context of a debate about X:Y in favor of any party. The scale of geologic time is zero and laughable compared to the spaces of possible combinations for this "random" process, which is driven "mainly by random genetic drift". I believe in this matter as Dawkins, that *probability scales*, evolution cannot be driven *mainly* by random drift and the accumulation of neutral mutations into giant steps or leaps, but I of course accept Gold's fossil findings and Kimura's molecular studies, which cannot be disputed, And as a result, both schools of thought are disproved. And the profit I gain from the fact that "Creator created" is not a forbidden conclusion for me, among other things, is that I don't have to believe in mantras, let alone call them "science".

  53. Avi Blizovsky

    29-10-2007 | 0:23 |

    Yonatani, it's a waste of the readers' time and Roy's time. This is not the place to convince someone that the existence of a creator is part of a scientific argument, for that there are sites that do not need to volunteer like the participants of this site, because unfortunately they are slyly funded with the tax money I pay. With all due respect to every missionary, Jewish, Christian, Chinese, Indian. Please thank you for your argument, leave us alone.
    It is certainly impossible to distort the words of Dawkins, who is trying to describe the other side, and take these things out without bringing his reactions. This is called taking things out of context.
    If those with whom the definition of "Creator created" is out of the question, does not enter his school, please leave our school and be satisfied with religious websites, then you will not demand that this website also side with those who believe in astrology, numerology, and other things, why is it by force to convince that there is a God?

  54. Roy Cezana

    29-10-2007 | 9:46 |

    Jonathan -
    Your previous response was six Word pages long. This time you only reached five. we are getting better. In the end you will just say "yes", and I will answer "no".
    I must admit that I did not read the chapter you quoted in the Open University. I don't have the time for that this week, so in order not to stall the discussion, I simply read online about the theory in question, and I will respond according to what you quoted. At the same time, I assume (accidentally?) that you also did not read the three articles I brought in my last response.

    I will mark your responses with == at the beginning and at the end, and I will mark my responses this time with @@@ at the beginning and at the end.

    ==A. When I argue with you about evolution yes or no, I am arguing about True/False values ​​and not about utility. Moreover, I am not even debating True/False evolution but rather the "evidence" and "beliefs" of the theory of evolution. Is her evidence evidence and are there any logical/mathematical errors in her reasoning, yes or no.==

    @@@ In science, a theory is often also measured by the usefulness it brings in testing other evidence, and how it can explain it. The theory is constantly measured and its value is determined with each new article that comes out and tries to explain its results using it. After all, if a paper came out that contradicted the unequivocal theory of evolution, it could nullify its existence for the scientific world. This is why I emphasize the fact that thousands of articles have used the theory of evolution to strengthen their findings - thereby strengthening the theory of evolution themselves.
    In simpler terms: Researcher A finds a finding, and explains it through the theory of evolution in a way that is consistent with the Torah. Researcher B finds another finding, and explains it also through the theory of evolution. As above with researcher C, D, H and so on. Thousands of researchers have found thousands of findings that can be explained through evolution. Don't you think this also indicates the strength of the theory of evolution? @@@

    ==B.1 - There is, did not grow, and will not grow, any benefit from the belief that mammals evolved from reptiles, that a leg evolved from a fin, that our ancestors were fish and their ancestors were molluscs... and their ancestors were bacteria, etc. Show me one benefit that grew out of these beliefs. ==

    @@@happily. You can also look at my previous paragraph, where I explained to you how any article that benefits and uses the theory of evolution to explain its findings, actually benefits through the theory of evolution.
    But beyond that: you probably know the mitochondria - those tiny organelles inside cells that create energy from oxygen. Inside all cells, by the way - from plant and worm cells to the cells of humans and elephants. It is a known fact in biology that mitochondria have their own set of genes, and that they have a double membrane. These and other facts established the theory that the mitochondria is actually an ancient bacterium that was swallowed by a more basic cell, hundreds of millions of years ago. It is interesting that the same ancient bacterium (whose genes also contain remnants of a bacterial genome) has evolved in order to integrate better with the cell. To this day, you can find many studies that deal with the study of mitochondria while reaching conclusions from the theory of evolution. These studies, based on the theory of evolution in their understanding, can help us in the field of discovering new antibiotics, in genetic engineering designed to affect the mitochondria (as in de Gray's vision for extending human life) and in many other areas.
    And if we are dealing with mitochondria: isn't it interesting that the mitochondria, which is clearly an ancient bacterium, is found in all the complex creatures alive today? Isn't this a nice supporting evidence that at the beginning of evolution all multicellulars had one ancestor, which swallowed the primitive mitochondria? And from there he of course evolved and a billion years later... welcome to our diverse world. @@@

    ==B.2 - Natural selection, genetic drift, bottlenecks, extinction of alleles, methods of acquiring resistance to antibiotics by point mutations in bacteria, etc. - these are existing phenomena, it is good that they are studied, it is good that they are studied, and no one disputes them . Do you want to call these phenomena "evolution" as well? Read, with respect, and I tell you that I have no argument about this "evolution". The dispute is about the development of systems and organs from other systems and organs. The debate is about systems with inextricable complexity, at least those that look like that "at first sight", is it so, or only at first sight they are only at first sight indecipherable. And this debate has nothing to do with the aforementioned phenomena that are useful in their research.==

    @@@ I'm glad that you were convinced of the existence of mutations that give new properties to bacteria (and it should also be added to fungi and protozoa). This is actually evolution through natural selection, and as you said yourself - it does exist. As for our argument about nondecomposable systems, I don't see how we can settle it well. I've already shown you that researchers were able to prove that two seemingly inseparable systems are in fact separable (the immune system and the toxin of the bacteria. And believe me - both are extremely complicated systems). I cited in your view an experiment in a computer algorithm that created an inexhaustible system - but managed to reach it through evolution with the help of natural selection. More than that, I cannot do, but I believe that this evidence strongly strengthens the fact that evolution through natural selection can indeed reach indecomposable systems. @@@

    ==B.3 - I have already pointed out to you at least one benefit, which would have grown from the assumption of an intelligent creation - if they had not assumed junk DNA, many parts of it would have been deciphered a long time ago. ==

    @@@ Alma hypothesis. And an interesting point - many researchers also worked on the DNA junk even at a time when they believed it had no meaning or meaning. From this we know about him what we know today.
    And if we follow the same speculative spirit that you demonstrate here, then if the existing scientific theory was that there is an intelligent creation, then there were also studies that show that the Jews are evil by birth. The reason is that the intelligent creation is in total a disguise of the creationists, guided by the Catholic Church - and woe to us if science is guided by religion. @@@

    ==If you think about it, you will see that rather, research that is led out of religious fervor, from the assumption that there is no end to the wisdom that can be explored in the wonders of creation, from infinite admiration for the wisdom that shines from every protein and every mechanism, could have yielded more than research that assumes that everything is garbage, until proven otherwise. Newton, Kepler, Maxwell, Mendel, and many other giants, were devout believers, their research stemmed from religious fervor, and they contributed and promoted science more than seventy thousand evolutionists, of whom you may be named.==

    @@@Richard Feynman was not bad at all. Gould was an excellent researcher. Einstein did not engage in his research out of religious zeal. Millions of successful researchers today are not engaged in research out of religious zeal, but out of a love for science that comes from within, and not from without - from some supreme god. They engage in science for the same reason people become priests - because they want to know how things happen and why. The scientific method is more complicated than God, but I can say with certainty that the one who chooses to follow its path and become a scientist, benefits more than the one who chooses to answer with the short and succinct answer - "God". The religious fervor of Newton, Kepler, Maxwell, Mendel and Co. is in total the scientific fervor that exists today, in accordance with the spirit of the time. @@@

    ==But if so, then there is no point in waving any X:0 in favor of evolution, since 0 is placed next to creation *by definition*, for philosophical reasons.==

    @@@ It makes sense to wave the same 0 of creationism, because it is a threat to the scientific method in different countries. And the reasoning is not -=just=- philosophical, but also practical and practical. @@@

    ==d. Between us, and outside of this debate, which is not about religion or theology, oh how wrong you are. Broadly speaking, I would say that there is nothing more useful in the world, a real benefit, than the understanding that the Creator created, if it is followed by a search for the purpose of creation, but that is outside the context of this debate.==

    @@@ Certainly in connection with this debate - which deals largely with religion versus science - there is nothing more useful in the world than the understanding that one should not rely on a creator who created. There is nothing more helpful to humanity than the understanding that there is no creator whose laws are fluid and he is ready to change them whenever it is convenient for him to change them. This understanding led to the creation of the scientific method, which requires proof of the correctness of theories, and beyond that, their repeated correctness in many laboratories all over the world. The fickle creator, who always watches over the world and changes the results of experiments that please the church, belongs to a world of witches and superstitions, whose time has passed.
    I am happy for you that you have found your destiny in life, but I am sorry that you chose an intelligent creator as a way to explain it. @@@

    ----------

    == The possible summation space for a simple 10-gene system is 10000^20 summations. It can be described as a matrix with 10000 dimensions, about 20 possible values ​​for each dimension. Every existing biological system is a point in this matrix, which is a meeting of 10000 scalars, which are adapted to each other and constitute a functional system. Around each such point, you will be able to define a small island, of displacements that can be moved here or there, in this and that scalars, and get similar systems. For example, from the point that constitutes the sweat system of a dog, by exchanging the values ​​of several scalars, you will get the sweat system of a cat. Another point in its vicinity will give you an elephant's sweat system and many other points will give a sweat system that will be effective in other created or uncreated creatures. But the lactation systems of sorts, are a small island, around some point, which is a galactic distance away from the sweat systems, in the pure matrix. And the immune system is another point, a galactic distance away from both of them. And the blood system, the bone, the feather of the wings, the kidney, the brain, etc., each of them is an isolated system in a frightening ocean of the size of garbage cans.==

    @@@ One of the problems with your combination space is that it only refers to possible proteins and genes, and the end result, which is actually a very complicated system, which has been perfected over the years. I notice you don't refer to more primitive 'sweating' systems than those of a cat or dog. However, such gradual sweating systems - which have undergone evolution - exist even between different mammals .
    From the moment there are a number of initial and primitive systems - which can be very simple - your space of combinations already consists of a meeting of many more reasonable possibilities. Each such system already contains the possibilities for further development, so that instead of referring to a combination space consisting of 20^10000 genes, one can actually refer to a much smaller combination space, which results from the combination of many primitive systems to create a more efficient and sophisticated system.
    In other words, not every trait (eg, milk production) needs to be reinvented. There is no need to go over the one possibility out of 20^10000 combinations that will result in the birth of a new creature that will say to its dinosaur mother, "Mother, mother, come quickly! I need a bra and feel a strong urge to breastfeed!" Sound ridiculous? Well, that's what you're actually saying.
    What is the other option? Well, we have a sweat system in marsupials as early as 120 million years ago. The claim today is that these marsupials gave birth to their offspring at a very early age, and transferred them to a pouch that had enlarged sweat glands that were modified to secrete a primitive type of sweat/milk. In this way, one primitive system leads to the formation of another primitive system - and slowly over the generations, the systems become more and more sophisticated until the high level we witness today.
    By the way, the combination space you described of 10 genes actually describes a relatively simple metabolic pathway. A metabolic pathway like the one you already admitted can be created in the laboratory in bacteria to break down antibiotics, for example. Have you refuted your own argument? @@@

    ==From a study I saw, on behalf of linguistics experts, it appears that out of 100^26 possible sentences of 100 letters in length in the English language, only about 25^10 are meaningful sentences. Do you understand what a zero percent that is? And why would you think that in genetic simplifiers, the percentage of biological systems, that have meaning, the situation is different? And if the situation is not different, and the useful meeting points in the matrix of possibilities, are diluted in an ocean full of garbage, how will it be possible to move from one to the other in small steps?==

    @@@Alas for metaphors! Linguists have a hard tendency to accept only correct and complete sentences as possible sentences. Biology has a great tendency to 'make do with what is'. Even if there is only half a system active, there are other systems that can cover it. This is true not only in metabolic pathways but also in body systems. @@@

    ==Even if we were to assume that the space of shards is saturated and overflowing with good possibilities, what is good for one is not good for another. An electric flashlight growing from the forehead, good for deep-sea fish, but not for cows. Therefore, the probabilistic encounter between some successful path, a creature in which those mutations are supposed to be useful, in the habitat where that creature lives, is zero among zeros. Did the fish of the depths scan the entire possible space until they came across the shroff that brought an electric flashlight to the forehead anyway, and it turned out to be shrunk with them by natural selection anyway? ==

    @@@ says again. Indeed it is hard to believe that one fish from the depths got up in the morning, looked at his young son and asked him "What is that traffic light on your forehead?". The process is gradual, and based on systems that were already there. In the case of the fish of the deep, it is a symbiosis between light-emitting bacteria and an organ on the head of the fish. That is, we already have here a combination of a complicated system that you admit could have formed (the bacteria spreading the light) and a very simple system - the area on the head of the fish where the bacteria can sit. From here on the system can only be perfected - moving away from the head of the fish, for example, like on a fishing rod. But the initial system can be created too easily from previous systems. There is no need to assume that one day a fish was born in which all the genetic mutations necessary to create the system from scratch occurred. @@@

    ==Evolution is random, and probability is everything:
    I recommend that you consult the book "From Mendelism to Genetic Engineering" published by the OP, Unit 8, in the chapter entitled - "The Appeal to Classical Darwinism", where the reason for the existence of the "Neutralist Evolution" school of thought is explained, which is that the Darwinist theory of evolution predicts a certain picture that we were supposed to see in the comparison Genomes of different creatures along the evolutionary tree, and in practice the emerging picture is completely different. Darwinist evolution, because of *clear probabilistic calculations*, which Dawkins explains in his book "The Blind Watchmaker" in the third chapter "Accumulation of small changes", believes that evolution can only progress by small adaptive steps. Evolution of small adaptive steps predicts a certain molecular picture and it is said there - "If only selection was responsible for the evolution of DNA and proteins, then we would have to expect that the molecular distance between the shark and the gram fish, for example, would be much smaller than the distance between the shark and the eagle in the sky... But the findings contradict this prediction." And later there - "These and other findings and calculations formed the basis for the neutralist theory of molecular evolution. Its main claim - in contrast to that of the selectionist (Darwinian) theory is that the vast majority of mutations in DNA have no adaptive value" - are you following? Due to a molecular comparison between genomes, as well as due to Kimura's genetic calculations, it appears that evolution often progresses by the accumulation of *neutral* mutations. And at the end of one of his articles, Kimura wrote - "... after all, at the basic level of the genetic material - most of the evolutionary changes are driven by the power of random drift."
    did you hear But please say again "not random", at least not according to the more modern currents in the world of evolution belief.==

    @@@ Not pretty. Regarding the message, please refer to the whole thing. And I quote: "... after all, at the basic level of the genetic material". Basic. Basic. Basic. Not at the level of metabolic pathways, not at the level of systems. Kimura's conclusion is that it is a random drift at the most basic level of the genetic material. And, to Tommy, I thought that you had already agreed on the evolution of simple metabolic pathways in bacteria, and we had already moved on to talk about complete systems. @@@

    ==and fossil finds. Check out this article - Regarding Gold's findings from Makar Fossils. See there the continuous graph that predicts Darwinian evolution, and compare it to the fragmented graph emerging from Gould's research.
    So how did Gold solve the problem? No problem. If not continuous gradual evolution, then "evolution of jumps". That is, no more advantageous small steps.
    And what is the probability of this evolution? And what about all of Dawkins's just arguments, *on probabilistic grounds*, regarding the necessity of continuous gradation and small steps? Gold and Kimura have solutions. And at the end of his aforementioned article, Kimura, who felt the probabilistic problem, wrote as follows: "And although this *random* process seems slow and meaningless during the short days of man's life, on the scale of geological time, this process causes a change of huge dimensions."
    Well, such mantras are only good for those whose definition "Creator created" is out of the question, but not in a school setting, and not in the context of a debate about X:Y in favor of any party. The scale of geologic time is zero and laughable compared to the spaces of possible combinations for this "random" process, which is driven "mainly by random genetic drift". ==

    @@@ I answered you about the problem of possible combinations, which was presented by you in an oversimplified manner. Geological time does allow the creation of complex systems from less complex systems. @@@

    ==I believe in this regard as Dawkins, that *probability scales*, evolution cannot be driven *mainly* by random drift and the accumulation of neutral mutations into giant steps or leaps, but I of course accept Gold's fossil findings and Kimura's molecular studies, which cannot be disagreed On them, and as a result, both schools of thought are disproven. And the profit I gain from the fact that "Creator created" is not a forbidden conclusion for me, among other things, is that I don't have to believe in mantras, let alone call them "science". ==

    @@@ Let me tell you a parable, to demonstrate the logic of your conclusion.
    Two women came to King Solomon, with one baby.
    One of them said "He's mine!"
    The other said "He is mine!"
    What did Solomon do?
    "Kill the two women," he ordered his servants, "and throw the baby to the dogs."
    Two theories can live side by side, with the help of minor changes. There is no need to 'kill' the two theories because they disagree with each other on several points, and as a result decide that another theory, which is not plausible at all, is the correct one.
    But that's exactly what you do.
    I'm glad you're happy with your belief, but I'd rather you find a more logical way to convince us.
    Good Day. @@@

  55. Roy Cezana

    30-10-2007 | 9:24 |

    By the way, if we are talking about non-degradable systems and an intelligent creator...
    Here is a link to a nice entry in the Hebrew Wikipedia, about the ant hedgehog. This is a mammal living in Australia, which lays eggs. After the pup hatches from the egg, it attaches itself to a special area in the mother's abdomen that secretes milk. It is important to emphasize that the mother has no nipples.
    Interesting, isn't it? Apparently the breastfeeding system is not as inexhaustible as people like to claim. And as for an intelligent creator... it is hard to understand why he created such a clumsy animal like the ant hedgehog, which lays eggs, waits for them to hatch, and then nurses the young. Her urinary system, feces and sex are also all contained in one 'hole' and are considered particularly primitive.
    So it's probably not worth just looking at the most sophisticated systems, but also at all the steps we went through on the way to them.
    Wikipedia

  56. age

    30-10-2007 | 15:46 |

    "By the way, if we are talking about non-decomposable systems and an intelligent creator. Here is a link to a nice entry on the Hebrew Wikipedia, about the ant hedgehog. This is a mammal living in Australia, which lays eggs. After the pup hatches from the egg, it attaches itself to a special area in the mother's abdomen that secretes milk. It is important to emphasize that the mother has no nipples.
    Interesting, isn't it? Apparently the breastfeeding system is not as inexhaustible as people like to claim. And as for the intelligent creator"-
    This is not the case with humans. The breastfeeding system consists of a mammary gland + milk duct + milk protein + a receptor only in the breasts + a hormone for the receptor, only when the baby touches the friction sensors in the nipple is a signal transmitted to the pituitary gland which causes the release of the hormone and only then is the milk expressed. One of the above parts and the system will cease to function. Therefore it cannot be created evolutionarily. Neither can the blood system. Although there are open blood systems, but they are deadly for humans and therefore the blood system cannot really be created evolutionarily either. And regarding the so-called nausea in animals. This is what That bothers you? Imaginary awkwardness?

  57. Roi_Cezna

    30-10-2007 | 17:27 |

    Age –
    I am aware that with man it is not like that. In humans, the system is more complex. The ant hedgehog is one of the primitive stages that the lactating system went through before developing into the more complex system that humans have.

    You claim that if we remove one of the parts from the system, it will cease to function. How do you explain the hedgehog's primitive breastfeeding system, which works great without nipples or mutuals, for example? This is a good example that the system is definitely being discharged.

  58. age

    31-10-2007 | 1:21 |

    It has become a bit of a deaf dialogue, and not from now on.
    "How do you explain the hedgehog's primitive breastfeeding system, which works great without nipples or mutuals, for example? This is a beautiful example that the system is definitely discharged." - that it will work perfectly. So? Does this mean that it could have developed in humans? On the contrary... if you claim that it is discharged, then how did it gradually become non-discharged today? Let's hear your explanation...
    And I would also be happy if you could explain to me how the human blood system came into being. Did the heart precede the blood vessels? Or maybe the blood fluid? How did man exist without all three? Did the open blood systems in the animal world change at the same time into closed blood systems, with the process of man's formation from simple creatures ?how exactly?

  59. Roy Cezana

    31-10-2007 | 6:16 |

    Age –
    You are playing with the settings. An irreducible system is a system that cannot be simplified. But it is an existing fact that with the hedgehog the human milk system is present in a more simplified state.
    Thus, the human milk system is discharged, and there is no problem here for evolution through natural selection. It simply went through a large number of changes and was perfected until it reached the improved milk system that humans have. Because the descendants of the creature called the hedgehog have evolved and become more sophisticated mammals - including humans.

    Regarding the circulatory system, I will not explain to you for the human, because as you probably know, the human circulatory system is very similar to that of the other developed mammals. If you follow the creatures in nature today, you will be able to see a gradual transition from open blood systems (as in some insects) to semi-open blood systems with very primitive hearts, to closed blood systems with a sophisticated heart like ours.
    I'm not a professor of zoology, but information about the development of circulatory systems is information you can find yourself more than easily on the Internet or in university studies. In the zoology course at the Technion, the variety of living systems is presented, and then you can get a very clear view of the way in which the blood systems become more and more efficient from creature to creature.

  60. age

    31-10-2007 | 18:44 |

    Quote-"You are playing with definitions. An inexhaustible system is a system that cannot be simplified." - True! And the human milk system cannot be simplified! Remove even one component from it in a person, and it will cease to function. Remove the blood vessels from the person and he will die. Remove the human heart from the circulatory system And there won't be anything that will bleed his blood. Remove the hemoglobin from the blood and the person will die from lack of oxygen and more and more." But it is an existing fact that with the hedgehog the human milk system is present in a more simplified state.
    Therefore, the human milk system is discharged" - absolutely not and I explained above.

  61. Roy Cezana

    31-10-2007 | 19:28

    Indeed, this is the case with the person in whom the system has been highly refined. But the fact is that in less sophisticated blood systems (the blood systems that developed along the way), for example some of the blood vessels are missing and in their place there is a large cavity in the center of the body into which the blood is poured and from which it is drained.
    That is, the system can be simplified into its separate parts, and there are countless living examples in nature that illustrate this point.

  62. age

    31-10-2007 | 19:53 |

    Not true. If there was such a system in man, he would be dead!
    So how did it develop for him? Please explain the steps in your opinion.
    Maybe you will also explain to me how the nervous system was formed? You know that in order to move your hand you need the following steps - brain + neuron + sent signal + axon + insulating layer (myelin) + response to the sent signal + formation of a nerve conductor in response to the signal (neurotransmitter) + receptor for the conductor + precise synapse + muscle and its adaptation to the conductor + decomposition enzymes for the conductor. If you take out any of the above parts you will not be able to move a centimeter!
    So what came before what and how could something here come before something else?

  63. Roy Cezana

    31-10-2007 | 20:55 |

    With pleasure, Gil. Here is a possible scenario, backed up by observations from nature. Note - not from fossils. Simply from creatures that are less sophisticated than man, and are the stages of evolution.
    A blood system can be perfected from an open system by the development of membranes surrounding internal spaces, as can be seen in the development of organisms in nature. These membranes provide, among other things, protection of internal organs and more efficient blood flow, so they are advantageous in themselves. They will also encourage the development of some kind of heart, which will circulate the blood more efficiently in the internal spaces that become narrower.
    Even more developed organisms already contain an active heart, and in them the membranes have already been formed and turned into real blood vessels. They still have an internal cavity into which the blood pours and drains back into the blood vessels, and to reach maximum efficiency, it is understandable why the circulatory system closes at the end, after millions of years of evolution. And here we have the elaborate human circulatory system.

    And now to the nervous system.
    You know, of course, that not all organisms have a nervous system as sophisticated as that of humans, right? These are stages in evolution. We can find evidence of parts of our brains that evolved in primitive brains. We can find primitive brains already in the worms, and already there we find very primitive synapses. Pay attention at this point. There are parts of the nervous system that do not exist in primitive creatures. Not all creatures must have appendages like myelin, for example. As another example, there are creatures whose nervous system is not completely voluntary at all, and is based more on instincts without connection to the brain. The nervous system is definitely unloaded, and you can see this in the variety of organisms in which the nervous system is less complex than ours.
    My guess is that the beginning of the evolution of the nervous system is in jellyfish and the like, and from there it simply continues in the direction of increasing complexity.

    You can keep asking about all body systems, age, but that would be a waste of my time and yours. I don't know all the animals in the world, or all the proposed mechanisms of evolution. If you want really detailed answers, I suggest you take a zoology / evolution course at university, or search the net. The answers are all around you, if you are only willing to listen.

  64. age

    31-10-2007 | 22:21 |

    Inaccuracies-1-"They will also encourage the development of some kind of heart, which will flow the blood more efficiently in the internal spaces that become narrower."-What does encourage? How was the blood flowed before the creation of the heart? Was the heart and its special function (pump) created at once? Can man live without a heart? Can man live without separation in the chambers of the heart? Can man live without blood vessels? Can man live without one-way valves in the blood vessels? At the same time as the creature without blood vessels becomes a human, know vessels The blood was also quarantined at the same time? Was the blood created at the same time as the mechanisms that let it flow? How did the creature live until some kind of blood system was created? And if it could live without blood at the time, then why can't it live like this now? What has changed? You know what Let's leave even that..come explain to me about the nervous system-

    "The nervous system has definitely been discharged, and you can see this in the variety of organisms in which the nervous system is less complex than ours." - You claim this again? There is no point in a neuron without a signal. Breakdown to the receptor and also without there being a muscle that would receive a response from the receptor. So how did it gradually develop in humans? At least try to tell me what came before what of all the parts I mentioned above and we'll try to see if your explanation can happen in reality...try..
    PS - by the way, myelin - once the axon was formed, it would have caused a serious failure without this insulating layer. Was the myelin formed at the same time as the axon or what?

  65. Roy Cezana

    31-10-2007 | 22:40 |

    Age –
    Regarding the nervous system, you forget that there are also electrical synapses, not just chemical ones. The electrical synapses do not need a large part of the components you mentioned.
    Regarding the myelin - it is important in the long term to help transport the voltage, but in very small structures it is less needed.

    As for the circulatory system, you're not even trying to argue seriously. I'm not talking about a person here, but you keep sticking to the human circulatory system and claiming that - 'a person cannot live without a heart'. There's no arguing about that. The debate is about the blood systems that preceded the human system.
    You ask a lot of questions, but they are stupid and provocative questions. Some of them distort what I said, and the rest are questions unrelated to the discussion, or questions that you can find the answer to with a little thought. You remind me of a sentence by Ronald Payne, a creationist researcher in the state of Illinois: "A creationist can tell more lies in half an hour than a scientist can tell in a whole week."

    so what happened? Did you lose interest in statistics with the exaggerated and unrelated numbers that scared everyone, and moved on to asking dozens of unrelated questions, simply to give the impression that you are flooding evolution with unanswerable questions?
    They have an answer, but they are not related to evolution at all. To the extent that you ask "Can man live without blood vessels?" You can ask "Who took the margarine out of my fridge?" The degree of connection to evolution is the same.

    Enough of the teasing. If you have something real to say about evolution in an attempt to undermine its validity, feel free to present it. But you have already filled the siam. Worse than that, since you display some knowledge of biology, my feeling is that you are distorting facts (which you know exist in the field) on purpose.

  66. age

    1-11-2007 | 3:52 |

    Oh Roy..." Regarding the nervous system, you forget that there are also electrical synapses, and not just chemical ones. The electrical synapses do not need a large part of the components you mentioned" - but in humans, all the components I mentioned are needed!
    Come describe to me how we got to the current situation. Step by step. Which part appeared first and what was it used for.

    "Regarding the circulatory system, you don't even try to argue seriously. I'm not talking about a person here, but you keep sticking to the human circulatory system and claiming that - 'a person cannot live without a heart'. There's no arguing about that. The debate is about the blood systems that preceded the human system" - not true. The debate here is about whether man could develop evolutionarily. And the very fact that you cannot explain what preceded what until the complete system arrived, only proves the exhaustion of evolutionary arguments. (Be aware that neither biologists could give me an answer).

    "You ask a lot of questions, but they are stupid and provocative questions." - Not stupid at all. Provocative? No. Thought provoking perhaps." Some of them distort what I said, and the rest are questions unrelated to the discussion, or questions to which you can find the answer with a little thought"-thought?
    Are we dealing with delusions or rational empirical science?

    "so what happened? You lost interest in the statistics with the exaggerated and unrelated numbers that scared everyone" - I didn't lose interest at all. I just saw that you don't have the knowledge required for that.
    By the way...what do you mean scared? How can scientists be afraid of questions about evolution? I thought it was proven in your opinion, no?

    "They have an answer, but they are not related to evolution at all"-
    So what are they related to?...Margarine?
    My friend Roy, I used to be a prisoner like you and depended on the words of the "scientists". Expect surprises in life. Yours, Gil...

  67. Avi Blizovsky

    1-11-2007 | 7:31 |

    I hope you will respond to my request and move to a new page, because for some reason, the talkback system has crashed and each response is wider than the previous one.
    I would be happy to receive suggestions, perhaps from those who know Warpers, how to settle this matter.

Comments

  1. I understand that the answers have run out. If you have gone into personal lines, it also shows what your Torah is worth. By the way, according to your mind, it seems to me that you have evolved from Orantong. 2. About my things, I was not the only one who said them, so that you included too many people, professors, etc. 3. At least you read the article until The ending contradicts what you said, I hope you got upset

  2. please,
    Note: You are stupid and you are wrong.
    Hope I helped you be happier.

  3. 1. Evolution contradicts the Torah, and if we put it into the Torah, something small will come out that is not worth believing in or investing in. 2. Evolution does not work out probabilistically. An end such as stars that do not hold themselves... c. The laws of nature, for example the law of time... gravity and the other three forces are things that do not belong to be created by evolution because they contain themselves on it d. Space is something that has consequences and it is not possible for it to be created by matter which is a finite thing and space is infinite. Science has no knowledge of what 95 percent of the universe is made of and how it is even possible to create such a theory. I think that faith also stems from mental purity and not just intellectual knowledge [I have a lot more to write, and I would be happy to receive comments]

  4. On The Origin Of Origins

    Dark Matter-Energy And "Higgs"?
    Energy-Mass Superposition
    The Fractal Oneness Of The Universe
    All Earth Life Creates and Maintains Genes

    A. On Energy, Mass, Gravity, Galaxies Clusters AND Life, A Commonsense Recapitulation
    http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/184.page#2125
    The universe is the archetype of quantum within classical physics, which is the fractal oneness of the universe.

    Astronomically there are two physics. A classical physics behavior of and between galactic clusters, and a quantum physics behavior WITHIN the galactic clusters.

    The onset of big-bang's inflation, the cataclysmic resolution of the Original Superposition, started gravity, with formation – BY DISPERSION – of galactic clusters that behave as classical Newtonian bodies and continuously reconvert their original pre-inflation masses back to energy, thus fueling the galactic clusters expansion, and with endless quantum-within-classical intertwined evolutions WITHIN the clusters in an attempt to delay-resist this reconversion.

    B. Updated Life's Manifesto May 2009
    http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14988&st=480&#entry412704
    http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/140/122.page#2321

    All Earth life creates and maintains genes. Genes, genomes, cellular organisms - All create and maintain genes.

    For Nature, Earth's biosphere is one of the many ways of temporarily constraining an amount of ENERGY within a galaxy within a galactic cluster, for thus avoiding, as long as possible, spending this particularly constrained amount as part of the fuel that maintains the clusters expansion .

    Genes are THE Earth's organisms and ALL other organisms are their temporary take-offs.

    For Nature genes are genes are genes. None are more or less important than the others. Genes and their take-offs, all Earth organisms, are temporary energy packages and the more of them there are the more enhanced is the biosphere, Earth's life, Earth's temporary storage of constrained energy. This is the origin, the archetype, of selected modes of survival.

    The early genes came into being by solar energy and lived a very long period solely on direct solar energy. Metabolic energy, the indirect exploitation of solar energy, evolved at a much later phase in the evolution of Earth's biosphere.

    However, essentially it is indeed so. All Earth life, all organisms, create and maintain the genes. Genes, genomes, cellular organisms - all create and maintain genes.

    Dov Hennis
    (Comments from the 22nd century)

  5. Ermac

    "b) The main claim is precisely that designed and material complexity requires intelligence."
    Shame on you for going against the Creator of the world!
    Genesis chapter XNUMX verse XNUMX
    "And God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul"
    No DNA, no proteins, no amino acids
    Just dirt, a simple material that is hard to get rid of after XNUMX years of bonfires in Amer.

    "c) Who determined that the Creator had a beginning at all? Is it difficult to imagine that matter did not always exist?"
    After all, you have already proven that you are zero in physics, so how do you have knowledge about the state of matter according to time?

    In conclusion, I have a feeling that according to your method, you will still end up in hell, God forbid, and this is because you are arrogant to the Creator of the world.

  6. A little note for Noam-

    "Creationists show proficiency and intellectual honesty when they come to analyze the shortcomings (real and imagined) of evolution. It is surprising that these qualities disappear when they refer to their theory. Their strongest reasoning is that such high complexity could only have been created by an intelligent being / a higher power , but this is precisely where their intellectual integrity stops: after all, the obligatory question here is: Who created the intelligent being / a higher power, to which they answer, "It is forbidden to ask."-

    a) Who said that God is complex?
    b) The main argument is precisely that designed and material complexity requires intelligence.
    c) Who determined that the Creator had a beginning at all? Is it hard to imagine that matter did not always exist?

    The creationists do not provide any interesting and fruitful explanation, nor intellectual honesty that allows, at least in theory, to provide something interesting and fruitful in the future." - False. See above.

  7. It's a shame that you are not interested in Abneral on the Torah, who provides some interesting insights on the subject.
    I would recommend you to look for some things on the subject with the help of the report project

  8. Creationists show proficiency and intellectual honesty when they come to analyze the shortcomings (real and imagined) of evolution. It is surprising that these qualities disappear when they relate to their teachings. Their strongest reasoning is that such high complexity could only have been created by an intelligent being / a higher power, but this is exactly where their intellectual integrity stops: the question that is required here is: who created the intelligent being / a higher power, and that is what they answer "That must not be asked."
    The creationists do not provide any interesting and fruitful explanation, nor intellectual honesty that allows, at least in theory, to provide something interesting and fruitful in the future.
    Therefore, despite any "holes" in evolution, and in other scientific theories, they are absolutely preferable to me - they at least provide a method that guarantees progress and improvement all the time.

  9. Answer also answer but it's deaf talk, creationists have a different meaning to the same words used by evolutionists. There is not a single question that has not been answered. The questions also repeat themselves despite the answers.

  10. In my opinion, the creationists here brought a lot of interesting material. It's a shame that they didn't answer all the questions.

  11. Ladies and gentlemen,

    I will withdraw from the discussion at this point. I see no point in continuing it, as far as I'm concerned, when every answer I give is completely ignored and unwilling to internalize and try to understand.

    The original goal for me in the discussion was not to convince the debaters here of evolution, because I recognize that people do not change their opinions easily. The goal was to provide some kind of reference page in Hebrew, which could provide answers to some of the more far-fetched arguments of the creationists.
    I am happy to say that we have certainly reached that goal, whether the creationists agree or not.

    Once the answers have been given, I see no reason to continue, especially when the creationists continue to cite the same sources that have been proven wrong, and proclaim the same claims that have nothing to do with evolution.

    I wish you all a great continued existence, and hope to see you in other comments in the knowledge.

    Thanks to everyone who participated in the discussion,
    Roy Cezana.

  12. To Michael

    Reporter:
    "In my opinion, the discussion is already exhausted. The creationists repeat their claims while being completely ignored…..I will not continue to fight windmills."

    You lasted a week, well done.
    From my experience there is no point in this debate even for a moment.
    There is simply no one to talk to, and whatever argument you put forward, even convincing proof, will not change the creator's mind.
    I learned this the hard way.
    palm tree
    http://www.optometry.co.il

  13. For a green raccoon:

    The question you asked:
    "But what you can't do is find an explanation for these small data. These data (and many others) which you so underestimate are precisely the proof that there is no intelligence or planning in the development of life"

    A request for an explanation from the field of spirit and faith. Receiving an answer from the spirit realm.

    The answer she gave does not contradict Gil's answer, but complements it.
    PS: Ask an orthopedist if he has a substitute for the "S" shape.
    ֹֹֹֹ
    "These defects which can be found in all forms of life, from bacteria to sequoia trees, arise from this event in which they were not involved at all"

    The world of the flesh consumed man and was a partner in his sin-
    "Serpentine pride and a blind desire, to face God, to compete with him - in his way without God, we were a way without love, a way of arrogance and deceit that banished God from his face"

    "A world of flesh, which God has banished from its face, lives in constant self-torture, venomous hatred, destruction and perdition, while seeking happiness and love.
    In a place where there is venomous hatred, an inexhaustible desire for power, we will not know the place of Elohim-S.K.

    If you seek happiness and love, you can examine this spiritual answer, which is not scientific, in your spirit.
    You will be able to verify it in a completely rational way in your spirit and by studying the ravaging history of man and in the past.

  14. Gil, I don't really understand you. After all, Roy already answered you about the matter of randomness. Why do you keep repeating the same question? You can disagree but why are you ignoring? I can't give you a better answer than a PhD student at the Technion. I can only point out that if the simile in your words is the person, then surprise surprise, probably yes...

    to an anonymous user. Regarding your answer about the shape of the spine. Don't ask an engineer but an orthopedist and write his answer.

    Now for your second answer which brings us to the root of the matter. If we compare this answer to Gil's answer we can see a certain kind of progress. When I asked Gil about this data, he claimed that it was an "interpretation". ZA, it's not about problems, but our misunderstanding, because each of the things I mentioned has a role, which even if we don't see it now, it will be revealed in the future (Gil, as I remember, mocked the short-sightedness and arrogance of the scientists). On the other hand, you recognize that there are flaws, but gives them a different interpretation. According to you the Creator is perfect, but creation is not perfect because about five thousand years ago a certain event took place between God and two people and a snake. ZA According to you these defects which can be found in all forms of life, from bacteria to sequoia trees, stem from this event If they weren't partners at all. This is an interesting answer but lacks any scientific basis. Even the story itself was only recognized by a small group that lived in the Judean Mountains and was written about two thousand years after its occurrence. It should be noted that peoples earlier than this people, who lived closer to the event in question (both temporally and geographically), did not mention the event at all.
    I respect your answer and the source in which you and many others believe and accept without question, but beliefs cannot be tested scientifically. In my opinion, the answers you offer have no place in scientific research and I prefer to receive other answers that can be verified more rationally.

  15. To the raccoon - see the words of an anonymous user, he answered your question. Furthermore, I will ask - can a random procedure lead to a chain of events that will eventually create a dead computer? Yes or no?

  16. For a green raccoon.

    Your words are like the claim that there is no intelligence and planning in a jumbo plane that crashed.

    A rule to remember:
    A defect does not indicate a lack of planning.

    Life was prevented from being perfect (it was) as long as man sinned and all creation after him.

    The S shape allows a great variety of movements within a very strong structure.
    asked a mechanical engineer.

  17. Gil, the difference between me and you is that you shoot the arrow and mark the target around it, and for this reason you did not answer any of the questions I presented to you: about the target of the little toe (no, it does not improve stability...); on hairs on the human body; on the spine of walkers which is shaped in an S shape and only improves the ability to get back pain; Or about the contiguity between the gene for immunity to malaria and the sickle cell anemia that was discovered among African populations living in areas plagued by malaria.
    And now for your dismissive answer. You can continue to bombard us with the exploded numbers (and continue to ignore Roy's explanations) but what you cannot do is find an explanation for these small data. These data (and many others) which you so disdain are precisely the proof that there is no intelligence or planning in the development of life, and as they say, the devil (in this case of the creationist "theory") is in the details.

  18. To the onlooker:

    "What is important in algorithmic programming is not the fact that you get a result that is presupposed, what is important is the mechanism. "

    There is no definite goal for evolution. A defined goal is a specific goal (and information) that exists in advance. In the case of natural evolution, such information does not exist and is not possible.

    If the goal setting is deleted from a computer program, then it will never achieve any result!

    "The mechanism of computer selection and the mechanism of random (unplanned!) changes are all that are required to get a functional result. This is exactly the argument of evolution! "

    The evolutionists base their claim on the possibility of evolution through natural selection (and small steps) and not on the random changes whose probability is zero.
    _______
    To Michael:

    "What exactly are you waiting for here? Shall I write a computer program and post it on the discussion pages? You exaggerated."

    Understand that this is impossible.

    "I built it myself...I guess I totally confused you"

    No. You did not confuse, but yourself. It is enough that you said "I built it myself" - which evolution cannot say.

    "It's because you refuse to see facts as proof."

    The facts are that different classes of creatures appeared during evolution.

    The proof that they evolved from each other is not found. Their development from each other is not a fact.

    "If the existing bacteria have already evolved and learned to utilize the environmental resources better than they knew at the beginning, any "attempt" of a new life form to form is eradicated by them immediately."
    1. What is the difference between the existing germs and the ancient germs?
    2. Is there an example of ancient bacteria according to which today's bacteria are not the ancient bacteria?
    3. Do you have proof that the bacteria have learned to take advantage of the environmental conditions in an optimal way? How can there be millions of different strains of germs?
    4. The definition of a new life form in evolution is a form that achieves an advantage. Can't you think of any new beneficial bacterial life form?
    5. Are all the multicellular species that live alongside the bacteria the proof that a new evolution of the bacteria and the multicellular organisms and those developed from them is possible...?
    6. Do you know what the changes in the environmental conditions were in the last 2 billion years, which would determine that the bacteria have exhausted their ability to take advantage of the environmental conditions?
    7. What does "immediately destroyed by them" mean? Give an example.
    8. "And learn to use the resources of the environment better than they knew at the beginning of the journey" Where do you get it from?
    9. Replace the word 'germs' with the word 'creatures' and you will get:
    "If the existing creatures have already evolved and learned to utilize the environment's resources better than they knew at the beginning, any "attempt" of a new life form to be created is immediately eradicated by them."
    In fact, here, a principle against evolution. According to this principle, evolution should not have existed at all, because the existing ones are better than anything that can evolve from them.

    "The laws of nature define the way to the formation of life and therefore it can be said that they contain the formation of life"

    They do not define. The laws of nature are the laws of chemistry and physics.
    They allow inferring the formation of the sun or water. They do not allow to infer even one living creature.

    For example, an example that you will not be able to answer based on the premise of the request:
    Define, describe, detail and deduce from the laws of nature the properties of organisms based on iron instead of carbon.
    can't you
    Because the laws of nature are not the laws of the formation of life.

    "Find some way to get away."
    Your response is an example of twisting. that there is no connection between it and the sentence above it, which discusses the question of accumulation of mutations.

    "You return to the starting point because you have to explain how they were created.."
    No need to explain anything. There is no need to explain that the eternal, from being eternal - was not created compared to life and the created universe.

    "We don't even have the possibility to prove that we weren't created in a second"
    If you can't prove to yourself that you are you, who can?

    A condition for any rational discussion is that you prove to yourself that you are you, otherwise you will not be able to have any knowledge about yourself and reality.

  19. Summary question for evolutionists - can a random procedure lead to a chain of events that will eventually create a dead computer? Yes or no?

  20. Michael - the link you gave is too long and I don't have free time, please tell me in your own words what was there so I can refer to it.

  21. Final comments for everyone - I don't know where to start anymore -
    To the viewer - "If you claim that it is not possible to create a new organ or creature in this way, you need to explain why." - And what do you think I have done up until now? So far I have explained why there is no chance in the world that any gene will be created. (Return to the middle of the article).

    "In my opinion, male nipples are not a beautiful thing! We were much more beautiful without nipples! Should we descend to this level of discussion?" - these are exactly the level of the evolutionist arguments - why wisdom teeth and why the appendix, etc., without being able to prove that it is true (and I have already shown you that the evolutionists were wrong about this).

    "If there is a planner, we would expect to see a completely different world in which species are *perfectly* adapted to their environment" - who said there aren't some? Teeth and eating mechanisms, taste and smell glands, muscles and movement mechanisms and much more. The fact that you found something that you don't know the function of, certainly does not mean that it has no function. I hope we don't repeat this argument again.

    To the raccoon - "You actually conclude in advance that everything has a role, so why even investigate?" - Why really investigate? If you enjoy it. On the contrary, with the progress of science in the 20th century, we only discovered a more wonderful world than we imagined.

    "Who can offer a role to the little finger of the foot? Or nails? Or for hair in general and on the back in particular (except for the laser salons)?"-are these really the arguments on which you base evolution? That I will understand.
    Have you ever tried to walk without that little finger? Does it bother you so much?
    Maybe it improves the grip? Maybe it is designed for long-term runs? And you call this "perfect proof of evolution"? Be serious, my friend.

    To Michael-"Even in the text you quoted it also says insects and you only give your wrong answer in relation to bacteria."-I didn't notice, I'll take a look.

    "I can write much bigger numbers. The fact that Gil insists on ignoring everything that Roi and Nir told him and repeats the mistakes in the basic assumptions of his calculation does not give validity to his numbers and stories"-nonsense. The benefit of any gene that folds into some spatial structure is only given all the control areas + the active site + all the other participating acids Roy claimed that maybe only the active site is enough, but what can be done if it is not the case in reality?.

    And this is exactly the perfect proof of evolution

  22. I think the discussion is already exhausted. The creationists repeat their claims while completely ignoring the many refutations that have been brought to them, so it seems to me that, unlike the living and developing systems in evolution, they are programmed not to let their opinions go through any mutation, not even when it is clear that they are in clear contradiction with reality.
    It seems to me that Nir and Roi also came to this conclusion and retired.
    I will not continue to fight windmills.

  23. To the root of the argument (well, what name did you choose)
    I hope the root canal I'm about to do won't hurt you too much.
    For everything you said up to the next quote - see my answer to Gil.

    " Give an example of network genetic programming that knows how to add two whole numbers and programs itself to find whether their sum is prime.
    The selection conditions must not assume information about the definition of primes."
    What exactly are you expecting here? Shall I write a computer program and post it on the discussion pages? You exaggerate.
    In any case, I saw (among other things) a program that solves the "traveling agent" problem (I'm sure if you know what it is, but what's important here is that even those who know what it is don't know how to solve it analytically effectively) using Simulated Annealing as well as genetic programming , I myself built neuronal networks that perform a medical diagnosis that doctors did not know how to perform (the original plan of the company where I did this was to build an expert system, but since it was an analysis of the way sound resonates inside the lungs, I told whoever designed it that he could not build an expert system that would do this because no doctor does not do this and therefore there is no expert whose knowledge can be introduced into the system. I added and said that the only chance to find a solution is to build a system that knows how to specialize on its own and that the Neronim network has a chance to succeed). I guess I've completely confused you but that probably won't deter you from responding.

    "The appearance of new organs and new species is not proven by adaptation."
    It's because you refuse to see facts as proof.

    "Why didn't the evolution of the first single cell repeat itself over and over again over the billions of years that have passed?"
    It is very possible that because of evolution! If the existing bacteria have already evolved and learned to utilize the environmental resources better than they knew at the beginning, any "attempt" of a new life form to form will be eradicated by them immediately. Their mountains already overcame their "ancestors" once and it was in a situation where their ancestors were still many, so it's really not a problem for them to exterminate every "ancestor" that was created anew.

    "The number of human species that should have existed based on the calculation of the "factor" for 50000^2 mutations over the last million years in the human species is enormous. Where are they?"
    The incorrect factorizations of a factor don't interest me.

    "Those who understand - understand that the numbers are huge against planned evolution, as Gil demonstrates here."
    I can write much larger numbers. The fact that Gil insists on ignoring everything Roi and Nir told him and repeating the mistakes in the basic assumptions of his calculation does not give validity to his numbers and stories.

    "What has been proven is that if you assume what you want, you get what you want.
    It has been proven that defining the way to a solution (by intelligent planning) contains the solution itself."
    Go back to my answer to Gil again.
    Indeed, the laws of nature define the way to the formation of life and therefore it can be said that they contain the formation of life. This is exactly the argument of evolution, so what exactly bothers you? You want to claim that God created the laws of nature and then killed himself? You are welcome.

    "The question of questions in evolution. Has it been proven that quantity turns into quality?"
    Hasn't it been proven that a society that engages in science and invents technological solutions to problems (like the Western countries) does not eventually reach (by the amount of discoveries and inventions) a better quality of life than a society that because of religion avoids this (like the Muslim society)?
    It has certainly been proven, but you will already find some twist to avoid this proof and demand another proof, so I announce in advance: I will not cooperate with your twists.

    "Rationalist - not absolute.
    Posing as a rationalist - absolute yes."
    I thought you called yourself a root. No big deal - I'll accept you under that name as well. My name is Michael.

    "After the culture died out and was re-created - in 10000 years they study the DNA of corn and find a gene of a poisonous bacterium, which is in the soil. They claim that it is a product of evolution. And they are completely wrong."
    They are not entirely wrong. Ultimately they were created as a result of the joint evolutionary development of us and the animal world. If you want to claim that we were created by aliens, then besides the fact that you have no proof of this, you are returning to the starting point because you have to explain how the aliens were created and once again you will have no escape from evolution.

    "The ability to reach a completely wrong conclusion based on the assumptions of T. Evolution proves that it is not true, that it is fundamentally incapable of distinguishing between truth and falsehood and is therefore not a scientific theory."
    This ability is your private ability.

    "Alternatively, it can be argued that she is unable to distinguish between intelligent planning and accidental development. And that is the root of the debate."
    Indeed, we don't even have the possibility to prove that we weren't created right this second and that the evil creator created the whole world (including the memory in our brains) in such a way that it makes us think that we have been arguing for a month.
    In fact we have no way of distinguishing between this silly claim and reality.

  24. Age:
    "To Michael-"First of all - I know blind programmers (you forgot that they have intelligence, evolution does not)"
    I didn't forget anything - I was just joking and the words I used were your words when you were anonymous. It was you who talked about the blind and forgot to mention the mind. Not that it matters but it is a fact.

    "What does self-programming mean? And who programmed the systems that program themselves if you don't program yourself? It's a circular argument that you can't get out of. Every planning has a planner. You must have heard of the blind watchmaker."
    The meaning is - if you really couldn't understand - that they solve problems that no one taught them how to solve. They start from a random solution and gradually make random changes to me while choosing the most suitable one. Very similar to evolution. The natural equivalent of those plans are…… the laws of nature. If you want to claim that God designed the laws of nature and has since retired, I will not argue with you.
    You must have heard of the blind watchmaker.

    "- Mantras again? I already explained why there is no evolution in bacteria at all. The bacteria remains a bacteria. Only a point mutated was there. Or a new gene that was created, the speed. This is not evolution. A dog will always remain a dog, but will not turn into a completely different creature (I'm not even talking about wolves ("
    I suggest you read the things you comment on so you don't get humiliated again. Even in the text you quoted it also says insects and you only give your wrong answer in relation to bacteria.
    You should also go to the link I pointed to. I understand that evolution is an enemy for you, but even wise warriors advise "know the enemy". Your response as it is does not refer to the words at all (by the way, they also explain how a wolf turns into a dog, which you probably ignored on purpose).

    "What does every time mean? It has never been proven that a decomposing molecule can form itself and will reproduce itself without proteins"
    "Every time" is a colloquial translation of a mathematical law. Did you take things out of context on purpose or did you not understand the context? The intention is that in any case where you encounter "some entity" with these qualities it will evolve.
    By the way, who talked about a molecule? These are combinations of molecules that cooperate. And by the way - in fact there is a similar thing in molecules as well. Have you heard of prions? After you search, if you understand what it is about, remember that I said similar and not identical.

    "I've learned enough about her. Thank you. I once believed her a little."
    If you studied enough you would understand.

  25. Gil and his friends constantly refer to the finished result that we see today, ie man, as a perfect creation. For this reason they can also use the parable of the person who finds a watch from which it must be concluded that there is someone who designed and created it. A few comments should be made about this:
    - At the base of the creationists' claims are three axioms: there is a God; God created the world; Since the creation of the world God is involved in events. These three claims are based on one and only one source, and if you will, a rather problematic source, but the discussion of its reliability should perhaps be done elsewhere.
    - to Gil. You did not answer my question about the remains of the fingers in the dolphin's fin, and the teeth that a baby whale sings in its mother's stomach. You are effectively presuming that everything has a role, so why even investigate?
    – Regarding the parable of the clock. If you throw it at what happens in nature, you can see that it really doesn't work. Creation is not perfect. If we were to put a talented (even imperfect) engineer with infinite powers, there is no doubt that he would create things much more intelligently (an S-shaped spine for bipedalism?? Linkages between genes for sickle cell anemia and resistance to malaria??). Let us focus on the external organs of the human body and not on the internal ones which may have one or another role (by the way, from the responses to the article on the appendix I understood that it is not at all unambiguous): Who can suggest a role for the little finger of the leg? Or nails? Or for hair in general and on the back in particular (except for the laser salons)?
    And this is exactly the perfect proof of evolution. While an intelligent creator demands perfection, evolution demands only "barely enough"; A creature that will only be slightly better than its teammates.

  26. For age,

    I don't know what you think I can understand from half a quote from Dawkins' book. I admit I haven't read the book but I know the argument. The "blind watchman" is not an argument based on the existence of a creator. In the book, Dawkins tries to demonstrate that evolution is a blind process and does not need a watchmaker as a watch requires a watchmaker (this is a reference to an earlier claim by Paley who tried to prove the existence of God in this way) therefore: "the blind watchmaker".

    How did you manage to understand that the blind watchmaker supports the idea of ​​planning I am unable to understand... In a little while you will tell me that Dawkins is even a devout Catholic.

    In principle, I'm willing to accept the rule that, in this discussion, if someone brings up something Dawkins says everyone must accept it, but I'm not so sure you're interested in that.

    to the root of the argument (and also to age),

    What is important in algorithmic programming is not the fact that you get a result that is assumed in advance, what is important is the mechanism. The mechanism of computer selection and the mechanism of random (unplanned!) changes are all that are required to obtain a functional result. This is exactly the argument of evolution!

    Evolution does not need a programmer because both of these mechanisms are empirical facts. Changes happen in instructions = mutations (empirical fact), natural selection filters out mutations that do not survive (an empirical fact bordering on tautology). In this way the evolutionary mechanism will lead to "development" when the meaning of development is adaptation to the environment. If you want to claim that these two mechanisms were designed, feel free, this does not detract from the essential claim of evolution.

    By the way, if you claim that it is not possible to create a new organ or creature in this way, you need to explain why. The mere fact that such a thing has not been observed (by the way, it has been observed, the clear example is the separation of species of the fruit fly in the laboratory) does not mean that it is not possible.

    The reason that it is not possible to distinguish between evolution and intelligent design is not the fault of the theory of evolution but the fault of the theory of natural design which is really a circular theory. Examples were given here of poor or unnecessary planning, the man's nipples, and the answer to that was that it was beautiful. Is it scientific to you? Can we now say that all beautiful things are getting ready? There are things in planning that are considered not beautiful intuitively by most people. But here creation will close a circle: "If it is created, it is beautiful." But the original assumption was that if it is beautiful, then it was created!!!

    In my opinion male nipples are not a beautiful thing! We were much more beautiful without nipples! Should we descend to this level of discussion?

    Same for functionality, does the coccyx have value in humans? "Obviously," says the creator, "if this is how God created us, then it has value." But the original assumption was that if it has value it was created!!!

    A simple logical sentence: if all X is Y it does not follow that all Y is X.

    The teachings are not symmetrical and there is a real difference between their predictions, it is not just a philosophical matter. You can't eat the cake and leave it whole. If there is a planner we would expect to see a completely different world where species are *perfectly* adapted to their environment, evolution does not claim these perfections in total for adaptation, moreover, all unnecessary things like the tail bone find a place in the evolutionary explanation.

    Too long, I know, but I don't have the strength to make it shorter... sorry 🙂

  27. To Michael:

    "There is no absolute beauty"
    Counterclaim: There is absolute beauty.

    Those who have not seen the beauty of God disagree on beauty.

    "Genetic programming, neural networks and simulated annealing, but these are all examples of systems that program themselves"

    Who programmed them to program themselves? And who designed and built their computer?

    "That I can literally give examples of the fundamental error in your claim"

    you didn't bring you said. It's something else.

    Give an example of network genetic programming that knows how to add two whole numbers and programs itself to find whether their sum is prime.
    The selection conditions must not assume information about the definition of initials.

    "Whether in the adaptation of bacteria and insects to the drugs and poisons we develop against them, whether in the improvement of animals and plants for the benefit of man, or in controlled laboratory experiments."
    The appearance of new organs and new species is not proven by adaptation.

    Why didn't the evolution of the first single cell repeat itself over and over again over the billions of years that have passed?

    The number of human species that should have existed based on the calculation of the "factor" for 50000^2 mutations over the last million years in the human species is enormous. where are they

    "Evolution is a statistical principle understood by anyone who understands mathematics."
    Those who understand - understand that the numbers are huge against planned evolution, as Gil demonstrates here.

    "It's not a question at all - it's proven mathematically and has been demonstrated many times on a computer."

    What has been proven is that if you assume what you want, you get what you want.
    It has been proven that defining the way to a solution (by intelligent planning) contains the solution itself.

    Alternatively, here is a program capable of giving proof of the problem of the perfect numbers, whose solution is unknown.

    "As we know, many small changes eventually add up to a big change."

    The question of the questions in evolution. Has it been proven that quantity becomes quality?

    Rationalist - not absolute.
    Posing as a rationalist - absolute yes.

    After the culture became extinct and was re-created - in 10000 years they study the DNA of corn and find a garden of a poisonous bacterium, which is in the soil. It is claimed that it is a product of evolution. And completely wrong.

    The ability to reach a completely erroneous conclusion based on the assumptions of T. Evolution proves that it is not true, that it is fundamentally incapable of distinguishing between truth and falsehood and is therefore not a scientific theory.

    Alternatively, it can be argued that she is unable to distinguish between intelligent planning and accidental development. And that is the root of the argument.

  28. To the observer from the outside - "It does not follow from this that everything that is true about computer programming is also true about the "programming" of evolution. Such claims need to be checked, it is not enough to assert them. Which brings me to the second error: you are, after all, trying to show that evolution is not possible and exists Creator. If so, you cannot call evolution "programming" to indicate that programming is done exclusively by a programmer and hence there is a "programmer", that is, a creator. This is the desired assumption and your reasoning is circular because you presuppose that this is programming in direct analogy to the world of computers" - the desired assumption? Have you heard of the blind watchmaker? Even Dawkins wrote in his book - "If there is anyone among the readers who thinks that such a level of design does not mean preachy, I hands!".
    It's good that you brought up this point. I wanted to address it for a long time.
    Every clock has a watchmaker. A clock cannot be created because of a random process. Is it agreed? The evolutionists' answer to this is that the living being is able to accumulate changes and therefore the analogy is broken. But what? The evolutionists have the burden of proving that even if we take a piece of material capable of accumulating changes, it can indeed become a clock Gradually. What do you think, is it possible?

  29. To Michael - "First of all - I know blind programmers (you forgot that they have intelligence, evolution does not). Besides, it is evident from your words that you do not understand anything about computers. I assume that you have never heard of genetic programming, neural networks and simulated annealing, but these are all examples of Systems that program themselves - and see it's a miracle - while drawing central ideas from evolution. you heard

    "And it is of course the example of evolution that we see happening every day - whether in the adaptation of bacteria and insects to the drugs and poisons that we develop against them, whether in the improvement of animals and plants for the benefit of man, or in controlled laboratory experiments" - Mantras again? I have already explained why there is no evolution in bacteria at all. The bacteria remains A bacterium. Only a point mutation was there. Or a new gene that was created. The speed. This is not evolution. A dog will always remain a dog, but will not become a completely different creature (I'm not even talking about wolves).

    "Every time there is a mechanism that is capable of producing duplicates of itself while making replication errors" - what does it mean every time? It has never been proven that a replicating molecule can form itself and even replicate itself without proteins.

    "In conclusion - my recommendation to you is that before you dismiss a scientific theory developed by the best scientists in the world - give them and yourself the respect you deserve and learn what it is about" - I learned enough about it. Thank you. I once even believed in it a little.

  30. To the unidentified user who I assume is Gil,

    You made two errors in the sentence: "Every programming has a programmer. And not a blind programmer." which are actually almost the same error.

    The first error is the projection from programming to evolution. In fact, it was Michael who made the mistake but his use of the word was quite clearly borrowed. When we talk about "programming" we are talking about a concept from the field of computers. If we extend the concept to evolution as well, it does not follow that everything that is true about computer programming is also true about the "programming" of evolution. Such claims need to be checked, it is not enough to assert them.

    Which brings me to the second error: you are, after all, trying to show that evolution is not possible and that a creator exists. If so, you cannot call evolution "programming" to indicate that programming is done exclusively by a programmer and hence there is a "programmer", that is, a creator. This is the desired assumption and your logic is circular because you presuppose that this is programming in direct analogy to the world of computers.

    A final note, as Michael pointed out, there are algorithms that draw inspiration from the evolutionary mechanism. These are algorithms that find a set of commands that perform a certain action by introducing "mutations" in the code and using selection in each generation. There are some that even perform pairings between successful algorithms. Neural networks are another example of an adaptive algorithm, but the analogy to evolution, although it is well-founded, is less strong in my opinion.

    And before you shout, "someone programmed the algorithm that finds software evolutionarily" then think about it and understand why it has nothing to do with it (hint: the first error)

    Your sentence is neither logically correct nor factually correct.

  31. To the unidentified user who commented
    "Would you rather be without nipples? What makes you think you would be more beautiful with them? In any case, this is a philosophical hair. And it is the same as Nir's."
    I see that you did not understand that this was a rhetorical question whose function was to illustrate the claim that there is no absolute beauty. I don't think about them and I don't think if I was more beautiful with or without them. The truth is that you too - when you want to be "beautiful" you dress up and hide them. But all this is really beside the point. You just didn't understand the role of the question.

    "You don't need to hear about beauty. We recognize it ourselves. The Creator gave man the ability to recognize what beauty is for him. And he needs mediators to convince him otherwise. Don't you recognize beauty when you walk down the street?"
    You didn't understand again. There is no absolute beauty. What is more beautiful - a dog or a racing car? Do you think that everyone you ask will get the same answer? Who is more beautiful - your wife or your brother's wife? I'm sure you disagree on the answer. When you heard for the first time the expression "about taste and smell and so on" did you argue with the person who quoted it in your ears or did you understand what it meant? If you understood - why are you arguing with me?

    "Every programming has a programmer. And not a blind programmer."
    First of all - I know blind programmers. Besides, it is evident from your words that you do not understand anything about computers. I guess you've never heard of genetic programming, neural networks and simulated annealing, but these are all examples of systems that program themselves - and see it's a miracle - while drawing central ideas from evolution. There are problems that today do not know how to solve otherwise. But, of course, the fact that we are having this discussion in the computer age and the fact that I can literally bring examples of the fundamental mistake that you claim is just my luck. Your claim would be fundamentally unfounded even if there were no computers in the world. Even then I could show you an example (and perhaps a much more convincing example - at least those who are ready to understand what is in front of their eyes) and it is of course the example of evolution that we see happening every day - whether in the adaptation of bacteria and insects to the drugs and poisons that we develop against them, whether in the improvement of Animals and plants for the benefit of man and if in controlled laboratory experiments. There are literally countless testimonies (you can find a sample of them here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html ) of which you choose to ignore when you claim that a programmer is needed.
    Neither this nor this: evolution is a statistical principle that is understandable to anyone who understands mathematics. Whenever there is a mechanism that is capable of producing duplicates of itself while making replication errors with one probability or another - if this mechanism is in competition with its counterparts for the resources available to all together and when it does not obtain enough resources it becomes extinct - then evolution will result. This is not a question at all - it is mathematically proven and demonstrated many times on a computer.
    In short - according to you there are no legs, but I have no doubt that you will continue to hold on to it.

    "- A good question you asked, which demonstrates the folly of evolution. After all, we all have a common origin. Right? So let's say that one bright day a mutation occurred in the chimpanzee and it became a little more similar to a human. What caused the creature that was a chimpanzee until then, to continue into the newly created creature?
    Did the above miracle occur in all the millions of species? Why are you not attracted to chimpanzees if in the past we were attracted? Why is every animal attracted only to members of its own species? Why does every animal think that only its own species is beautiful? This indicates planning and order in planning."
    You do not correctly estimate the time periods in which evolution takes place and the processes operating in it. It is clear that if the horse suddenly gave birth to a human being then it would live and die and leave no offspring, but that is not what is happening. The change is very gradual. If one day a creature is born that looks like its brother but has a slightly better ability in a certain field then there is a high chance that in time it will have more offspring than its brother and the new trait will characterize larger and larger parts of the population. This is the simpler and slower case of evolution. Imagine, on the other hand, that that brother with the special virtue also has some external identifying mark - not something critical - not very different from his brother but still recognizable. His appearance does not repel potential mates and the trait is starting to spread in the population as before, but here there is a chance that something else will happen. Because taste and smell cannot be debated - there are those in the population who prefer a partner with the same ID and there are those who do not. What will happen to those who don't? They will have fewer offspring than Lala because their offspring will be less fit. What will happen over time? The trait of "preference for those with the identifying mark" will also characterize larger and larger parts of the population, and as soon as this happens, the rate at which the trait multiplies in the population will also increase. This is called mate selection. And it is actually, contrary to what you expected - actually one of the driving forces of evolution.
    As we know, many small changes eventually add up to a big change.
    The power of this mate choice sometimes reaches the point of absurdity when it enters a spiral called escalation, but I won't burden you with this matter too much.

    In conclusion - my recommendation to you is that before you dismiss a scientific theory developed by the best scientists in the world - give them and yourself the proper respect and learn what it is about.

  32. To Michael-"Why is inventing nipples at all or in a certain place "beautiful"?"-Would you rather be without nipples? What makes you think you would be more beautiful with them? In any case, this is a philosophical question. And it is the same as Nir's.

    "I, at least, have not heard of "absolute" beauty. Have you heard?" - You don't need to hear about beauty. We recognize it ourselves. The Creator gave man the ability to recognize what beauty is for him. And he needs mediators to convince him otherwise. Don't you recognize beauty when you walk down the street?

    "Beauty of humans, evolution programmed us to recognize beauty with reproductive efficiency" - every programming has a programmer. And not a blind programmer.

    "Is a pig beautiful?
    I guess in your eyes she is less beautiful than in the eyes of the pig. He, on the other hand, certainly does not understand what beauty you find in your partner" - a good question you asked, which demonstrates the folly of evolution. After all, we all have a common origin. Right? So let's suppose that one fine day a mutation occurred in the chimpanzee and it became a little more like a human. What Caused a creature that had been a chimpanzee until then, to continue the newly created creature?
    Did the above miracle occur in all the millions of species? Why are you not attracted to chimpanzees if in the past we were attracted? Why is every animal attracted only to members of its own species? Why does every animal think that only its own species is beautiful? This indicates planning and order in planning.

  33. Just an article I came across today that demonstrates the difficulty our intelligent design has encountered in its war with mindless evolution.
    http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/19659/?nlid=647

    These are probably other things that the followers of intelligent planning will have a hard time reconciling with their perception, but you know - there is no limit to creativity :)

  34. For age
    According to evolution it is easy to understand the origin of definitions and feelings of beauty in our eyes. What is beauty in the eyes of creation? Why is inventing nipples in general or in a certain place "beautiful"?
    You asked Nir if he heard about beauty.
    I, at least, have not heard of "absolute" beauty. did you hear
    In my eyes, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, and regarding the beauty of humans, evolution has programmed us to recognize beauty with reproductive efficiency, so our "eyes of the beholder" are similar.
    Is a pig beautiful?
    I guess in your eyes she is less beautiful than in the eyes of the pig. He, on the other hand, certainly does not understand at all what beauty you find in your partner.

  35. By the way.. another beautiful extrapolation that I thought of - if there are only about 1000 different genes in the human body and let's assume that for each of the above proteins there are only 1000 that are not functional. Then we will need about a million mutational births at least. We will multiply this by the number of places in the body that each protein tried to appear in until that has reached its specific place (let's assume teeth only in the mouth and milk only in the breasts and hemoglobin only in the blood and a gene that creates urine only in the kidneys), then we will multiply this again by 1000 and we will already get 1000000000. We will multiply this again by a thousand years to let the mutation take over the population and we will have to, after weighing all the most extreme assumptions in the world About 1000000000000 years to create the human body!…

  36. The beauty argument... really a beauty of an argument...

    Let's add this to another one of the premises of creationism: everything that God creates is beautiful, from this it follows that everything that God created is beautiful.

  37. Gil, I don't think the matter of beauty is so significant here. This could perhaps be assumed if we knew clearly that the role of the nipples in women is a matter of beauty, indeed;
    We know that the nipples are used exclusively for sucking the offspring. This can be easily deduced from her observations in other animals, which have nipples that are almost invisible.

    In any case, it has already been explained to you that the nipples are an organ that develops in every fetus even before its gender is determined, you are grinding flour.
    Why didn't they degenerate?
    Well, if in the future women will never breastfeed again, and smaller and smaller nipples or the lack of nipples will become some sort of beauty standard, it is very possible that they will degenerate.
    Currently, it is a fact that women use nipples to breastfeed.

    Why do they appear there?
    Again you are grinding flour, and these are very basic things that show that you have learned the material but did not bother to understand, but only to remember.
    The nipples reached where they initially reached as a very simple organ, certainly also in his fortification this appeared in a fairly general area.
    Your problem is that you assume a result and then declare "it is impossible for this to happen", though; This is not evolution. Evolution is a very initial development of the thing, and selection over a long period of time until the formation of what we see today.

  38. To Nir - "So what on earth did he give men nipples for?" - Have you heard of beauty? Would you look more beautiful without them? Rather, you tell me... what was the survival pressure the men's nipples had? What is the chance that they will appear in an appropriate place? Why are they Didn't we degenerate?
    Why do they also exist in women? What advantage was there in differentiating all the other "nipples" only to a spicafi place?

    Regarding everything else... see my response to the forest raccoon. She answers your question there perfectly.

  39. The last link Nir brought also indicates about a thousand witnesses that there are many different ways to reach the same result (of course, every case of convergent evolution indicates this). Of course, as already mentioned, reaching a different result can also be beneficial.

  40. To Roy:

    Questions not yet answered:
    1. Did the new ATP-binding proteins found function instead of the original proteins (and not in addition) in a living organism?

    2. When the rate of mutations increases, what do you think is more influential - the destructive or the beneficial mutations?

    There are 50000 generations in the last million years of human evolution. Each generation 20 years. The number of mutations per mutation in each generation is:
    50000^2. This calculation is completely wrong.

    "In the bacteria, there is another protein that does the role of cytochrome C"

    3. Is the aforementioned protein capable of replacing cytochrome C with another organism, whose cytochrome C gene is silent?

    4. What does the above protein teach about the development of cytochrome C from the bacterium to man, and about the development of man from the bacterium?

  41. And speaking of the milk and the breastfeeding system, there is a question that I simply have to ask Gil: if it was an intelligent designer who designed the breastfeeding system in humans, then why the hell did he give men nipples?????

    The truth is that not only do we men have nipples, but that during embryonic development we all, women and men, grow up to seven pairs of nipples along the chest and abdomen, just like all other mammals. Usually only one pair remains at birth, but in one out of 18 people, in addition to the normal pair, residual nipples remain at maturity. Residual nipples are mostly just tiny moles, but on rare occasions they can be functional and produce milk. My conclusion: the intelligent planner who planned the Our milk system was completely crazy and probably a little perverted too. Below are links with pictures (18+ only!):

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

    http://www.emedicine.com/derm/topic735.htm

    And a little more about milk and the emergence of new beneficial mutations in humans (no pictures this time):

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/science/10cnd-evolve.html

  42. To Roy-"Once you come up with a finding that is convincing enough for people to believe in it"-what does it mean to believe in it? Are we dealing with the beliefs of public opinion polls or with science that can be proven?...," the theory will indeed be seriously undermined. But the findings you bring are not reliable, or that they can be explained in a more logical way than you claim" - it is clear that they can be explained differently. The same is true of evolution... it can be said that aliens that were created on a distant planet (a planet where the animal was created from inanition, I think it's impossible at all, but let's say) come once every few million years and replace (as a laboratory experiment) the animals that were genetically engineered. And after all, you have a theory that explains everything - it also solved the riddle of the origin of life and its zero chances, and it also fits the fact that there were once species that suddenly disappeared (the dinosaurs that to this day do not understand how they disappeared), and I also solved it for you The puzzle of the fossils from the simple to the so-called complex (this also has contradictions as I showed you). Here is a theory twice as logical as evolution. Why don't you believe in it? Simply because you don't feel like it...

    "He created and destroyed worlds before the current world? And what about the dinosaur skeletons? He took the dinosaurs and embedded them in the shell of the new world? Strange, all this is not even written in the Bible. It's even more strange that even if it's written in other books, you're ready to believe it - but not ready to believe evolution" - he didn't place them. They're simply a memory of the same world before ours. This world. And as far as I know, it's written in the Jewish scriptures.

    "You are ready to believe this - but not ready to believe in evolution" - what does "believe in evolution" mean? Evolution is faith? It is good that you confirm my words.

    "And I'm still waiting, throughout the last three weeks, for these arguments that you continue to promise" - no problem. First, let's summarize what we have understood so far... what are the chances of finding a useful protein with 300 amino acids? I brought you information from other biologists and biochemists that I asked. Consider the fact that - The minimum number of proteins that can be assembled in an average shield is 300^2. Do you agree with that?
    2- Isn't a protein of 10 amino acids enough for some function? (If the number was so low, we wouldn't see millions of different proteins in the animal kingdom today)
    3-Therefore... all the sites accompanying the active site are required for the specific spatial structure.

  43. To the lovable raccoon - "If you treat the remains of the fingers in the dolphin's fin (or the teeth that grow from a baby whale that fakes and sings them in its mother's belly; or the tail bone in a person; or the clumsy toe of the panda, etc.) as an interpretation" - indeed this is an interpretation. Want examples that prove my point? Please - in the past we claimed that "residues" in the DNA are "evidence" for evolution. Today they claim that this DNA probably has real importance. In the past we claimed that the appendix has no use - a few weeks ago scientists announced that it probably has an important function in the formation of beneficial bacteria for digestion.
    In the past, it was important that the "gills" in a human fetus in its mother's womb were "evidence" of the degenerate organs of our fish ancestors. Today it is assumed that these are skin folds of the ears. I have several more examples, but the purpose has been clarified. Not everything that appears to be useless is indeed so. And everyone who thinks that he knows the entire anatomy of the animal world, is arrogant and reckless and incapable of a beam. Isn't that right?

  44. "What's the lesson? You assume that only sweat glands could have evolved into mammary glands, because that's the solution found in mammals. You're wrong. There are many possible ways for an animal to excrete proteins and fats from its body in a way that its offspring can feed on. Just because a certain solution happens to be found in mammals, I don't mean that it was the only way to do it" - it's true and I already argued that. How many alternative ways do you think it is possible to digest food? Or transport oxygen in the blood? Or create some necessary metabolic mechanism? Why didn't evolution turn to all the millions of possible ways that constitute the survival advantage, and instead The continuation in the direction of developing the milk system specifically? After all, you yourself say that there are hundreds of other directions that could be useful. So after they had already developed some gland that was useful in something. Why did they continue to develop precisely the gland that already gave some advantage? Why didn't they turn to achieving another survival function? And so also after they developed The tube and the receptor and the nipple and the hormone to the receptor and the neuron to the nipple and the friction sensors in the nipple, always followed exactly one defined path instead of hundreds and thousands of other paths.

    "Perhaps the offspring licked sweat from the parents' body to get extra salts, and then a mutation that increased the amount of protein in the sweat gave an advantage. Once this mutation was established and underwent gradual optimization, it became necessary" - first of all this sounds delusional. But suppose it were true...suppose there is indeed a sweat gene His skin became a milk-producing gene. Did the female secrete milk from her entire body? She would die. Therefore, you must change the control sites of some kind. And therefore we again fall into the probability we have modeled so far. If a gene encoding milk differs by 100 acids from a gene responsible for sweat secretion, then how many combinations are possible In your opinion, in a space of 100^20 combinations?

  45. For creationists
    If Genesis is your scientific solution to the origin of man
    So according to the book of Genesis, chapter XNUMX, verse XNUMX, "And God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul."
    You can write a scientific formula and it is:
    Clay sculpted into a human figure + the Holy Spirit = the first man
    Of course it is ridiculous to write down this formula because the creation process in the Torah is not a physical process and of course it does not replace evolution
    The creation in the book of Genesis can be looked at in the way of religion, spirituality, philosophy, psychology and more...
    But not through physics, chemistry, biology...
    Nowhere in the Torah is an atom, molecule, or gene mentioned
    Therefore, creation according to the Book of Genesis and evolution are two parallel approaches that have nothing to do with each other.
    And the conclusion that the debate between creationists and evolutionists is unnecessary.

  46. Really interesting discussion. Kudos to my father for the investment.
    In my bachelor's degree I participated in several classes in biology, and if my memory serves me well, in one of the classes we discussed "ring species" (or a similar term; it was ten years ago...) as a tangible example of evolution. The example given in the lesson concerned seagull species. Since I am not in the details, I am sure that Nir or Roy will be able to provide details.
    age my friend If you treat the remains of the fingers in the dolphin's flipper (or the teeth that grow from a baby whale that grows and sings in its mother's belly; or the tailbone in a person; or the clumsy toe of the panda, etc.) as an interpretation, the discussion with you will not go far. There are facts that even creationists must see and address.

  47. for age
    did you know Pigeons also nurse their young. Do not believe? Check here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dove
    And here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_milk

    Cells from the inner layer of the pigeon's goitre peel off and fall into the goitre, where they mix with saliva to form a thick liquid very rich in proteins and fats. The chicks feed on it by sticking their beaks according to the parents. The "goit milk" of pigeons (that's the professional term) is very different in composition from the milk of mammals - it looks like yellow cottage cheese - and probably developed through completely different mutations. The secretion of milk begins in the parents a few days before the eggs are laid, and at this stage they stop eating in order not to feed the chicks with the seeds from the goiter. The chicks are fed pure colostrum milk for the first week of their lives, after which the parents start feeding them seeds as well, gradually weaning them. By the way, flamingos also have goitre milk, which probably developed independently from that of pigeons.

    Now see how easily pigeon milk could have evolved. Birds feed their chicks digested food from their goitre anyway. One primary mutation is enough that causes cells from the inner wall of the goitre to break down, and the chicks get a bonus of proteins and fats from the parent's body. Now the pigeons have an advantage in survival - they can switch to living on seeds only (food relatively poor in proteins) and still provide food rich in proteins to their chicks. A feature that used to be just a bonus has become necessary, and is probably undergoing gradual optimization thanks to additional mutations. Today pigeon chicks cannot survive without pigeon milk or a suitable artificial substitute.

    What is the lesson? You assume that only sweat glands could have evolved into sebaceous glands, because that is the solution found in mammals. You are wrong. There are many possible ways for an animal to excrete proteins and fats from its body in such a way that its offspring can feed on them. Just because mammals happened to find a certain solution, doesn't mean it was the only way to do it. It probably wasn't even a "solution" in the beginning, but just a bonus that accelerated the growth of offspring that were fed regular food. Perhaps the offspring licked sweat from the parents' bodies to get extra salts, and then a mutation that increased the amount of protein in the sweat gave an advantage. Once this mutation was established and gradually optimized, it became necessary. This is the constant failure in the thinking of creationists - they always assume that the solution that exists today was the only possible one in the first place. I think it's some kind of imagination flaw.

  48. Continue..."If so, then a mutation that occurs in 'junk DNA' is a mutation for everything, the results of which we will see later" - you claim this without substantiation. And I showed you why these are silent mutations. What I call "junk DNA", It is possible that these are control areas, so if, for example, they get a mutation on a gene that takes care of replacing deciduous teeth at a certain age, it is possible that the age will change a little, that's all.

    "Almost in every gene there are many possibilities for changing acids, so your argument is not valid here" - I happened to ask someone who understands something in biochemistry known as "meeting a dead bear" and here is his response - "besides the fact that the active site of a protein, including at least dozens of "A, some of which participate in the reaction itself and the rest give the site a three-dimensional structure that fits like a glove to the spatial structure of the substrate, and besides that for each protein there are several dozen other *necessary* sites of tens of HA, if these are control sites or if they are link sites to other participating proteins In the performing complex, you are the reaction, apart from this, *all* the other HA in the protein, do not "give volume" but they create the general spatial structure of the protein, which allows the assembly of all the active sites/visitors/links in it into an active nanorobot .

    and moreover. If someone, let's say, tries to "formulate" some new protein, which does something new, he will design a certain active site for it, which acts on a certain substrate, he will design a certain control site and certain link sites, etc., and then he will build the chain he planned for hundreds of years, He is going to encounter a severe depression. And this, because all the sites he planned, can perform the planned task, only when the long chain folds into a specific spatial structure.
    And who folds the protein chains, which are formed in the cells, into the specific spatial structure that works?
    Two techniques are suitable for this purpose - one of them -
    Many proteins fold into the desired spatial structure thanks to all those HAs that "give volume" meaning that they have no part in the protein's catalytic or catalytic activity, but their function is to cause the protein to fold by itself into its active spatial structure." end of quote. I also asked in the biology forum and received a similar answer Regarding the other sites. All so you don't think I'm bluffing. Let's even assume that out of the 20 acids, only 2 have a weight that could cause a change, so the minimum calculation for the possible protein enhancer is 300^2 for an average protein!.

    "The rest of the acids are only meant to hold the site in a spatially correct way, and can change to a great extent." - So you strengthen my argument that the other sites also have a weight that can cause the protein to change significantly. We have made progress.

    "The other 200 that were added consist of several more active sites and visitors, and many more 'neutral' acids that hold them in place. The whole idea is that every addition of a site to a gene changes its activity and function." - See above. Every addition of a site to a gene changes its function? So what are the chances of finding such a gene by adding random sites to create a new gene with 100 acids?

    "As soon as visitor sites connect to it, or its activity changes a little, then it becomes valuable to the body - and very specific" - so it is not. Once the milk system was invented, alas if the entire female body were to produce milk. And the same goes for the gene that creates hemoglobin Or digestive juices or a neurotransmitter. Everything had to be routed to the control area at the same time. Does the gene simultaneously with its formation try all possible combinations of places for all 30000 genes?

    ” You can also see in the skeleton of whales the bones of the back legs that have degenerated. It can be found in the skeleton of the dolphin's fin that it is very similar to the limbs of mammals, including degenerated 'fingers'." - again personal interpretations. When will we understand this, and stop using it?

    "Found. Insects do not have teeth or taste buds in their mouths. Many mammals don't have the variety of taste buds that exist in the human mouth." - It doesn't matter. Completing an existing system greatly minimizes the chance of finding something that will complement it. What do you think could already be in place of milk, in the sweat system? Chocolate juice? Grape juice?

    "But if the mutation helped him survive, compared to all those million mice that died," - correct, and how often does this happen? How often does a beneficial mutation take over a share of the population? We are talking about thousands and tens of thousands of years. Even if it is a really beneficial mutation. Not to mention Creatures bigger than mice.

    "The point is that a gene can tolerate many mutations that will not change its activity too much - just like a sentence that can be said in many different forms. A change of one amino acid in the vast majority of cases will not significantly change the activity of the gene" - correct and I explained above why even at the minimum possible this is an astronomical number - 300^2 for an average gene! That is, out of the 20 acids only 2 are significant. More than that?

  49. == Because every time I hear the evolutionists waving "one fossil found that is not in the right order is enough to disprove the theory". So I brought not one but several. And what do the evolutionists have to say? Yawn, worldwide conspiracy and blah blah blah. ==

    ++Once you come up with a finding that is convincing enough for people to believe in it, the theory will indeed be severely undermined. But the findings you bring are not reliable, or they can be explained in a more logical way than you claim. So these are not the findings that will disprove the theory.++

    ==And I also explained to you how fossils can match the book of the Bible. So there is no difference between us, right?==

    + In that God created and destroyed worlds before the current world? And what about the dinosaur skeletons? He took the dinosaurs and embedded them in the crust of the New World? Strange, all this is not even written in the Bible. Even more strange, even if it is written in other books, you are ready to believe it - but not ready to believe evolution.++

    == I am amused. Earlier you claimed that the findings of evolution disprove what is written in the books. And then when I show you that it is indeed written, then you make an evasive circular argument? ==

    ++People have a strange tendency to choose very selectively what is written in books, and ignore everything else. It is difficult for me to regard anything you bring from the Bible, the Koran, the New Testament, the Dharmpada or other holy books as real information. ++

    ==And in general...the discussion here is not about the truth of one religion or another. That is for a separate discussion. And I have some other real arguments against evolution. Wait wait...==

    ++Here you are, finally, right. The discussion is not about the truths of this or that religion. He is about your 'some real arguments' against evolution. And I am still waiting, for the last three weeks, for these arguments that you keep promising. ++

  50. To the shepherds" - your link tells about a human footprint that was discovered in a dinosaur footprint. I have already explained to you how this can happen. In addition, you did not answer Assaf's very interesting question: if thousands of fossils have been found that agree with the theory of evolution, why do you choose the only questionable fossil that claims to disprove it?" - The link I provided tells not about one find, but about several of them. The one you explained how it is can happen only strengthens my argument that evolution is not scientific, since it always finds imaginary interpretations for its findings. Why do I choose the dozens of fossils? Because every time I hear the evolutionists waving "it is enough to find one fossil that is not in the right order to disprove the theory." So I brought not one but several. And what do the evolutionists have to say? Yawn, worldwide conspiracy and blah blah blah.

    "I already explained to you how this can happen" - and I also explained to you how fossils can match the book of the Bible. So there is no difference between us, right?

    "But in most cases the dating is correct." - Not sure at all.
    All the dates are based on basic hypotheses. For example, that the rate of carbon decomposition has always been this way. It is impossible to know this. Therefore, it is a hypothesis. Not to mention testing layers.

    “Regarding the argument regarding the Holy Scriptures, I must say that I am amused. As someone who tries to argue on an apparently scientific basis, it seems that you are starting to get stressed and pushed against the wall. Didn't you find something better than "it's written in the books, so it's true"? I'm also amused. Earlier you claimed that the findings of evolution disprove what's written in the books. And then when I show you that it's written in the books, then you make an evasive circular argument?
    And in general... the discussion here is not about the truth of one religion or another. That is for a separate discussion. And I have some other real arguments against evolution. Wait wait...

    Continued……

  51. It took me a few days to get ready to give a serious answer, but I'm glad to see that the 'discussion room' is not left empty. Special thanks to Nir who provides detailed and factual answers to every question. I will try to avoid answering many of the claims he has already answered, because he did it well and there is no reason for me to follow him in other words.

    I'll start by apologizing to Saul and Decel. I am trying to answer here the questions of creationists and their claims against the theory of evolution. If I try to debate philosophy of science as well, I'm afraid we'll lose the point of the discussion (and my father will surely have to create another page soon anyway). Because of this, and since Michael has already answered you, and his information is similar to mine, I will only respond to creationists in this message.

    Age –
    ++ The intelligent planning is trying to show that some planner planned the world. It can be aliens if you want or any other intelligent thing. Therefore, the comparison to the books of the Bible is also out of place.
    "That's why I would expect to find human bones together with dinosaur bones. But there are none.”….Who told you there are none?….See here …….
    http://www.falunnews.org.il/articles_p/2003/06/c_06/1558_05.htm ++

    == Your link tells about a human footprint that was discovered in a dinosaur footprint. I have already explained to you how this can happen. Beyond that, you did not answer Assaf's very interesting question: if thousands of fossils have been found that agree with the theory of evolution, why do you choose precisely the only questionable fossil that claims to disprove it? I say questionable because it is very easy to explain why the human footprint did not occur during the dinosaur's lifetime. You are very good at probability, according to you. What is the chance that we will not discover dozens of such additional findings, which will be unequivocal? For example, arrows and spearheads in a dinosaur skeleton? Or remains of bonfires with skeletons of small, edible dinosaurs? All of these have already been discovered, but with other dinosaurs - and I would say that this is a good testimony to the timeline we use to describe evolution and the created dinosaurs ==

    ++ Incorrect dating can be due to a number of reasons. And there are cases in which animals while alive received refutable dating results as well as stalactites and other things. And even if all the dating methods were 100 percent correct. In the Holy Scriptures it is explicitly written that the Creator used to build and destroy worlds, prior to ours ++
    == And again we come to the matter of probability. Incorrect dating can happen. I confess. But in most cases the dating is correct. What is the chance that after a few thousand measurements we get dates that seem to fit the theory of evolution, but that evolution is still not true? Compared to one or two measurements where we get inaccuracy.
    As for the scriptural argument, I must say I am amused. As someone who tries to argue on an apparently scientific basis, it seems that you are starting to get stressed and pushed against the wall. You didn't find anything better than "it's written in the books, so it's true"?==
    ==”By the way, every birth in a person is a “mutational birth”. According to the updated estimates, there are on average several dozen or several hundred new mutations in a human embryo." - I heard about this. It is possible that these are silent mutations, or that occur on so-called junk DNA or duplicated genes or on codons that code for the same acid. A minority of the aforementioned mutations cause a real change. (When was the last time you heard about a mutation that changed something).==
    ++Now I'm confused, Gil. After all, you and Jonathan both agreed that there is no such thing as 'junk DNA', and that all DNA has a use and a purpose. This is what an intelligent manufacturer implies, after all. If so, then a mutation that occurs in 'junk DNA' is a mutation for everything, the results of which we will see later. Perhaps when a few more mutations accumulate there, the same area of ​​junk DNA will work better in gene control (something that is extremely important for creating metabolic pathways in evolution) or will itself create a new gene.++

    ==.Gil quotes Roy: "The thing is that in many genes, the catalytic site that is made up of 4 or 5 amino acids is enough to do the necessary action. All the other amino acids are 'placeholders' and give volume to the protein"
    - What does a lot mean "a lot of genes"? And what about all the rest? And what about genes that require all the acids to perform their function? ==
    ++By very many genes I mean very many genes, Gil. Search the literature and you will find out. As for the rest, they could also be formed from the combination of several catalytic sites, and of course - also randomly.
    In almost every gene there are many possibilities for changing acids, so your argument is not valid here.++

    ==Do you think a gene can function perfectly even with 10-20 amino acids? Did evolution manage to create all the millions of genes that differ in their function from the aforementioned tiny number, with such a poor start? Will a gene function with 10 acids and then when all the other 200 are added it is Still remains with its original function?. ==

    ++Come on, Gil, you keep playing with the term 'garden' and separating it from 'sites'. The product of each garden is a combination of several sites. It is enough for each of the sites to be created on its own in evolution (a relatively simple thing) to create the total gene from a mixture of sites.
    So any website can function perfectly as long as you don't change the tiny number of amino acids from which it is built. The rest of the acids are only intended to hold the site in a spatially correct form, and can vary greatly. ++

    == Did evolution succeed in creating all the millions of different genes in their role, with such a meager beginning?

    ++Yes.++

    == Will a gene function with 10 acids and then when all the other 200 are added it still remains with its original function?==

    The other 200+ that were added consist of several more active sites and visitors, and many more 'neutral' acids that hold them in place. And the whole idea is that every addition of a site to the garden changes its activity and function. This is evolution. ++

    == True. What do you think is the minimum amount of acids, in order to create a special digestive enzyme, which breaks down only a specific substance and is only active in a specific place? 10?... It seems to me that you are exaggerating. ==

    ++I'm glad you agree with me, and want to know more. As you write, such an enzyme can be not very specific at first. It can just be active just enough so that it doesn't kill its creator. As soon as visiting sites connect to it, or its activity changes slightly, then it becomes valuable to the body - and very specific. ++

    factor –
    == If this were true, then the human species would have to die out from an excess of destructive mutations. ==
    ++Natural selection makes sure that the organisms with the destructive mutations do not pass on to the next generation. Let's start with this.
    Beyond that, a common mistake I see here is referring to mutations in humans only. I ask you not to forget that man is the result of billions of mutations passed on to millions of different species of organisms. The generation time of these organisms ranges from a few days (insects and the like) to decades (the largest mammals). But in the vast majority of organisms, it does not pass the one year. That is, we have here a huge space where cumulative mutations can occur.
    A simple example: field mice can become pregnant at the age of 50 days, and after 20 days a litter of 10-12 pups is born. This means that if you take two fattened mice, you will get 20 puppies after 10 days (we will take the simpler number of 10 puppies). Assuming each of these mice continues to mate with other mice, you will reach a population of billions of mice in a very short time. Each of those billions of mice can undergo mutations, and the beneficial and tolerable mutations are determined daily according to the changing environmental conditions. The difference, compared to humans who multiply slowly (and who actually try to neutralize natural selection as much as possible) is huge. ++

    Age –
    ==Gil quotes Nir: "Take for example an existing and working front leg system. In birds, bats and pterosaurs, the front leg developed into a wing, in each family in a different way" - not true. This is your unsubstantiated hypothesis. Moreover.. it is possible that a game of the control areas on the legs will cause features similar to these, but it is not a matter of creating a new function, but a game with member exists.==

    ++ This is a claim with an excellent foundation. You can also see the degenerated back leg bones in the skeleton of whales. It can be found in the skeleton of the dolphin's fin that it is very similar to the limbs of mammals, including degenerated 'fingers'. There are many evidences that similar functions can be reached from different systems.
    Other than that, I'm glad to see you agree with evolution. You just claimed yourself that this is a 'game with an existing organ'. If you want to say that when the cat's soft leg becomes a horse's stiff, specialized hoof, it's nothing more than 'playing with an existing limb', then I'm willing to go with you. All evolution is a gradual game with existing organs. ++

    == For example, once the mouth was formed, what else could be useful in the mouth besides teeth? And instead of a tongue? And taste buds? They all created a very specific function for an existing system. How many other combinations could be useful in the mouth, apart from these things? ==

    ++Let me think for a second or two. Oh, I found it. Insects do not have teeth or taste buds in their mouths. Many mammals do not have the variety of taste buds found in the human mouth. Birds have no teeth at all in their mouths. The jellyfish has no teeth and no taste buds (in fact, its mouth is also the tube through which the waste exits). So there are probably many other functions that can exist in the mouth. There is no necessity to go directly to the person and ask "what are the chances that we will get here in evolution?" We got here through an increasingly complex series of organisms, each one getting a little better. ++

    == How exactly? Well, let's assume a population of a million people. And let's assume that, according to what we've explained so far, only one in a million mutations will be considered beneficial. So let's assume that a mutation has already appeared in the father. What is the chance that the mother will also receive a beneficial mutation at the same time? One in a million. Therefore, you must (and evolution also admits this), that a mutation must take over a large percentage of the population, so that the next beneficial mutation that occurs can find the next beneficial mutation. And this can take at least a few thousand years (actually much more).==

    ++ Well, are we back to twisting numbers?
    Let me give you another scenario. A mutated mouse is the lone survivor from a normal mouse colony (without the mutation). Obviously, if he had mated with the entire colony, the mutation would have been 'managed'. But if the mutation helped him survive, compared to all those million mice that died, then his offspring will carry the same mutation. Furthermore, since it is likely that his wife (who will live) also carries some version of the mutation that allowed her to survive, it is certain that his offspring will carry the double mutation.
    Selections like this happen all the time. They are also called 'bottlenecks' and are an important reason for evolution. And since there are so many mice (and other creatures) in the world, they happen all the time.
    From the moment we have a father and mother who survived due to a certain mutation, as I already explained, they can create a new population of millions and billions of mice in a very short period of time - a few decades at most.
    How many billions of years have passed since evolution? About 3. Enough time and space for all the developments we experienced. ++

    == Each amino acid has an important role in the assembly of the protein and its control. As an analogy, this can be compared to a spoken language. Instead of acids, we will use letters. This is how the gene that creates a neuron looks like - "the gene that creates a neuron". Each letter indicates one of the acids, each change of an acid may affect on the entire sentence and cause it to be disrupted. For example, a mutation could change the sentence to "son of the creator of a neuron" - did you see what happened? One letter was changed and caused the sentence to go wrong, the gene was damaged. (By the way, the analogy in the original is "meet a bereaved bear").= =

    ++ I already answered that to Yonatani. If you are already using the analogy of spoken language, I ask and petition that you address the full picture. When I try to say a sentence, I also convey its meaning with hand movements and faces and writing on the board. If the sentence is damaged by one letter, then my hand movements, writing and faces will convey the true meaning.
    And how is it related?
    The point is that a gene can tolerate many mutations that will not change its activity too much - just like a sentence that can be said in many different forms. A change of one amino acid in the vast majority of cases will not significantly change the activity of the gene. The written sentence may be damaged, but there are enough other words that explain the final meaning. ++

    Anonymous user –
    ==There are 25000 generations in a million years. Each generation 40 years. The number of mutations per mutation in each generation is:
    25000^2 therefore your calculation about inheritance of mutations is wrong.==

    ++You have an error in the calculation.
    The generation time of humans today is 20 years. In the past it was 15 years or even less. In mice it is 50 days. But we are not referring here to evolution in humans, but rather to evolution throughout the history of life on Earth, which resulted in the ancestor of humans, so I think we can actually refer to mice as a representative creature. Now you can recalculate the number of generations that have passed during evolution. ++

    factor –
    == A scientist who avoids investigating his own claims is a charlatan who avoids trying to disprove and confirm his assumptions - he is not a scientist. ==

    ++ said the charlatan. Nice.
    Who are you, sir, to determine who is a scientist and who is not? Have you researched your own claims? Have you tried to find evidence for your arguments? If not, you have a lot of audacity to accuse others of trying to advance science in the usual ways.
    Why in the usual ways?
    Because they have been proven to work.
    Why not your way?
    Because so much evidence has accumulated in the other direction, most scientists see no point in trying to disprove something that has already been proven so many times. They prefer to continue on the path of the theory that has already been proven and has a solid foundation, and find how to fill the holes in it.
    And guess what?
    They succeed.
    Every year more and more evidence is accumulated in favor of evolution. The same can hardly be said for creationism.
    I will fix it. The same cannot be said for creationism. Creativity stays in place, does not move anywhere. Never proven, but relies on arguments along the lines of "it's not possible" and "it can't be" and "I don't believe that...".
    But every year, we discover more evidence of evolution and manage to find solutions to explain how things happened the way they did. Every year the number of creationists' arguments decreases... but it is strange that they do not notice this, and continue to repeat the same arguments that were disproved decades ago.
    So... evolution, or creationism?
    I will go on the side of the theory that is improving all the time, and continues to bring new evidence. ++

    == The claim that is investigated here is whether there are substances that are completely different from cytochrome C, that can act in its place. ==
    ++Yes, in the bacteria, there is another protein that does the role of cytochrome C++

    == Cytochrome C certainly shows differences between creatures whose distance is smaller than between man and monkey.==
    ++I would love to hear which creatures you are referring to, and what is your scientific source for this. ++

  52. Lenire:

    "In principle yes. Look at the mechanism of electron transfer in the mitochondria…”

    Yes - it is understood that if you destroy the cytochrome C gene, then this will not affect the existence of the cell.
    Here, you are completely wrong.

    Saying that there are replacements for cytochrome C and proving that they work are two different things.

    The claim that is investigated here is whether there are substances that are completely different from cytochrome C, that can act in its place.
    Until one is found, there is none.

    A scientist who avoids investigating his own claims is a charlatan who avoids trying to disprove and confirm his assumptions - he is not a scientist.
    Those who came up with the idea that there may be alternative enzymes to cytochrome C, with a completely different structure, are the scientists, wanting to show that the probability of its creation
    She is bigger than they thought. Therefore they have the duty to prove their hypothesis.

    Unanswered question:
    Did the aforementioned ATP-binding proteins function instead of the original proteins (and not in addition) in a living organism?

    "What is the relationship between the length of the protein and the percentage of functional sequences? The answer is that there is no simple relationship and no one knows how to calculate it."

    I assume you know biochemistry. The points I raised are the context that can be critical.
    how do you know conducting experiments. A scientist who decides in advance that there is no connection is a charlatan and not a scientist.

    "Sample from all the species that have been in evolution, including those that went extinct billions of years ago, and you will find the span of the random rate of beneficial mutations."

    Right.
    The mutation rate is a subject of research. And it has chemical (radicals, oxidants), physical (temperature, radiation) and genetic (mistakes) factors.
    There are also genetic clocks such as junk DNA and cytochrome C.
    A big change in pace is required.
    An increase in the rate means an increase in the rate of destructive mutations.
    When the rate increases, what do you think has more impact - the destructive or the beneficial mutations?

    "The reason it doesn't have enough resolution to see subtle differences"

    Cytochrome C certainly shows differences between creatures whose distance is smaller than between man and ape.
    This is why the researchers were surprised to find that there was no difference.

  53. Factor: "Are you saying that Q can replace cytochrome C?"

    My response: in principle yes. Look at the mechanism of electron transfer in mitochondria and you will see that they have a very similar function. The general process of electron transfer will probably have to happen differently but it is still plausible.

    Factor wrote: "A scientist who studies cytochrome C needs to substantiate his claim that there may be alternative compounds that are not cytochrome C.
    Create them in a laboratory and plant them in the genome of a creature and show that the creature continues to exist.
    Without the intention to substantiate it is not science, but a casual statement."

    My response: Believe it or not, but the evidence for evolution is so conclusive that scientists today have no particular reason to go to such great lengths just to prove for the million and one time that it works. They have enough more interesting things to do. At the moment the most far-reaching claim is that of the intelligent design people, that they can prove the existence of God from cytochrome C. Do you know of any of the intelligent design people who is engaged in the research of cytochrome C (real experimental research, not playing with numbers that real scientists have measured). I haven't heard of anyone like that.

    Factor: "Was it discovered by a change in the sequence of an amino acid that binds ATP?"
    How were we discovered?"

    My response: They were discovered by scanning trillions of completely random sequences. And instead of me answering these details question by question, wouldn't it be more productive if you just read the article? I brought a link to it above.

    Factor: "1. As the number of active sites in the protein increases, so will the chance of its reality decrease.
    2. If you increase (and not just change) the inactive part, you are in for some surprises"

    My response: surprises surprises, but overall there will also be a lot of changes that will not affect the function. And if you reduce the protein, you will also have all kinds of surprises. So what is the relationship between the length of the protein and the percentage of functional sequences? The answer is that there is no simple relationship and no one knows how to calculate it.

    Factor wrote: "There is no more (beneficial and non-beneficial mutations) than the random rate of mutations."

    My response: mistake. The random rhythm as its name is: random. It can (happen) be faster or slower. All our estimates are only for his duration (the average pace). But if instead of taking a random sample you choose in advance to look only at the tiny percentage of lucky species that have made it this far, don't be surprised if you find a much higher rate.

    What it's like: Let's say you tested 100 millionaires in the country and found that five of them won the big prize in the lottery. This is much more than what is randomly expected and therefore you conclude that there is a conspiracy here and someone in the management of the lottery is setting up lotteries in favor of the millionaires. This is nonsense of course. Your sample is pre-biased and you are mixing cause with effect. These five are millionaires because they won the lottery and not the other way around. If you want to find the real chance of winning the lottery you have to sample from all the people in the country and not just the millionaires. Sample all the species that have been in evolution, including those that went extinct billions of years ago, and you will find the span of the random rate of beneficial mutations.

    Factor wrote: "The cytochrome C clock shows zero mutations between man and monkey.
    This fact contradicts the assumption that a difference of about 2% between humans and monkeys is created gradually by a mechanism of mutations."

    My response: Cytochrome C confirms evolution in an amazing way. It provides an evolutionary tree of the animal world which is the same as predicted from anatomical features. For example see here:
    http://web.virginia.edu/Heidi/chapter5/chp5.htm
    In picture 5.29

    The question of why there is no difference between the cytochrome of a person and a chimpanzee (there is a small difference between the cytochrome of a person and a rhesus monkey) is like asking why there is no difference between Holon and Bat Yam on the world map. To see such a tiny difference you need a much higher resolution map, a map of Israel or even just of Gush Dan. Cytochrome C is a very ancient and very conservative protein. This is exactly why it can be used as a map of the evolution of the entire animal world, and this is also why it does not have enough resolution to see subtle differences. For example, there is no difference in the cytochromes of chicken and turkey. If you want to see such subtle differences, you need a map with a higher resolution, meaning newer and less conservative proteins, and there you do see the difference between a human and a chimpanzee.

  54. to Nir

    "Thanks to sexual reproduction, you can have 2 parents from the first generation, 4 parents from the second generation, more than 1000 parents from the tenth generation, a billion parents from the 30th generation, etc., and every mutation that happened in one of these billions can reach you"

    There are 25000 generations in a million years.
    Each generation 40 years.
    The number of mutations per mutation in each generation is:
    25000^2 Therefore your calculation about inheritance of mutations is wrong.

  55. Excellent discussion.

    to roy,

    You are doing holy work. I don't know where the patience comes from to face the cyclical claims of Gil and his clones, but good luck. And know that if you choose to ignore his next comments, at least I won't blame you.

    to ask,

    I have a hard time accepting your arguments about the "believing scientist".

    The only thing that should guide the scientist in the search for truth is the functionality of the theory. The 'belief' that there are indeed absolute laws in the universe that can be described with the help of mathematics is not a belief as much as it is simply a functional necessity in order for us to build working theories.

    Regarding Einstein, his opposition to quantum theory was precisely due to the belief that the universe is clear, clear and deterministic. This belief does not work and therefore was abandoned by the scientists! This is not the only example. If we remember, the scientists also believed in absolute time and mirror symmetry, two additional basic assumptions that simply do not work and therefore cannot be part of the "theory of everything".

    The good scientist is the scientist who manages to avoid any a priori belief and question the truth of our basic assumptions in building a new theory. So it was with Einstein and the ether and so it was with the great scientists of the beginning of the century who developed the quantum theory against any intuitive concept of the way the universe works.

    Regarding the fervor of faith that drives the scientist, suffice it to say that there are no shortage of successful atheist scientists and I don't think there must be any connection between your beliefs and your success as a scientist (an argument that has two sides).

    Not that I think I'm some kind of scientist, but I invite you to try and find some belief that I can't question, it would be an interesting experiment in the philosophy of science for me as well.

    By the way, I believe that Einstein's approach we call 'pantheism' which is Baruch Spinoza's approach to divinity.

    of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza

    In 1929, Einstein was asked in a telegram by Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein whether he believed in God. Einstein responded by telegram "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

    To this day I do not understand why Einstein called the cosmological constant "the biggest mistake". Originally he introduced the constant because according to his equations the universe should have collapsed under its own gravity. The constant was inserted and its size determined so that the equations describe a static universe, in balance, that neither expands nor contracts. We know today that Einstein's intuition was correct and use the degree of freedom of his field equations to explain the expansion of the universe. (Only now, the science behind the constant is a little better and we measure it empirically)

    This is probably how it is with great scientists, even when they are wrong they are right.

  56. Lanir-"Take for example an existing and working system of a front leg. In birds, bats and pterosaurs the front leg developed into a wing, in each family in a different way"-not true. This is your unfounded hypothesis. Moreover.. it is possible that a game of the control areas on the legs will cause similar features To those, but it is not about creating a new function, but playing with an existing member.

    "There is no realistic way to estimate the number of useful possibilities, even approximately, and therefore you simply cannot estimate the chance of finding a useful solution, no matter how much you wave your hands and throw out astronomical numbers that have no basis" - indeed there is and I explained why. And there is not much possibility of finding Something else that can be useful. For example, once the mouth is formed, what else can be useful in the mouth besides teeth? And instead of a tongue? And taste buds? They all created a very specific function for an existing system. How many other combinations can be useful in the mouth, apart from these things?

    "Indeed, I claim that the eye developed at the same time as the digestive system, and there is no problem with evolution. If you inherit from your father a beneficial mutation for the digestive system, your fitness increases. If you also inherit from your mother a beneficial mutation for the structure of the eye, your fitness increases even more." - How exactly? Let's assume a population of a million people. And let's say that according to what we've explained so far, only one in a million mutations will be considered beneficial. So let's assume that a mutation has already appeared in the father. What is the chance that the mother will also receive a beneficial mutation at the same time? One in a million. Therefore you must (and evolution also admits this) , that a mutation must take over a large percentage of the population, so that the next beneficial mutation that occurs can find the next beneficial mutation. And this can take at least a few thousand years (actually much longer).

    "You wanted to multiply the number of your "mutational births" by the rate at which mutation occurs. So I will now go with your calculation and show you that this rate is tens or hundreds for every human birth" - again you probably did not understand. I explained above why this is not so.

    "I did not understand anything from this calculation. How does this answer the question of how many combinations make milk? What is the weight of an amino acid? Where did the number 300 come from?" Acids We will use letters. This is how the gene that creates a neuron looks like - "the gene that creates a neuron". Each letter indicates one of the acids, any change of an acid may affect the entire sentence and cause it to be disrupted. For example, a mutation may change the sentence to "the son that creates a neuron" - Did you see what happened? The first letter changed and caused the sentence to go wrong, the garden was damaged. (By the way, the analogy in the original is "meet a bereaved bear").

  57. Now I noticed that I forgot to sign my previous message (from 9:55) and therefore it appears under "anonymous user". I guess you recognized me but just in case.

  58. To Anonymous:

    "In principle, the function is to transfer an electron from here to there and there are many molecules that do this and even much simpler ones (for example coenzyme Q"

    Are you saying that Q can replace cytochrome C?

    "It seems to me that the burden of proof is on him, to show that there cannot be other molecules"

    A scientist who studies cytochrome C needs to substantiate his claim that there may be alternative compounds other than cytochrome C.
    Create them in a laboratory and plant them in the genome of a creature and show that the creature continues to exist.
    Without the intention to substantiate it is not science, but a casual statement.

    This way of acting is secondary in relation to any protein enzyme. The results in relation to one enzyme are not indicative of another enzyme.

    "In an experiment to test random sequences, four new ATP-binding proteins were discovered and all of them were completely different from the biological protein for the same function."

    Did the above proteins function instead of the original proteins (and not in addition) in a living creature?
    Were we discovered by a change in the sequence H. Is there an amino that binds ATP?
    How were they discovered?

    "And there is no particular reason to assume that this percentage is smaller the larger the protein. For example, if I take a protein with a given active site and lengthen the inactive part, where there is much more freedom to replace amino acids, then it is actually expected that the percentage of functional sequences will increase."
    1. As the number of active sites in the protein increases, so will the chance of its reality decrease.
    2. If you increase (and not just change) the inactive part, you are in for some surprises:
    The reaction rate may vary.
    The rate of protein creation itself may change.
    Solubility may vary.
    The ability to pass through membranes will change.
    The spatial fit to the site where the reaction takes place may be canceled.
    Precipitation by other proteins can occur.
    Distortion of the active site can occur.
    The process of controlling the protein and identifying it may go wrong.

    "We expect in advance to find more beneficial mutations in their evolution than the random rate."

    There is nothing more (beneficial and non-beneficial mutations) than the random rate of mutations.

    The cytochrome C clock shows zero mutations between humans and monkeys.
    This fact contradicts the assumption that a difference of about 2% between humans and monkeys is created gradually by a mechanism of mutations.

  59. A few more things to Shul and collect
    To the best of my knowledge, Einstein did not add the cosmological constant because of any metaphysical belief, but only so that the model's predictions would adjust to reality as he knew it at the time (before we became aware of Hubble's discoveries).
    As for evolution - I am not aware of any statement by Einstein on the subject, but I allow myself to believe that he believed in its correctness.
    I base it on the following facts:
    1. Einstein believed that everything that happens is a result of the laws of nature and life is one of the things that happen. There is no doubt that he asked himself what is the origin of life and the very fact that he did not express himself on the subject suggests that he agreed with the popular (non-religious) opinion.
    2. Evolution is such a clear and self-evident fact that it cannot be opposed at all. The only questions that can have a place are along the lines of "Is evolution the be-all and end-all in the development of species?" Unlike questions like "does evolution exist". It is true that in Einstein's day the internal mechanisms of evolution were less well known, but even then its existence could not be denied.

    Einstein did not believe in a personal God (and defined a personal God as one that intervenes in reality in general and not only in the human one) mainly because he believed that the laws of nature determine everything and do not leave that God any freedom of action. It is not a matter of aesthetics beyond the minimalism dictated by "Ockham's Razor".
    Einstein did not abandon quantum theory either. On the contrary - he wrestled with its conclusions until his last day and tried to find a way that would allow experimental findings that correspond to it within the framework of a deterministic world. As part of his struggles, he also pointed out with Podolsky and Rosen the EPR "paradox" which today has applications in teleportation experiments and quantum encryption and tried to find explanations based on what is called in mathematics "hidden variables".
    It can be said that contemporary efforts such as string theory are a direct continuation of Einstein's efforts in this field.

  60. collect:

    As far as I know, Einstein called his atheism opposition to a 'personal God', meaning opposition to a divine being, any opposition to the idea that God created the world. I am not aware of his negative or positive reference to the idea of ​​evolution as a whole.
    Einstein's opposition to a personal God was, as far as I know, due to two main factors. The first is for reasons of aesthetics: it would seem to him 'not beautiful' for God to exist, and he is the one who coined the saying, that a formula that is not beautiful is probably also not true.
    The second reason is explicitly written in his letters and is his absolute belief in determinism down to the level of the smallest detail. If all of man's actions are dictated in advance, surely there is no place for his team to command or give him reward and punishment.

    Speaking of obstinacy, then the opposite of what you wrote is true: because of Einstein's belief in determinism ("God does not play with dice") Einstein abandoned quantum mechanics later on in his career even though he was one of its developers from the beginning.

    In any case, today we know that the cosmic constant is true, although not in the ways that Einstein meant, since we are talking about the existence of the dark force (as opposed to the dark matter) that causes the universe to be open.

  61. Shaul Bar Ilan and Mila Lasaf
    borrowed:
    I thoroughly delved into your words and what Einstein expressed I described as "optimism".
    He did not believe in a God who intervenes in nature in any way, but he did believe in the internal logic of nature and the practical logic of man's attempt to crack the north of nature through his reason.
    He was thrilled by the beauty of this logic and so was I.
    By the way, Roger Penrose described this sensation beautifully in his book The Emperor's New Mind and called it an "Ah!" In comparison to the feeling of "Aha!" which expresses a sudden insight and a "haha" feeling which expresses an understanding of humor :)
    But, if I may be allowed to "brag" a little for a moment, I personally went one step further on this issue and asked myself what is it in human nature that creates the same excitement accompanied by a sense of beauty (which is actually the decomposition of the "religious" feeling into its elements) and I think that I know the answer (and it may be a bit disappointing, but that is less relevant to the discussion about Einstein).
    I won't go into detail right now but my basic argument is that this feeling has clear evolutionary roots.
    Asaf:
    I would not define Einstein as a utilitarian because he never expressed the thought that the world was created by someone (on the contrary - he often said that he does not believe in a God who intervenes in events and the creation of the world is not a small event) but only the belief that there is a miraculous logic in it.

  62. Gil wrote: "Understand something... in multi-part systems it is about optimization.
    Once the mammals got on the milk system, then according to you they could have continued in any other possible route. After developing glands and a duct, they could have continued in thousands of other directions.
    But no. They continued to complete the milk system. They continued to add fattening to the system and a receptor and a hormone and another special casein protein and another neuron for fattening. This is about additions on top of the perfection of an existing system. Why didn't evolution, according to your method, turn to millions of other directions and always insist on adding to an existing system? What is the chance of finding a complementary component and not just something that could add survival? (Because what could be used instead of milk in the dairy system?)."

    My response: You are making the same error as Yuki and all creationists. You look at the solution that exists today and assume that it is the only and perfect solution that evolution was supposed to find, and then you assume that each component added during evolution "completes" the system towards that perfect system that needs to be reached, and you ask what the chances of completion are for this system alone. This is creationist thinking, not evolutionist. The truth is that no one knows how many possible paths and alternative solutions are available for evolution. Take for example an existing and working front leg system. In birds, bats and pterosaurs, the front leg developed into a wing, in each family in a different way, most likely through completely different mutations, and we don't know how many other possible ways there are to turn a front leg into a wing. Furthermore, there are a myriad of other ways to turn the front leg into something useful. You can turn it into a fin, a handle, a hanging hook, a shovel, grow hooves or claws in one or another number on it, or degenerate it, and all these possibilities were found by evolution, most of them several times in different ways. You even have cases like the penguin, where the front leg first became a wing and then a flipper. We have no way of knowing how many other beneficial options there are for foreleg development that simply didn't occur because evolution hasn't found them yet. At each stage the chance of evolution to find a useful solution is the number of useful options divided by the total number of options. You can play amino acid combinatorics to estimate the overall number of possibilities, but there is no realistic way to estimate the number of useful possibilities, even approximately, so you simply cannot estimate the chance of finding a useful solution, no matter how much you wave your hands and throw out astronomical numbers that don't exist no basis.

    Gil wrote: "Also in Talk Origins I found Yuki's calculation (by the way, there they wrote that it is probably the minimum possible if I'm not mistaken."

    My response: It's a shame you don't bring the link. Do they write that this is the minimum possible of functional cytochrome sequences? If so, this again means that there can actually be many more functional sequences (out of all possible sequences). In any case, if you want to rely on Yuki, then it is recommended that you simply read what he writes in his book (the link in my comment above):

    Gil wrote: In order for evolution to take place at all, you must have some mutation give a real survival advantage. Only then will you be able to give any chance, so that the next mutation in the chain will be added to the next mutation. If you claim that the eye evolved at the same time as the stomach, you are actually strengthening the creationist argument that two Systems (or two genes) were created at the same time. Even the evolutionists claim that this is not possible. (If you want I will expand)."

    My response: Indeed I claim that the eye developed at the same time as the digestive system and there is no problem with evolution. If you inherit from your father a beneficial mutation for the digestive system your fitness increases. If you also inherit from your mother a beneficial mutation for the structure of the eye, your fitness increases even more. These two mutations will increase their rate in the population without interfering with each other. I have never heard of a claim that the evolution of independent systems cannot occur simultaneously. If you have a source for this (preferably an article in a scientific journal and not some internet forum) please bring it.

    Gil wrote: "Inaccurate and I already explained-
    Although there are homologous systems in other animals as well,
    But even between them there is a difference of a few amino acids."

    My response: I argued that cytochrome C first appeared in short-lived organisms. From then until the version that exists in humans today, more changes have accumulated, but these are neutral mutations, they do not affect the function of the protein and there is no difficulty in assuming that they occurred in the hundreds of millions of years that have passed since then.

    Gil wrote: "I heard about that. It is possible that these are silent mutations, or that occur on so-called junk DNA or duplicated genes or on codons that code for the same acid. A minority of the above-mentioned mutations cause a real change."

    My response: Gil, we are currently counting the general number of mutations, not the number of mutations that cause a change in the phenotype. You yourself multiplied the number of genes in a person (30,000) by the number of sequences needed to find one useful gene (10 to the 11th power) and you came to the conclusion that "3000000000000000 mutational births" are needed to create the human body. So we are now talking about any mutations, because the rate of beneficial mutations out of all mutations has already been taken into account above (one in 10 to the 11th power). You wanted to multiply the number of your "mutational births" by the rate at which mutation occurs. So I now go with your calculation and show you that this rate is tens or hundreds per human birth. In addition, I show you that due to the merging of hereditary lines in sexual reproduction, the entire population contributes mutations, therefore you have to count all the births that occur in the population and not just the number of generations, and if you do that there is no problem reaching "3000000000000000 mutational births".

    Gil wrote: "You don't need to be a genius to understand that each amino acid has a specific role with a specific weight. I can also go down with you to the minimum possible - only 2 acids (instead of 20) that cause a real change, by multiplying the number of participating acids and you will get 300^2 combinations Various. An astronomical number on any scale.
    Let's even assume that a change of 10 acids from the protein could occur and we would still get the same function, and we would still get 30^2 minimal combinations possible. But why should we imagine? Nowadays all genes share all types of acids."

    My response: I did not understand anything from this calculation. How does this answer the question of how many combinations make milk? What is the weight of an amino acid? Where did the number 300 come from?

    Factor wrote: How do you think there might be other molecules with an active site other than cytochrome C that can perform its function?
    Give one example.

    My response: in principle the function is to transfer an electron from here to there and there are many molecules that do this and even much simpler ones (for example coenzyme Q which belongs to the same mechanism of electron transfer in mitochondria). In any case, when someone claims that he can prove the existence of God based on the number of all the proteins that perform the function of cytochrome C, it seems to me that the burden of proof is on him, to show that there cannot be other molecules. By the way, in an experiment to test random sequences, four new ATP-binding proteins were discovered and all of them were completely different from the biological protein for the same function. Not variations on the same sequence, but completely different sequences. The indication is that evolution has also found so far only a small part of all functional possibilities.

    Factor reporter: The active site of cytochrome C consists of thirty amino acids. The chance of creating it is 1 in 30^20.

    My response: This is not true. Even in the active site, certain amino acids can be changed to similar amino acids without harming the biological function.

    Factor wrote: How many amino acids does the new protein found that binds ATP consist of?
    If only 11 amino acids are required for its creation, then the chance of its creation is about 1 in 11^20. And this is the source of the difference.

    My response: All the chains tested in this experiment were 80 amino acids long. Four new ATP-binding proteins were found and they were completely different from each other. I guess their active site is also different in length. Cytochrome C is 100 amino acids long. Do you think this justifies a difference of dozens of orders of magnitude? By the way, differentiate between the number of possible sequences and the number of functional sequences. There is not necessarily a direct relationship between these numbers. What we are asking is what is the percentage of functional sequences out of all possible sequences, and there is no particular reason to assume that this percentage is smaller the larger the protein. For example, if I take a protein with a given active site and extend the inactive part, where there is much more freedom to exchange amino acids, then it is actually expected that the percentage of functional sequences will increase.

    Factor wrote: If this were true, then the human species would have to perish from an excess of destructive mutations.

    My response: This is a typical mistake of creationists. The great majority of mutations are not destructive but neutral. Besides, those 3000000000000000 mutations should not all occur in a person. Some of them also occurred in the ancestors of man who used sexual reproduction (hundreds of millions of generations and populations of millions and billions) and in all his short-lived ancestors without sexual reproduction (most likely hundreds of billions of generations).

    By the way, all this before we took natural selection into account. In practice, at least 99 percent of the species are already extinct, meaning that anyone who did not evolve fast enough to adapt to the changing environmental conditions is no longer with us today. Hence, if we choose to look only at those few and lucky species that have survived to this day (among them humans) we expect to find in their evolution more useful mutations than the random rate.

  63. Shaul Bar Ilan
    Just a slight note. As far as I know, Einstein was a deist and I don't believe he disagreed with the theory of evolution. According to the deists (a few other famous ones in the group), the whole universe was created by a creator with certain laws and then left to develop on its own.
    Note that Einstein's belief caused him to make what he later called his "biggest mistake" (adding a cosmological constant to his formulas). When evidence contradicting his belief was discovered, he did not hesitate to change it, which is far from the people commenting on this forum against evolution

  64. To the honorable Michael,

    I think you didn't understand what I said.
    Scroll back a little and you will see the distinction between prosaimization, which is what you are talking about, and actual religious belief (albeit atheistic!!!) - which is what Einstein is talking about. A belief that he was proud of, that although there is no proof of this either in the mind or in the senses, he was convinced (=believed) fully by the percent, that there is a superior intellectual power, in which he adheres by asserting the unity that surely exists in creation and also strives to reveal it in places where there was none at all Looking forward to finding it (the nickname he and his friends gave to this belief is: "The Cosmic Religion"). a quote:
    "My religion consists of submissive adoration for the unlimited Supreme Spirit that reveals itself in the insignificant details that we are capable of grasping in our frail and feeble minds.
    This deep emotional conviction in the presence of a superior intellectual force, revealed in a universe that cannot be understood, is my god's ideal."

    Now turning to Mr. Blizovsky. Since your site is so popular, perhaps it is appropriate to upgrade the comment system both by having them numbered (then I can refer to the comment by a number, etc.) and also by upgrading the comment writing system, by adding fonts, highlights, etc.

  65. I don't have time to write a long answer, but I must remark to the factor at this point that cytochrome C has undergone a change of several amino acids during the evolution from unicellular to human.

    Beyond that, the bacterium does not have cytochrome C but a protein that does exactly the same job.

    What's more, you repeat Gil's mistake regarding the finished structure of the protein, instead of referring to the different sites in it.

    I will expand on the answer (and to all other debaters) later today.

    Good Day!

  66. Lenire:

    " took into account only "cytochrome C-like molecules and not all possible molecules that could perform the function of cytochrome C."

    How do you think there might be other molecules with a different active site than cytochrome C that can perform its function?
    Give one example.

    "True, the function tested in the experiment was not the function of cytochrome C but a different function. But the difference between these functions is not that great, certainly not something that justifies a difference of 82 orders of magnitude. Does Yuki have any explanation, what is so special about the function of cytochrome C?"

    The active site of cytochrome C consists of thirty amino acids. The chance of creating it is 1 in 30^20.
    How many amino acids does the new protein that binds ATP consist of?
    If only 11 amino acids are required for its creation, then the chance of its creation is about 1 in 11^20. And this is the source of the difference.

    "How do you explain the huge difference between Yuki's calculation and the number measured in the experiment? In science, any theory whose predictions are wrong by such a huge factor is thrown into the trash."

    The chances of creating different proteins are different and huge depending on the number of amino acids of which they are composed.
    Hence, a study on a protein (peptide) with a size of 11 is not valid at all in relation to a protein with a size of 500.

    "Secondly, most of the genes in humans already exist in more primitive creatures with a shorter generation duration than in humans. For example, the cytochrome C that you love so much already exists and functions in bacteria, meaning it appeared hundreds of millions of years ago."

    Cytochrome C remains cytochrome C in man and bacteria and has not been used since to create other proteins or other organs.

    "In a thousand or a million generations of sexual reproduction you easily reach "3000000000000000 mutational births"

    If this were true, then the human species would have to die out from an excess of destructive mutations.

  67. To Michael,
    Well, maybe we are getting closer in opinion, there is something to talk about.
    In any case, I will not add and bother again with the arguments I have already made.

    Thanks to my father who started a website where the responses are not "come in, I'm first" and the like.
    Good night
    palm tree

  68. Shaul Bar Ilan
    I agree with you that this is not the site's role, but I found it appropriate to comment on things you said that seemed incorrect to me.
    Your diagnoses regarding the faith of scientists or the ability of religious people to enjoy the beauty of evolution are correct (and believe me I was aware of them even before I read your words) but this faith of the scientists is different from the faith in God and it merely expresses optimism. In the end, we all believe, but there is a difference between someone whose faith is reduced to a belief in the laws of logic without which we have no ability to function and whose absence would even prevent the possibility of holding any kind of discussion, and a belief in something that is not warranted by experience. By the way, this belief in religion, even if it does not completely prevent the believer from the possibility of enjoying the understanding of evolution, it makes the task very difficult for him and it is no wonder that the opposition to evolution mostly stems from religious motives (and comes from religious factors).

  69. to palm -
    As I have already said, the opposition of the scientists does not exist - a priori - to the phenomena themselves but to the definition of phenomena as "supernatural". This is an understandable objection since defining a phenomenon as "supernatural" includes, among other things, a prophecy that the definer predicts by predicting already today that he will never find a natural explanation. This prophecy does not come from inspiration but from a general attitude of disdain for science and is the type of prophecies that justify the statement about the person to whom the prophecy was given nowadays.
    The willingness of scientists to believe in the existence of certain phenomena if you find physical proof for them is not at all similar to the willingness of a believer to believe in evolution if God tells him to believe.
    There is no way for a person to be convinced of the existence of a phenomenon other than through what he experiences through his senses and deduces through his reasoning, therefore the demand of the scientists is not excessive at all. We should not forget that those who claim the existence of the phenomena also base their claims on things they claim to have physically experienced.
    I believe that you are indeed not disrespecting anyone, but I suggest you not to use disparaging expressions because in the end they won't believe you.
    Some of the phenomena you mentioned as inexplicable actually have different proposals for an explanation, but this does not change the fact that there really are things that we have not yet discovered. I say again - classifying those things as "supernatural" would have belonged to the realm of prophecy if it had not belonged to the realm of disdain for science.
    I don't know where you get your knowledge of the beliefs of most scientists about what will be revealed in the future.
    I can only tell you that those who claimed in the past that "everything has already been discovered" or "everything has already been invented" has become a hoka and italula and most people no longer dare to say such things.
    As you said, mathematics concentrates most of human logic within it, but it is natural for people to think that if we understand something in the future, mathematics (which may also be expanded by then - string theory, for example, is now a serious part of mathematics developed specifically by physicists) will have a part in this understanding. As mentioned, all our experiences with the phenomena in our world are also of a physical nature and the expectation to notice the existence of additional natural phenomena in physical ways is completely understandable.
    This is even true regarding your experience with your mother.
    You are talking about some statistical phenomenon. Although you said 100%, we will give you up on this claim.
    Many of the diagnoses of science are tested with statistical tools and your mother's ability to predict should not be an exception in this regard.
    Nor would Randy demand complete success from her. He will only demand that she do better than a random guess.
    I do not understand what reference you expected from the participants in the discussion in relation to your claim about your mother. How can any of them refer to this claim factually, beyond stating the fact that a test under laboratory conditions is required? What did you want to happen - for someone here to suddenly invent some way in which people can prophesy? Doesn't this requirement even exceed the requirement that someone come up with a theory that would justify a Nobel Prize in this debate?
    In relation to the "soul" - every part of it - down to the last one - can be physically harmed, so what is left in the soul itself?
    Is it conceivable that any damage to the brain will damage the functioning of the soul but its complete decay will restore it to its integrity?

  70. Why is it new to ask - do you see the difference between the ultra-Orthodox websites that censor any opposing opinion to a pluralist website? It's just a shame that the one who doesn't cooperate is the WordPress system which, when the number of comments is too large, starts to expand the page.

  71. To the honorable Michael,

    With great joy there is a place to discuss the misconceptions you have about Judaism and perhaps about religious morality in general, but it seems to me that this is not the role of the site here. As far as I'm concerned, I started responding in this thread only to point out that there is no point and reason to interpret any progress in the study of evolution as another point for the next debate between religion and science because:
    A. Absolute atheist scientists are also - to the extent that they are great scientists - people of faith who act out of faith (see my previous comments and you will understand).
    B. Believing Jews can also enjoy the beauty of evolution as much as they are able to enjoy the beauty in general that is revealed in creation.

    Once again, I thank Mr. Blizovsky for the excellent and up-to-date website, and for the generosity of hosting on his servers the long discussion that has been going on here for the past week. Just don't wipe us out in some burst of frugality...

  72. For age
    why are you getting into so much trouble
    It is written in the book of Genesis, chapter XNUMX, verse XNUMX
    And God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul.
    So simple so why do you get involved if the genes and statistics of the evolutionists?

  73. To Roy - "You asked for a way to create a garden. The problem is that you start from the 'final' gene, which includes tracking and inhibitory sites, activation sites, catalytic sites, links to other proteins, etc. The point is that in many genes, the catalytic site that is made up of 4 or 5 amino acids is enough to do the necessary action. All the other amino acids are 'placeholders' and give volume to the protein" - what does a lot mean "a lot of genes"? And what about all the rest? And what about genes that require all the acids to perform their function?

    "The beautiful part is that control sites of sorts also do not require more than a few single amino acids. It is enough that such sites will be created and connect with the protein containing the catalytic site" - see above... Do you think that a gene can function perfectly even with 10-20 amino acids? Did evolution manage to create all the millions of genes with different functions from the aforementioned tiny number, with such a meager beginning ?. Will a gene function with 10 acids and then when all the other 200 are added it still remains with its original function?.

    "It is enough to have a selection in your genome of a number of catalytic sites, inhibitors, activators, etc." - correct. What do you think is the minimum amount of acids, in order to create a special digestive enzyme, which breaks down only a specific substance and is only active in a specific place? 10?... I think you are exaggerating

  74. To Nir - "of a book you haven't read, and according to this quote Yuki calculated that there are 93^10 different molecules of cytochrome C. You don't know how Yuki calculated this number, and whether his calculation is correct" - no problem. I showed you that from a scientific journal that brought here and so to speak (be confident that there are more rare functions) that every 1 to 10 to the 11th power some kind of beneficial combination appears. And also according to the super-duper large number the chance turned out to be zero. So what will the cytochrome help you now?
    "From this it follows that the frequency of any useful function can be much higher."

    "If we assume that there are a thousand different functions that can benefit biological beings, and that the chance of finding each of them is similar to the chance of finding an ATP-binding molecule, then the chance of finding some useful function in a random sequence is a thousand times greater than the chance of finding only an ATP-binding sequence." - Inaccurate. Understand something... In multi-part systems it is about optimization.
    Once the mammals got on the milk system, then according to you they could have continued in any other possible route. After developing glands and a duct, they could have continued in thousands of other directions.
    But no. They continued to complete the milk system. They continued to add fattening to the system and a receptor and a hormone and another special casein protein and another neuron for fattening. This is about additions on top of the perfection of an existing system. Why didn't evolution, according to your method, turn to millions of other directions and always insist on adding to an existing system? What is the chance of finding a complementary component and not just something that could add survival? (Because what else could be used instead of milk in the milk system?). And also according to your model - reduce the chance a thousandfold. We are still left with a funny number.

    "What does "to him too" mean? Is this true or false? How do you explain the huge difference between Yoke's calculation and the number measured in the experiment? In science, any theory whose predictions are wrong by such a huge factor is thrown in the trash" - also in Talk Origins I found Yuki's calculation (by the way, there they wrote that this is probably the minimum possible if I'm not mistaken. You can add more Kahneh and Khneh orders of magnitude, it won't change the image, unless you believe that the cytochrome function can be created from 170^10 possible combinations).

    This "calculation" repeats your usual mistakes again.
    First, you assume that all these mutations had to develop one after the other and not at the same time. Incorrect assumption. The structure of the digestive system, for example, does not depend on the structure of the eye. Genes of the digestive system can undergo evolution at the same time as the genes of the eye." - a serious mistake and I will explain - in order for evolution to occur at all, you must have some mutation give a real survival advantage. Only then will you be able to give any chance, so that the next mutation in the chain will be added to the next mutation If you claim that the eye developed at the same time as the stomach, you are actually strengthening the creationist argument that two systems (or two genes) were created at the same time. Even the evolutionists claim that this is not possible. (If you want I will expand).

    "Secondly, most of the genes in humans already exist in more primitive creatures with a lower generation duration than in humans. For example, the cytochrome C that you love so much already exists and functions in bacteria, that is, it appeared hundreds of millions of years ago, when we were short-lived creatures" - not accurate and I already explained -
    Although there are homologous systems in other animals as well,
    But even between them there is a difference of a few amino acids. (let's say if only 10). Let's even say that the entire genome of the human body contains only about 100 genes that are unique only to a person. And even then you will need infinite time.

    "Third, you as usual ignore sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction allows evolution in humans to progress as quickly as it does in bacteria, even though each generation lasts much longer. Thanks to sexual reproduction, you can have 2 parents from the first generation, 4 parents from the second generation, more than 1000 parents from the tenth generation, a billion parents from the 30th generation, etc., and every mutation that happened in one of these billions can reach you." I am not ignoring it at all. On the contrary! Sexual reproduction of diploid creatures only One in 99.99 will survive at all (and it also has to be useful). All because in sexual reproduction there is a problem that only half of the genetic load is passed on. Therefore, the chance decreases very quickly with the generations that the mutation will survive at all. (I will bring you a calculation if you want).

    "By the way, every birth in a person is a "mutational birth". According to the updated estimates, there are on average several dozen or several hundred new mutations in a human embryo." - I heard about this. It is possible that these are silent mutations, or that occur on so-called junk DNA or duplicated genes or on codons that code for the same acid. A minority of the aforementioned mutations to cause a real change. (When was the last time you heard about a mutation that changed something).

    "How many combinations make milk, etc.?" I don't know and neither do you, and our lack of knowledge proves nothing" - you don't need to be a genius to understand that each amino acid has a specific role with a specific weight. I can also go down with you to the minimum possible - only 2 acids (instead of 20) that cause a change Literally, by multiplying the number of participating acids and you get 300^2 different combinations. An astronomical number by any measure.
    Let's even assume that a change of 10 acids from the protein could occur and we would still get the same function, and we would still get 30^2 minimal combinations possible. But why should we imagine? Nowadays all genes share all types of acids.

  75. Michael, thank you for your answer, it forces me to use my thinking a bit, and it is not easy when two children are standing over me now, one on my head and one on my shoulders, and the woman shouts "I have to go, I have to go".
    For our eyes:
    Try to talk to a religious person about evolution (or about homosexuality in the religious sector..) and you will receive unprecedented opacity and resistance.
    To my surprise, the same level of resistance is received when trying to talk to scientists about such "supernatural" subjects.
    The scientists are better than the religious on one point in this matter, they declare their willingness to accept and adopt any physical proof of a supernatural phenomenon.
    It is like a religious person declaring that if God suddenly appeared and said that evolution exists and that several corrections are needed in the book of Genesis, he would accept and believe it.
    If you knew me, you would know that I don't look down on anyone, not scientists, not religious people, not those who have succeeded, not those with a weak mind of any kind, my work is with an audience of all kinds, I have never shamed a person for an act he did, even if it cost me the price of the glasses he put in his bag when he thought that you don't see him.

    Of course I believe that there are different phenomena that we will understand in the future. Can you explain today the phenomenon of particles changing their behavior when they are observed? A nice video about this, which I received from a scientist (beautiful and real) I put on my website in the "alternative" section, is there a more appropriate place in your opinion?
    http://www.optometry.co.il/alternative.htm
    Or maybe you can explain to me time, space, the structure of matter, the formation of life, the disappearance of "energy?" Life at the time of death, infinity, the vague existence of the present and much more.

    The point I'm trying to make is simple, the human race only knows a fraction of the whole truth, and you will surely agree with me on that.
    However, many scientists are sure, out of narrow thinking in my opinion, that the rest of the knowledge we have not yet acquired is of the same type and species, i.e. pure physical, mathematical, etc.
    Why don't they have the courage to rule out in advance things that they are not even able to define?
    What is the formula of the power of thought? What causes cells to differentiate? After all, we don't have the faintest idea about all of these, so how can we determine that it is not something "spiritual"?

    My proof of the scientists' thinking troubles is on this page.
    According to (the infinite..) my mother has these and other abilities. I mentioned that this is not her livelihood (so I am not trying to promote her commercially) and the fact that she is my mother adds to her particularly high credibility (of course)
    However, none of those present addressed this matter-of-factly, did not try to understand the phenomenon or interpret it with any scientific explanation, instead I received an academic and well-learned counterattack.
    And why? Because the scientist is not ready to even hear about this kind of thing, just as the religious man is not ready to hear about evolution.
    And this is not intellectual enlightenment.
    Regarding the said experiment:
    There is no way she would succeed in this kind of experiment. If she was that good I would be very rich today.
    Her ability is one degree (or two?) above the ability of a normal intuition of a "normal" person. I wouldn't send a first grader to matriculate in English, but that doesn't mean he isn't better than the other kids in the class in this regard.
    Besides, what is a million dollars? The dollar is low today.
    Regarding the topic you brought up earlier, some kind of brain damage may cause a disconnection such as aphasia, difficulty speaking, impaired memory, etc., but this does not mean that there is damage to the integrity of the "soul" if it does exist.
    Have a nice day.
    Physics or not, I need an area of ​​6 square meters, marked on one side with a blue-white line, in about an hour, in the Basel area of ​​Tel Aviv.
    Thanks in advance.
    palm tree

  76. Shaul Bar Ilan
    Evolution is a scientific theory without moral pretensions.
    Using evolutionary arguments to "morally justify" something is mixing sex with non-sex.
    I thank you for using Desmond Morris's mistake as an example of this and not Hitler's mistake/mistake.
    I simply want you to explain to me how it is possible to morally justify the degrading treatment that contemporary religion gives to homosexuals whose only sin is that they were born with traits that are indeed not encouraged by the completely immoral force of natural selection (just as, by the way, the phenomenon of impotence is not encouraged by it but no denounced by religion).
    The sense of morality is wrong in each and every one of us (except in pathological cases) genetically. This is why there is so much overlap between most moral systems on earth, including those of recently discovered savage tribes.
    All the systematic distortions of this morality originate from external systems of laws and religion at their head.
    Of course, it is not difficult to find in the Torah other examples of the demand for immoral behavior - if it is God's demand from Abraham to drive out the Hagar and if it is the demand that comes later in contradiction to an explicit promise to raise his son as an immigrant.
    Abraham's greatness is measured by his willingness to comply with God's command by performing clearly immoral acts.
    If we look a little at the expressions of Jewish morality in our time, we can of course find the issues of hibum and halitza and all the hardships that women (as opposed to husbands) go through during divorces.

  77. To Michael,
    I would appreciate it if you could elaborate a bit.

    A side note: the example you gave regarding the treatment of homosexuals seems a little strange to me, because a true evolutionist knows that in order for the species to be preserved, it is necessary to establish a history; An action that, as far as I know, is somewhat incompatible with homosexuality. In the book 'The Naked Monkey' Desmond Morris (an extremely flamboyant atheist), gives this argument as a reason why according to evolution (!!!) homosexuality should be opposed.

  78. Comments for everyone - let's start with a collection -
    "Do I understand that creationism assumes that all creatures were created together and therefore must have the same age? Correct me if I'm wrong" - you are indeed wrong. Intelligent planning tries to show that some planner planned the world. It could be aliens if you want or any other intelligent thing. Therefore, the comparison to the books of the Bible is also out of place.
    "That's why I would expect to find human bones together with dinosaur bones. But there are none.”….Who told you there are none?….See here …….

    http://www.falunnews.org.il/articles_p/2003/06/c_06/1558_05.htm

    3. "Incorrect isotope dating method. And here we have to ask - if the dating is also incorrect, what is the physical theory that disproves it?" - Incorrect dating can be due to a number of reasons. And there are cases in which animals while alive received refutable dating results as well as stalactites and other things. And even if all the dating methods were correct 100 percent. In the Holy Scriptures it is explicitly written that the Creator was building and destroying worlds, prior to ours.

  79. To ask Bar Ilan
    The identification you are trying to make between religion and morality is incorrect.
    Much can be written about the matter, but perhaps it is better to refer you to two books that explain it well. One is Dawkins' book - The God Delusion, which of course crushes religion from other points as well, but sets aside special chapters for the topic of morality.
    The second book is Yaron Yedan's book "Religion Rises on Its Creators".
    As an honest challenge I would suggest you try to morally justify the religion's treatment of homosexuals.

  80. Since I hate biology, but really hate it, I don't have the knowledge to deal with all the information that is spilled here. I will only add a personal experience: about ten years ago I was at a social event where among the attendees was a professor who at the time was one of the most prominent in Israel in the field of biology. A completely secular man, who as far as I know had no religious sign in his lifestyle - at least then. After we got to know each other, I felt free enough to ask him a question that had been bothering me about evolution. I haven't finished the question yet and he burst out and said: I am not the right person for these questions, after all I believe in God!!!

  81. palm tree-
    Science deals with trying to find the laws that operate in the world and if reincarnation does occur then every scientist would be happy to discover and prove it and would be doubly happy to discover the laws of nature that make it possible.
    The scientist does not like the expression "supernatural" because he hopes that even the phenomena that the opponents of science classify as supernatural he will eventually be able to explain by the existing laws of nature or by those that are yet to be discovered and that in the end the designation "supernatural" will not fit. I understand from your words that you not only hope but even believe that eventually we will understand these phenomena (and therefore it will no longer be possible to call them "supernatural").
    You claim that you do not underestimate scientists, but you allow yourself to predict that you will behave better than them if and when it turns out that one of the phenomena you mentioned turns out to be real. You won't fall off the chair but they will blink and squint in all directions.
    Indeed - a beautiful expression of no disrespect. Another expression of this disdain is your definition of them as believers in the religion of science (which does not exist), as mentally fixed, and more.
    You say: "So what if different theories have changed (and rightly so). This does not show the intellectual enlightenment of the scientist, but only the perfection of the theory and its correction and the continuation of the research".
    I don't know what your definition of "mental enlightenment" is, but if it is the opposite of the same "mental fixation" that you attributed to scientists, then change and exchange of theories are definitely phenomena that refute this accusation, and this was Roi's intention when he brought examples of revolutions in the field of science's understanding of reality. I would really love to read what you mean by the words "thoughtful enlightenment"

    Personally, I find it hard to believe that reincarnation or any existence of a soul outside the body will be discovered, but I would be very happy to find out that I am wrong.
    I find it hard to believe because everything that defines us as who we are - our memory, our thoughts, our character, etc. can change, be damaged or even disappear as a result of physical damage to the brain (whether by disease, whether by accident or by drugs).
    This happens even though the "soul" remains and the person continues to live.
    The most likely way to interpret this reality is by identifying those components of the "soul" with the parts of the brain that were destroyed. Remember that it is possible to harm a specific memory without harming others, so this is not about some physical brain mechanism that allows you to "retrieve" memories from the soul, because such a mechanism would not distinguish between the different memories.
    So it's hard for me to believe, but if I prove that it still happens, there won't be a happier person on earth than me - after all, we all want to live forever!
    You define yourself as someone who "comes from the field" so why not cooperate with humanity's effort to understand nature? Why are you asking us to believe the story about your mother instead of taking her to James Randi as suggested? If she doesn't want to take the million dollars, there is no doubt that Randy will be happy to keep them with him and we will all be happy to hear about the success of the experiment.

  82. Dear Roy,

    Topic A: You wrote: "This is a scientific axiom, and we must accept it in order to engage in science. But is it true?"

    It seems to me that in your words you did not distinguish between two different concepts in the philosophy of science: between presummation (what you are talking about) and 'religion' (what Einstein meant).
    When you try to understand what causes objects to float, for example, you assume that any law exists, and when you relate this to Bernoulli's law, you tell yourself that even if the starting point
    - that there is some kind of law - was mistaken, here are the results that pay off, because we managed to build flying objects.
    Ever since philosophers began to study phenomena they worked according to
    This presupposition which is an axiomatic way of thinking whose entire justification is only convenience (Do you remember Duckert?). Einstein is talking about something much more sublime and supreme - therefore
    He speaks of himself as a 'religious' person. A man who invests the best of his time and youthful energy to prove that there is a connection between completely different things: between gravity (the most 'retarded' force)
    For time (the most elementary thing), he cannot persist in his work without an emotional belief, there is no foundation that the solution exists at all and it just needs to be found. And thanks to him, and thanks to his companions on the road (there is an important book, and a bit heavy: "Einstein and his contemporaries" that shows how many ideas in Einstein's articles are actually an expression of the philosophical tendencies
    reactionaries who prevailed at the time; In other words Einstein translated concepts in philosophy to physics) we have reached one of the greatest discoveries in history.
    In conclusion, a good scientist is a person of faith. Of course, Einstein does not mean belief in God, but his own emphasis is important, that belief is basically a true thing, and a good scientist works from the gut and not just based on evidence; He is only obliged to prove the results.
    A quote from "The Quotable Einstein" (Had Artzi 1999), p. 142: ""My religion consists of submissive adoration for the unlimited supreme spirit that reveals itself in the insignificant details that we are able to grasp in our fragile and weak minds. The deep emotional conviction This one, in the presence of a superior intelligent power, manifesting itself in a universe that cannot be understood, is the ideal of my God."

    Topic B: You wrote: "According to the same principle of a 'real evolutionist', we can conclude about a 'real religious man.' He believes that everything is determined by God, and that his actions have no meaning. Beyond that, he cannot engage in science, since each experiment will have different results, according to God's will.
    And yet, we see that religious people use medicines invented by science, devices invented by science, etc.
    What is the conclusion?
    Just as there can be a cleric who uses all the fruits of science, so too can there be an evolutionist who believes in evolution and still believes in morality and value imperatives, by virtue of being a person in society."
    Two comments: A true religious person - a Jew, at least - believes that G-d created the world in order for humans to fix it. That is why the actions of each person have a lot of meaning, and especially the person is helped by science, and the natural laws that G-d created in creation, both to correct himself and his personality and to correct the world.
    Note B: In 5 billion years our sun will swell to become a red giant whose edges will scorch our earth completely. Much earlier it will swell to such an extent that it will be completely impossible to live here (as time goes by the amount of matter in the sun decreases, then the forces of the nuclear explosions inside it that push 'out', overcome the forces of gravity that push in). A collision with the Andromeda galaxy is also on the way. Most likely there will not be a direct collision, at least as far as the Earth is concerned, but there are great chances that the great gravitational forces that will pass here will affect the Earth's orbit. Long before there are many risks for the earth to be wiped out under many circumstances. All these things teach that no matter what, a day will come and all humanity will be extinct. It doesn't matter at all if there will be angels living here who spend their days doing good for each other or if animals will live here who will only destroy each other all day long. It will all be over. Why should you spend worrying about the world? Everything, everything will end. All the human knowledge that has been accumulated to date and that will be accumulated, all the achievements, everything, everything, will be lost together with our tiny planet in a tiny star system in one not very special galaxy. So it is true that the infidel does not steal either, because he does not want to be stolen from, but this is utilitarianism at its best (Jeremy Bentham, I mention). Anything beyond utilitarianism is a complete waste of power and corruption. But you yourself do not live this way, so why are you laughing at believers???
    I'll give you an example: suppose a day comes and you face a shared danger with your children. Obviously the basic instinct is to sacrifice your life for the children. But an infidel who knows,
    that this emotion that exists in all of us was imprinted in us only as an evolutionary trait that helps to preserve the species (see Desmond Morris's 'The Naked Monkey', whose starting point is that because we are from monkeys, most of our traits are probably 'animal' traits, and that they too must be analyzed as animal behaviors), and there is no reason at all for us to follow this emotion just because it exists. If this infidel has any sense he says in his heart that it is better that his children die and not him, because there is no reason why his life should be spared when in any case if he dies he will gain nothing from his children remaining alive. Do you believe that you would also act in this way?

    A final note: A Jew does not believe in faith on the path of negation, which arose when there are no explanations for creation, but a Jew believes because there are millions of independent testimonies - and I repeat and emphasize: independent - each of the witnesses can testify to what he heard from his father, that he heard from his father and so on until Exodus from Egypt and Mount Sinai. There is no better proof than this, and it is a fact that to this day no other religion has been able to imitate this proof mechanism.
    good week

  83. While I was answering I went to pick olives. recommended!
    Roy, I certainly do not look down on scientists or science and I myself come from the field and am very interested (optometry with a Bachelor of Science degree).
    The whole point I'm trying to show is that science unhesitatingly rejects anything defined as "supernatural" but cannot explain well the "natural" things.
    ZA that science has an extreme aversion to reincarnation, spirits, communication and all that.
    From my familiarity with the subject, and my understanding, a very significant percentage of those involved in this are crooks and exploiters, and it is easy to understand their success - they turn to emotion, hope and alternative solutions in times of distress of those who turn to them. All the commercialization of it makes me sick.
    Despite the significant background noise they cause, I believe that there are things defined as "supernatural" and that some people have higher abilities than others to reach them.
    We should always know our place in the world and not judge in advance, maybe everything is an experiment by someone outside? Maybe we are a dream of some extraterrestrial monkey? Look around you, does all this seem fine and logical to you? As long as we don't have a perfect explanation, we should be careful not to rule out any explanation.
    As for the lady in question, if you haven't figured it out yet, she is my mother.
    Only recently did I realize that every time I asked for advice or a solution, the answer she gave me about what would happen was perfect.
    Believe me I asked her as much as possible, I gave a minimum of details, and the fact that she knows me only bothered her because she had to ignore her personal opinion and convey the message to me without interpretation.
    So either she has incredible statistics about the occurrence of various events in the near future, or I don't know what.
    By the way, she doesn't make a living from it, isn't satisfied with all of this, doesn't advertise and doesn't need all of this.
    Her answers are unequivocal: will I be accepted to a certain place, will my salary be increased, will I be invited to a conference, will a certain manager arrive on the day I left without permission, is a large deal worthwhile, will an innovative analysis of a client I had for the first time be successful, and so on, in retrospect it was always right, but My answer, my wife's and my three facts were only correct in 50-60% of all the dozens of cases I asked her.
    Maybe she's just guessing the answer I want to hear, but that doesn't make everything better "scientifically"
    Shabbat Shalom
    palm tree
    http://www.optometry.co.il

  84. Palm –
    It is hard for me to see how you know what that spoken lady is thinking, or doing. It is also difficult for me to determine what statistics you are relying on. Maybe the lady also manages to 'read' you better, but for every correct answer she gives you by chance, she gives a wrong answer to someone else? How unambiguous are her answers? And maybe she relies on her acquaintance with you (first degree relative) to conclude about the future?
    Anyway, I wish you the best of luck in your future with her.

    As for your opinion of scientists, I believe you underestimate them, and not rightly so. If a complex formula appears that explains the existence of reincarnation, and this formula is a response to evidence that can be verified in experiments and can be repeated, then science will accept the formula, even enthusiastically.
    Too many people think of scientists as cold machines, and not as enthusiastic and energetic people as they really are, who want to understand the world and decipher it. I personally promise you that the day such a formula comes out and is published in an important scientific journal (Science or Nature, for example), in a peer-reviewed article...
    Well, the day that happens, I'll be one of the first in line to research the issue and push it further. And with me there will be many more scientists who will be eager to develop this new and exciting field of science, which will provide us with a better understanding of the universe around us.

    What else?
    First you need to find such a formula, or a hint of a thread to prove that such a formula can even exist. Unfortunately, no such proof has yet been found, despite many people trying to claim that they have it. The evidence does not meet a scientific standard of rigorous testing (spoon benders who have to use the spoons provided to them, and not their own spoons, fail to bend them. Telepathy does not work on researchers who use the double blind method - meaning that the questioner does not know what the correct answer is either. And more and more).

  85. It was fast, but you didn't tell me anything.
    I didn't get an answer to my first question, is there something one and only, the most basic, no matter what, that we completely understand, how and why it works?
    Even our foundation stones, for example mathematics which can be said to be equivalent to the structure of logical scientific thought, contain contradictions and very fundamental issues for which we have no explanation.
    So what if different theories have changed (and rightly so). This does not show the intellectual enlightenment of the scientist, but only the refinement of the theory and its correction and the continuation of the research.
    Not everything is black and white. I believe that science, especially what we have not yet reached, can explain most of the supernatural phenomena, and if a complex formula appears that explains the existence of reincarnation, alas, or communication with spirits, mercifully, I will not be the one to fall off the chair, unlike the established scientist who will blink and squint in all directions.
    As for the lady in question, it's not about circuses. I just know that I get very good answers to various questions, and all over the phone. She asks me for as little information as possible and does not speculate from the tone of voice, etc.
    Ask her where some object has disappeared and she won't know, her answers are always related to human beings with consciousness.
    I was also negative about it, but I was decided by the statistics..
    goodbye
    palm tree

  86. ==How is it that one lady I know (first degree relative) can answer me questions about the near future in several areas, and be right time after time, in contrast to a control group of 5 people who are right about 55% of the time. ==

    There is a name for such people. They are called 'smart'.
    If you are convinced of her ability to predict the near future with a good degree of success, then I suggest you take her to a scientific test. That is, there will be reviews in the test (random people who are asked random questions) and the people who will ask the questions themselves will not know what the correct answer is (so that they cannot betray it with body language or insinuations).

    If indeed the lady succeeds in demonstrating paranormal ability under controlled conditions, she will receive a million dollars from James Randi. The famous ex-magician promised a reward of this amount to anyone who completed the task. So far, no one has received the award.

    Link.

    ==From a religious person you at least don't expect any mental openness, he is fixated on God's power and that's all. Wait, isn't that what the scientist does? It is fixed on the power of physics, no matter what.==

    The scientist is fixated on the power of the laws he knows and have already received a strong foundation. To decide that additional laws exist, the burden of proof rests with the person who claims so.
    As evidence that great transformations indeed took place in the science of physics, you can see the cancellation of the ether theory at the end of the 19th century (a theory that was for physicists like 'bread and water', but was disproved in one experiment). Another great payoff was when Einstein proposed his theory of relativity, and proved its correctness, among other things, by providing an adequate explanation for the movement of the planet Mercury around the sun.
    This proof (and others) was weighty enough to convince the vast majority of physicists of the correctness of the theory of relativity. Note - the physicists abandoned the Newtonian theory that was accepted by them for almost 300 years, due to the irrefutable proofs provided by Einstein.

    As soon as you manage to show, under controlled conditions, a contradiction of the laws of nature as they are quoted in current physics, the world of science will take this contradiction with the seriousness it deserves.

  87. And I fortify my position.
    Millions of people have seen the sun rise and set as it orbits the Earth - the center of the universe.
    Today's science is only marginally better than that time. We have become the church ourselves.
    We simply know a little more about the processes themselves, and are more willing to learn and explore.
    Let's be honest, we don't have the slightest idea about the reason and essence of all this, and clinging to science is an escape to a narrow field where it works (and works well)
    Arguing with a scientist is more serious than arguing with a religious person.
    At least you don't expect any kind of mental openness from a religious person, he is fixated on God's power and that's all. Wait, isn't that what the scientist does? He is fixated on the power of physics no matter what.
    What is meant by a billion experiments in millions of laboratories? In our narrow environmental conditions, science is true and accurate, conduct experiments to your heart's content, everyone will succeed. But a little beyond our "natural" environment, a little faster, smaller, everything goes wrong and we have no idea what's going on.
    I'm really not a religious person (Shabbat today..) nor a spiritual person of one kind or another, I make a living from geometric optics, but I ask the entire esteemed panel for an answer to this question:
    How is it that one lady I know (first degree relative) can answer me questions about the near future in several areas, and be right time after time, in contrast to a control group of 5 people who are right about 55% of the time.
    What is the formula she uses to calculate for me whether I will be invited to an important conference, whether someone she doesn't know succeeded in the test, whether someone else will get a salary increase and so on and so forth.
    Is it possible that she receives messages from a source that is not defined in our physics?
    Alas, this is not science! My father immediately deletes me.
    good week
    http://www.optometry.co.il

  88. Hello Giora, and thank you for your comment,

    The reason I tried to avoid using this evidence is that it is already known to all of its creation, and can be dismissed (with some degree of justice) as a case of artificial selection.
    The argument of the creationists in these cases is that the better species already existed (in the case of certain flies in the USA and moths in England), or that it is a very, very simple mutation (like blondes versus black-haired), so it is difficult to regard these cases as representing the enormous diversity that evolution brought our claim to existence.

    Now I moved on to quoting the creationists' claims myself... who would have believed.

    Optometrist -
    Indeed, you are right, but it is of the 'zero solution' type - a solution that has no meaning. I would prefer to believe what my senses tell me and the laws of nature we have developed - which have not been violated throughout the years of science and throughout billions of experiments in millions of laboratories. For me, this is sufficient evidence, and when I see the advances in the quality of life brought about by science, I only come out strengthened in my mind.

    Shabbat Shalom!

  89. it's hot here!
    It is quite clear that evolution exists and works, and evidence for this can be clearly seen.
    There is no point in arguing with a religious person on this subject, they are pre-programmed, and no reasoning, even the best, will sway a religious person from his mind about evolution.
    My question is whether our grip on science is not pathetic in that we are sure that every question has some mathematically understandable solution, even one that we have not yet deciphered.
    All our perception and understanding is done through our fragile and wretched senses, which are part of the system we are investigating.
    We don't have even one single little thing that we know for sure to be true, all the significant issues are still open: light, infinity, the structure of matter, the size of the universe, dark matter, the absolute void, time and its speed, space, the beginning of life, death, the meaning of all this, The mind, the emotions and more.
    From this point of view, the situation of the religious person is many times better than the situation of the scientist who finds solutions and formulas that fit only within a narrow range of the whole truth.
    As creatures who cannot fully explain or understand even a fraction of their environment, we tend to overestimate ourselves.
    Even if we believe in God, or in pure physics, it is better for us to know that we know nothing and a half of the truth itself, and even if we do know something it will be like reading poetry to a primitive microbe, so it is better for us to just shut up.
    I will be the first
    Good night
    From now on
    http://www.optometry.co.il

  90. With the kind help of Google, I tried to trace the number 10 to the minus 93 power (the chance for a functional sequence of cytochrome C) attributed here to Hubert Ukey. It turns out that part of his book is available online via Google's book search.

    To my disappointment, this number cannot be found on the page indicated in the Internet forum provided to us by Gil (p. 59). This already says something about the credibility of Internet forums as a source of scientific data. Fortunately, I scrolled to page 84 and there I did find Yuki's estimate of this chance, only the number is not 10 to the minus 93 power, but 10 to the minus 36 power.

    Upon further inspection, it turns out that the exponent 93 did not come from the book at all, but from an article by Yukey from 1977:

    Yockey HP.
    On the information content of cytochrome c.
    J Theor Biol. 1977 Aug 7;67(3):345-76

    In other words, in just 15 years that passed from the article to the book (published in 1992), Yukey updated his own calculation and increased the chance of finding a functional cytochrome C sequence by 57 orders of magnitude (!!!). At this rate I will not be surprised at all if his next publication agrees with the number 10 to the power of minus 11 measured in the experiment.

    The more significant point is that, according to the book, I was right in my guess about Yuki's method of calculation: he relied on the known sequence of cytochrome C and counted how many amino acids could be replaced in several ways without harming the biological function. This calculation ignores all the possible proteins that can perform the function of cytochrome C even though their structure is completely different, and with Yuki's method there is of course no way to estimate their number. It's as if Yuki counted how many possible ways there are to build a computer diskette, but assumed there was no way to build a compact disc, hard disk, memory card, magnetic tape, punched tape, and all the other devices that can perform the function of a diskette.

  91. Giora, you have a small mistake, Roy is in favor of evolution and he is trying to explain to Gil and some of his doubles where he is wrong while quoting himself.

  92. To Roy
    Unfortunately, you ignore unequivocal evidence for evolution.
    About 50 years ago, an exceptional pesticide was invented - DDT. For about twenty years, humanity hoped to eliminate the problem of flies and other pests. And now for less than a thousandth of a second in terms of evolution, the insects and flies have shown resistance to these wonderful pesticides, and this is evolution resulting from natural selection.
    There are endless examples of evolution by artificial selection. Milk yield of cows doubled over 50-60 years. Speed ​​of racehorses. Varieties of grain, fruits, etc., the variety of dog breeds, the variety of pigeons in the breeding sizes. All this was done in hundreds of years at the most, and without using - at least consciously - genetic engineering.
    I don't have a problem with your belief and the belief of others in the Creator, shame on you - I have a problem with manipulation of facts and "scientific proofs" to disqualify any theory that does not include a Creator.

  93. Asaf -
    Indeed, I would love to hear Gil's words regarding the points you raised - especially regarding the fossils.

    Nir -
    I take my hat off to you and your well-reasoned response.

    Age –
    You asked for a way to create a garden. The problem is that you start from the 'final' gene which includes tracking and inhibitory sites, activation sites, catalytic sites, links to other proteins, etc.
    The thing is that in many genes, the catalytic site that is made up of 4 or 5 amino acids is enough to do the necessary action. All the other amino acids are 'placeholders' and give volume to the protein.
    So all we have to do is imagine creating the catalytic site. This is the basis of the new protein. According to your statistics and as you admitted about the bacteria, there should be no problem for such a gene to form.
    The nice part is that control sites of sorts also don't require more than a few single amino acids. It is enough that such sites will be created and connect with the protein containing the catalytic site, to get a protein that works better and works all the time.
    So we already have a protein with a catalytic site (which does the action) and a control site, which tells it to keep doing it all the time.
    But sometimes situations determine that it is not worth continuing to do the action (it is not worth continuing to do photosynthesis in the dark, for example), and then control sites enter through natural selection that actually suppress the activity of the unnecessary catalytic site.
    And here we already have a protein with a catalytic site, an inhibitory site and an activating site.

    And from now on, you no longer have to reinvent these sites. Each one is the size of a tiny number of amino acids, but the problem with your calculation is that to arrive at the total protein, you count 20-100 amino acids. You don't have to reach them all at once. It is enough to have a selection in your genome of a number of catalytic, inhibitory, activator, etc. sites, so that those regions will undergo splicing and create proteins that contain all these sites in different combinations.
    And that's how you end up with the sophisticated gene / protein that we have today.

    Regarding the link you posted. I know the matter, and I have already read these claims and responded to them on Ynet. I will repeat the explanation.
    Here's a plausible scenario for you:
    A dinosaur footprint is fixed in clay. Millions of years later, when there is already a new layer of soft clay in the area, some primitive man comes and steps in the clay himself.
    The result?
    A dinosaur footprint, inside which there is also a human footprint.
    So this 'evidence' is not convincing, what's more, it has been proven that most of it is deliberate manipulation and forgery.

  94. Gil wrote:
    "Did you hear? 93^10 different molecules out of the number of possible combinations. Do you have a source to the contrary?"

    reactive:
    Gil, what you have is a quote from an internet forum (basically not as good as the one we're currently writing on) of a book you haven't read, and according to that quote Yuki calculated that there are 93^10 different molecules of cytochrome C. You don't know how Yuki calculated this number, And is his calculation correct?

    Now let me explain to you something about science that you probably don't understand. The matter of relying on sources in science is not a competition to see who can cite this or that number that they found on some website. The citation was made so that the reader could go to the source and check what the determinations were based on. If you haven't read Yukey's book and don't know how he calculated his number then you can quote until tomorrow but it doesn't strengthen your argument as such. In any case, it is already clear to us that Yuki's number is the result of a theoretical calculation, and the difference between it and the number measured in reality is astronomical (82 orders of magnitude!!!). I'm willing to go big (as you like to say) with Yuki and assume that the huge difference is not due to his calculation error but because his assumptions were different, i.e. he took into account only cytochrome C-like molecules and not all possible molecules that could perform the function of cytochrome C In any case, the explanation here is up to you, as the number measured in the experiment is very different, and this number is not a quote from some internet forum but from the most respected scientific journal that has strict peer review.

    Gil wrote:
    "The purpose of the experiment was to find a molecule that can be used as ATP and not any other function."

    reactive:
    The purpose of the experiment was to find a molecule that could bind ATP, not be used as ATP. This is indeed only one function. It follows that the prevalence of any useful function can be much higher. Just for the sake of the example: if we assume that there are a thousand different functions that can benefit biological beings, and that the chance of finding each of them is similar to the chance of finding an ATP-binding molecule, then the chance of finding some useful function in a random sequence is a thousand times greater than the chance of finding only an ATP-binding sequence.

    True, the function tested in the experiment was not the function of cytochrome C but another function. But the difference between these functions is not that big, certainly not something that justifies a difference of 82 orders of magnitude. Does Yukey have any explanation, what is so special about the function of cytochrome C? By the way, six years have already passed since the aforementioned experiment was conducted. Has Yuki responded since then and explained the source of the difference between his calculations and reality? I did not find such a response from him. did you find

    Gil wrote:
    "And even if it were true"

    My response: What does "him too" mean? Is this true or false? How do you explain the huge difference between Yoke's calculation and the number measured in the experiment? In science, any theory whose predictions are wrong by such a huge factor is thrown away.

    Gil wrote:
    "Let's see how many births we will have to scan for all the genes that exist in the world.
    How many genes are there in the human body? 30000. (most of them are not homologous)
    So we multiply 30000 by 100000000000 and we get 3000000000000000 mutational births to create the human body alone!"
    Multiply it by the rate at which a mutation occurs once in how much time + the time it took for each mutation to take over the population, so that there is some chance for the next mutation to take over the person who received the previous mutation, and you will get zero time on any scale!"

    reactive:
    This "calculation" repeats your usual mistakes again.

    First, you assume that all these mutations had to develop one after the other and not at the same time. Incorrect assumption. The structure of the digestive system, for example, does not depend on the structure of the eye. Genes of the digestive system can evolve at the same time as genes of the eye.

    Second, most of the genes in humans already exist in more primitive creatures with a lower generation duration than in humans. For example, the cytochrome C that you love so much already exists and functions in bacteria, meaning it appeared hundreds of millions of years ago, when we were short-lived creatures.

    Third, you as usual ignore sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction allows evolution in humans to progress as quickly as it does in bacteria, even though each generation lasts much longer. Thanks to sexual reproduction, you can have 2 parents from the first generation, 4 parents from the second generation, more than 1000 parents from the tenth generation, a billion parents from the 30th generation, etc., and any mutation that happened in one of these billions can reach you. In a thousand or a million generations of sexual reproduction, you easily reach "3000000000000000 mutational births". By the way, every human birth is a "mutational birth". According to the updated estimates, there are on average several dozen or several hundred new mutations in a human embryo.

    Gil wrote:
    "And regarding more specific combinations - it is known that a point mutation in the hemoglobin gene can create a serious failure (sickle cell anemia). So how is it created? After all, this indicates the incredibly precise nuances of its amino acids. How many combinations can already create it? A trillion? A trillion squared squared? These are zero percent of the possible combinations!
    And how many combinations do you think create milk? Or a transparent jelly in the eye? Or blood vessels, or a heart and its chambers, or one-way valves, or taste buds, or tooth enamel, or an amazingly precise neurotransmitter or receptor, and what not?"

    reactive:
    You returned to blurting out passwords and numbers out of ignorance. A single point mutation that leads to hemoglobin failure says nothing about the number of combinations that can create it. How many combinations make milk etc.? I don't know and neither do you, and our lack of knowledge proves nothing, neither evolution nor the impossibility of evolution. This is again an argument from ignorance.

  95. to shepherd Thanks for the compliments
    To Assaf, at least regarding section 3, I had an argument with an ultra-Orthodox on the bus the other day and he claimed that the scientists developed the measurement method to fit the theory of evolution, so it's no wonder that the results fit the evolutionary argument.
    Hats off to whoever came up with this circular argument. Fortunately, it is not true, but every attempt by another secularist on the bus to explain the isotope dating method met with an impenetrable wall.

  96. A question that occurred to me now (perhaps instead of defending evolution we should also attack)
    Do I understand that creationism assumes that all creatures were created together and therefore must have the same age? Correct me if I'm wrong
    Therefore I would expect to find human bones along with the dinosaur bones. But there are none - why? One of the options
    1. Creationism is wrong
    2. There are "unbelievable" coincidences where not a single human bone was found at the same age as a dinosaur or even in the age range. Statistics are a double-edged sword
    3. Incorrect isotope dating method. And here we have to ask - if the dating is also wrong, what is the physical theory that disproves it? I will be happy to hear.

  97. age
    I just saw your quote from Wikipedia. Other than being completely inaccurate, I couldn't even find it.
    Apart from the fact that proteins are not made up of millions of amino acids, a point mutation may be able to destroy the protein, but in most cases it does not.
    The amount of mutations even between two people is very large (see also Craig Venter's genome that was published not long ago - the two copies of his chromosomes are more different than they thought)
    In fact, amino acids are very redundant, so many substitutions are still acceptable without a problem, even in the more important areas

  98. For some reason my response disappeared after moving from the original thread
    Roy, after countless pointless talkbacks on YNET, this is an instructive and successful attempt at addressing the claims of creationists. In fact, Gil's comments seem overly similar (homologous) to the comments of "Chen", "Danny", etc. on YNET, which makes me wonder why the writer needs to disguise himself.
    There is no point in contributing to the discussion by talking about inextricable systems - you did that very nicely and with rare patience.
    I have a few additions
    1. A theory based on a "creator" is not scientific because it cannot provide predictions, which does not allow scientific progress at all. Amusing that opponents of theories always use their fruits without knowing and without complaining. In this case, a wide range of biological research, which also includes drugs and enzymes in washing powders, is based on evolutionary models, (example - matrices PAM1-PAM250)
    And so, if someone wants innovative drugs and treatments, creationism is unable to help (unless they go all the way and refuse to use such products as the Amish cult).
    2. It is true that sometimes a theory provides correct predictions despite being difficult to understand (if you mentioned Feynman - the quantum theory is still not really understood but has stood the test of predictions for a long time). It is interesting that in this case, those who are not physicists accept it because they have no tools to argue.
    3. I have research experience with both proteins and probabilistic models. The probabilistic claims here stem from a lack of knowledge:
    A. In fact, sickle cell anemia is a rare example. A group of homologous proteins (performs the same function in different organisms) can be similar in only a small number of amino acids and still perform the same function. In fact, there is almost no region in the protein, even among the conserved regions, that cannot change and still function. For example - ThyX - an essential protein that helps in the construction of nucleic acid T. Between each pair of homologous proteins from two different species there is about 25% sequence similarity (and it is not the same acids between all pairs). In fact, even in the most conserved region suspected to be the active region, which only has 4 amino acids, there are species in which there was a change of one or two acids without impairing function. However, the number of combinations to begin with is very small
    B. The numbers given here are correct only if the system does go through all the possible combinations. In practice this really doesn't happen because the system only samples a much smaller subspace that it drains quickly. Anyone who has ever worked with genetic algorithms knows how quickly the system converges to a solution, of course without going through useless situations. And - the initial states are chosen randomly and the states in subsequent generations are also chosen by slight changes from the previous state randomly.

  99. Easy correction-"Mutation of a very specific point in the hemoglobin gene will create sickle cell anemia." You are right. It is an acid that causes a spatial twist. What is true is true.

  100. Continuation - "at least two experiments are described there in which new enzymes were created, in practice, by combining several previous genes. All this - without scientific intervention. The scientists as a whole put the bacteria in a hostile environment (with a different type of food for example) and after enough generations, the bacteria that remained were the ones in which the same new enzymes were developed."-
    When it comes to bacteria, we are in a problem. Bacteria reproduce at the rate of billions at record speed. Therefore, all the statistics regarding them do not apply to humans. Furthermore, in an article that was on the Internet about religion versus science, I had an interesting debate with some evolutionists regarding the appearance of a new gene in bacteria that began to digest nylon You are welcome to see what I answered them. I will agree with you regarding the conclusions that arise from the creation of genes in bacteria - is the newly created gene homologous to the previous gene that was there? Did a whole and large segment appear at once?
    If a new function has been created - you need to check how many combinations from the new gene can be used as the above function and then compare with the multiplication rate. If you found one of the above in an article (and not personal interpretations but actual proof). Here is a selected example from the article so I can answer you about it.

    And now we will return to reality (that is, the evolution of humans)-

    "This is very true. For a bacterium to give birth to a human, a huge amount of mutations is needed. But when was the last time you saw a human-born bacterium?
    What you do see are chimpanzees, which are almost identical to humans in terms of the genome. And you see more primitive creatures, like hedgehogs" - I don't think you understand - the whole way of man from being a so-called bacterium to being a human being, tens of thousands of new genes were created that do not exist in bacteria, so I calculated - let's say out of the 30000 human genes that even only
    10000 are an innovation since we were bacteria (unless you claim that we are homologous to bacteria). And the 10000 are an innovation of diploid creatures which are obviously not bacteria.
    And then the calculation I brought is absolutely correct! (I can bring you a real calculation, which will show you that the calculation I made also did you a real favor). Therefore, you need a minimum of 15^10 birth mutations + times the number of times a mutation occurs + times the number of times a beneficial mutation is established in the population ( so that the second is added to it) and we get a zero number!.

    You're telling half-truths, and that's worse than lies. A very specific point mutation in the hemoglobin gene will create sickle cell anemia. Many other mutations exist in the hemoglobin gene, which will not affect its function" I think you are confused my friend, here is a small quote from Wikipedia (if you have a better source and vice versa I would love to hear it) - quote - "In addition to the importance of each protein for the body's function, there is also a supreme importance for each individual amino acid in the chain that makes up the protein. The replacement or absence of a single acid, even in proteins consisting of a million amino acids in total, can completely disrupt the function of the protein. As explained above, the tertiary folding of the proteins, which largely dictates the function of the protein, depends on chemical bonds between the different acids; When one of the acids participating in these bonds does not exist, the three-dimensional structure of the protein is damaged, and with it the function." By the way.. a point mutation definitely causes sickle cell anemia.

    "Many combinations can create nutritious milk" - Alma's hypothesis. I have already shown you how much it is and in relation to what. (For example, the cytochrome or the ATP molecule).

    "When you realize that -=all=- the cells do this, it is easy to think of a pair of cells that during evolution specialized to serve as a nerve cell" - and what does specialization mean if not a genetic change?
    Has the body always moved? Could it move without appropriate muscles? Did the neuron appear at the same time with its signal? Was there at the same time an adaptation to the neurotransmitter? Did the receptor appear at the same time?

    "Small changes can happen one after the other, so that they help each other. For example, it is possible to understand why a creature would open internal spaces, products for blood flow" - what does open mean? Were the internal spaces without functionality until the creation of the blood fluid or what?

    "that have accumulated over billions of years of evolution - and they all point to the correctness of the theory. Therefore, it is a scientific fact, until we find evidence that contradicts it" - what are we having a discussion about now if not about evidence that contradicts it?

    And what do you think about it?……

    http://www.falunnews.org.il/articles_p/2003/06/c_06/1558_05.htm

  101. Reply to Roy-First of all, I'm tired of repeating myself like a parrot. Therefore, I will focus only on the critical things - quote "This is randomness. This is the way you interpret Yuki. Yuki says that there is a very small chance of the creation of cytochrome C, but what is meant here is a spontaneous creation from a number Lots of possibilities. That's not how things work in evolution.
    So how do they work?
    We know that soccer players can get from one side of the field to the other in a matter of seconds. The reason for this is that there is a selection mechanism that guides them. The choice negates all the steps that would bring them back in the opposite direction, and leaves in their hands only the steps that will bring them in the direction of the other gate."-
    Once again natural selection in the creation of genes? When will you realize that this is not possible. I will repeat again... a gene with a specific activity requires a specific number of amino acids to create it.
    You must have all the acids that participate in the active site, you must have all the acids that participate in the tracking site, you must have all the acids that participate in the activator site, you must have all the acids that participate in the allosteric control site. A gene cannot previously consist of too low a number of acids, which What does it consist of today? I will repeat - once evolution got on the track of creating the lactation system, the duct and the gland already existed, now all that remains is to find suitable milk for the existing system. A triple mutation was created that added one amino acid. Will it survive natural selection? Will it Can milk be created from one acid? Let's say that even by a miracle 10-20 acids will appear. Are 20 acids enough to create enough nutritious milk (you can only dream of such a thing), in order for there to be natural selection? Today we know that milk protein is encoded in a certain gene in length 300 acids. Can you imagine that the minimal 20-acid gene would change 15 times its size and still remain as a milk coder? Hasn't the spatial structure changed? Haven't the control sites changed? Even Dawkins in his book tries to simulate the formation of a gene. And he himself is aware of the problem and therefore He calls it the "small steps model". He shows a sentence with some kind of message that is slowly received as soon as we determine the letters and choose them according to the final result we want to reach. And finally he admits that this is not the case in nature, because nature does not choose a letter, when only in the future will you join it All the other letters will form a sentence with a message (a gene). I hope that everything has been clarified now and that you will not bring up the subject of natural selection in genes again. Although of all the hundreds of refutations (logical, probabilistic and technical) that I can bring you to evolution, the topic of gene creation is the most interesting and it is also The one on which most creationist arguments are based and cause headaches for evolutionists. So if you want to continue, let's focus only on this topic.

    Continue..–>>

  102. Shaul -

    By the same principle of a 'true evolutionist', we can infer a 'true cleric'. He believes that everything is determined by God, and that his actions have no meaning. Beyond that, he cannot engage in science, since each experiment will have different results, according to God's will.
    And yet, we see that religious people use medicines invented by science, devices invented by science, etc.
    What is the conclusion?
    Just as there can be a religious person who uses all the fruits of science, so too can there be an evolutionist who believes in evolution and still believes in morality and value imperatives, by virtue of being a person in society.

    By the way, there is a very interesting and relevant theory called 'evolution of societies', which explains very well where the existing moral rules came from, and why they are so important to the existence of societies.

    Regarding Feynman -
    I have no problem with him saying that the world may have some meaning, or a higher being that created the world.
    I may have an invisible dragon in the basement.
    I may be Superman who hasn't discovered his x-ray vision yet.
    It is possible that there is an intelligent creator of the world.

    God. and. about. H. and. A.

    Everything is possible. And I really want most of these things. I want to have an invisible dragon in the basement. I want to be superman. I want there to be an intelligent creator for the world and for humans... but without proof, all these are just wishful thinking.
    Thus, what Feynman wrote is entirely wishful thinking, and not a scientific conclusion. The scientific method, unfortunately, does not refer to the wishes of the heart, or you would have already seen me flying in tights over Haifa.

  103. I forgot, probably the book by Dr. Shimon Giami his widow will be happy to sell (and maybe even give you as a gift, in memory of her husband). Try searching the internet (I will also try) for her phone by name. The phone may still be in his name as well.

  104. Roy,

    A true evolutionist claims that the world (in a pinch) has no meaning at all!!!!
    Everything was created by chance, and in any case there is no place for any commandment with value content either on the personal level or on any other level (with the exception of value commandments with utilitarian value: don't steal so that they don't steal from you).

    If Feynman admits that it is possible (true, for him it is only possible) that the world has any meaning(!!!), he actually admits that it is possible that there is some supreme being who created the world for any purpose.

  105. Before I start responding, I would like to ask everyone here to take a deep breath and remember that we are all friends and we are all human. Although there is only one true and correct truth (and I'm sure both the creationists and the evolutionists will agree with me on this, each from their own direction) but everyone has their own private truth, and their right to stick to it.
    The discussion we are having here does not aim to impose the belief of one side on the other side, but to present both sides equally.
    And just to set things straight - there can be scientists who are religious. I have already visited ultra-Orthodox seminars in Jerusalem, and debated there about evolution with ultra-Orthodox scientists, for example. At the same time, those religious scientists should draw a very clear line between their research and their faith in God, and they should not attribute to God ways of acting that would affect the experiments or their results and conclusions.

    And now, to the comments themselves. As usual, I marked the others' responses with ==, and my responses with ++.

    Avi -
    ++Thank you for the invested website, for the effort every day to produce scientific articles that will be worthy of the Israeli public (and that the Israeli public will be worthy of them) and for the energy that you demonstrate even outside the website in the pursuit of science news.++

    Shaul -
    ++Welcome back to the discussion. I am happy to continue debating with you and answering the points you raise, as much as possible.++

    == I think that everyone will benefit if, before the statistical debates, you consult an entire book dedicated to the subject of microevolution (that is, the technical and statistical feasibility of the formation of complex molecules from a primordial soup): Evolution - Explanations and Mysteries. ==

    ++I'll try to get to that when I have time. It is difficult for me to respond without knowing the contents of the book, nor can I find its name or mention of it online or in bookstores. ++

    == “What is the meaning of the whole world? We don't know what the meaning of existence is".==

    ++I didn't really understand what you want to say here. Feynman, like all people, is looking for meaning in his life. Some of us find it in religion. Others find it in trying to help other people, or raise a family, or give their offspring the opportunity to go to university. All of these do not require belief in any religion to find meaning.
    Science in itself is only a method - not a tool for giving meaning. It cannot provide meaning. But it does not imply that "Feynman thinks it is permissible to be both a scientist and a believer". You can find meaning even without God. ++

    == When Einstein talks about the scientist's religiosity, he means exactly that, that the scientist's motivation to research is the belief - which is completely unproven, that in general there is lawfulness in nature and harmony - complete unity. ==

    ++Indeed, you are right, Saul. This is indeed the belief of the scientist, one and the same. And this is actually the only belief a scientist has - that as long as the rule of the experiment does not change, the results will be the same. This is a scientific axiom, and we must accept it in order to do science.
    But is it true?
    Probably yes, but maybe not. We can say with absolute certainty that it is true in the time frames we are dealing with. We can say with less absolute certainty that it is true in time spans beyond our knowledge (in fact, beyond the age in which we live).
    Let me tell you a rule of thumb for bad writers. This rule of thumb is as follows:
    "You can always, at the end of the story, write - 'Then the hero woke up and realized it was all a dream'"
    That is, there is always the possibility to determine that all the laws that have already been established and established were actually a dream and nothing more. But this possibility does not advance us anywhere. Science has already advanced humanity in a major way through the opposite claim - that the laws of nature are fixed and do not change.
    If we operate under the assumption that the laws do exist and are established and do not change, then we get a set of natural laws, such as the laws of thermodynamics, which to the best of science's knowledge have never been violated. In all the years of scientific history we have not encountered a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Such a violation, if it occurs, will cause a major change in scientific theory and force all scientists to rethink and recalculate. But since such a violation has not yet existed, the evidence for its existence will have to be one that is truly strong and overwhelming and indisputable in order to be accepted by the scientific community.
    But here is the beautiful part - we are ready to accept such testimony and consider its existence. And for example Einstein and Newton. It's a shame that the religion is not ready to do so to an equal extent.++

    Omri –

    == all of them, from judaism to shamanism is just fear of death and mysticism==

    ++ There is beauty in all religions. Religion is man's first attempt to find a meaning for his existence and to explain the happenings. This is actually primary science - the ability to draw conclusions based on events - but without the all-important 'trial and error' part. To better understand my point, I suggest that you read Rambam's book, for example, and see how a chain of evidence turns into a cohesive 'religious' theory. Again, this is a type of science, but one whose axiom is that everything written in the Torah is true and meaningful. This axiom seems ridiculous to me and to you, but the wisdom of some of the people involved in its analysis and interpretation should not be denied.++

    Age –

    ++ Yuki's calculation you quote is based on the following hypothesis: everything is random.
    What is meant by?
    I'll make you a small receipt. Note.
    We want to get from the gate on one side of a football field to the gate on the other side. The length of the court is 100 meters, and you can only advance one half meter with each step, and you have an equal chance to take the step in any direction - forward, backward, right, left, diagonally, etc.
    How long will it take you to get from one gate to the other?
    If we assume that the steps are indeed completely random, then it will take you millions of years to reach the second gate. The reason is that every step you take has a chance to undo the previous step you took in the right direction. In practice, you will stay most of the time in the gate area where you started.
    This is randomness. And that's the way you interpret Yuki. Yuki says that there is a very small chance of the creation of cytochrome C, but the meaning here is a spontaneous creation out of a large number of possibilities. That's not how things work in evolution.
    So how do they work?
    We know that soccer players can get from one side of the field to the other in a matter of seconds. The reason for this is that there is a selection mechanism that guides them. The choice negates all the steps that would take them back in the opposite direction, leaving them only the steps that would bring them in the direction of the other gate.
    Natural selection works in a similar way. It rules out a huge amount of the combinations that are possible, and allows the useful combinations that have been created - however primitive they may be - to remain. Those useful primitive combinations will then be used to create even more sophisticated combinations, by connecting with each other to create sophisticated proteins and metabolic pathways.
    Want evidence?
    http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
    At least two experiments are described there in which new enzymes were created, in practice, by combining several previous genes. All this - without scientific intervention. The scientists generally put the bacteria in a hostile environment (with a different type of food for example) and after enough generations, the bacteria that remained were the ones in which the same new enzymes were developed.
    How long did this happen?
    one or two years.

    Evolution is random, but natural selection is not random.
    Yuki's argument is invalid, and so is yours.

    == How many genes are there in the human body? 30000. (most of them are not homologous)
    So multiply 30000 by 100000000000 and get 3000000000000000 mutational births to create the human body only ==

    ++ This is very true. For a bacterium to give birth to a human, a huge amount of mutations is needed. But when was the last time you saw a human-born bacterium?
    What you do see are chimpanzees, which are almost identical to humans in terms of the genome. And you see more primitive creatures, like hedgehogs, which have a bigger difference in their genome than humans. And you find reptiles, in which there is an even greater difference in the genome between them and man, and if we continue with yeast, we will find a very large difference between their genome and that of man. You find gradation in nature, and that is the way to evolution. through gradualism. Each of these creatures has evolved independently, and many of them do not live more than one year in the wild. When you think in this direction, you begin to see that evolution leading to the creation of a human being is absolutely possible. ++

    == And regarding more specific combinations - it is known that a point mutation in the hemoglobin gene can create a serious failure (sickle cell anemia). So how is it created? After all, this indicates the incredibly precise nuances of its amino acids. How many combinations can already create it? Trillion? Trillion squared squared These are zero percent of the possible combinations! ==

    ++You tell half-truths, and that's worse than lies. A very specific point mutation in the hemoglobin gene will create sickle cell anemia. Many other mutations exist in the hemoglobin gene, which will not affect its operation, or will change it in a way that is hardly noticeable. Proteins have -=lots=- of room for variability in their amino acid sequence.++

    == And how many combinations do you think make milk?==

    ++ Many combinations can create nutritious milk, as long as you don't require it to be exactly the same as human milk. But, actually... humans drink cows' milk, don't they? And it's not the same as human milk, is it? So apparently it is possible to create milk from many possible proteins.++

    == or clear jelly in the eye?==

    ++Collagen was created at an early stage in evolution, and is the main component of the gel in the body. All that needs to be done is to take a collagen molecule and change it to a tiny degree to adapt it to the function of the eye. But you know there are also eyes in nature that don't have transparent jelly, right? They developed in other directions in evolution.++

    == or blood vessels, or heart and its chambers==

    ++ Some have no blood vessels. Some have no heart, or have a primitive heart with a limited number of chambers. In other cases, you can find places where the blood vessels expand and form a heart-like area. All these are examples of the milestones in the course that evolution followed, until reaching humans.++

    == You know what? I'll be big with you (as usual). Let's focus on something much simpler... Let's divide the nervous system into three main components - neuron (nerve cell) + signal + receptor + muscle + willing brain + nerve conductor.
    Are you willing to tell me which of the above parts first appeared and what it was used for? We'll leave everything else for now. ==

    ++As large as you are, I must point out that your ability to count to three is lacking.
    You probably know that cells communicate with each other all the time. Each cell secretes different molecules around it, and all the cells in the area place receptors on their walls and thus receive those molecules. The molecules affect the behavior of the cells, according to the type of molecule.
    When you realize that -=all=- cells do this, it is easy to think of a pair of cells that during evolution specialized to serve as a nerve cell (which secretes molecules at the right moment) and as an action cell (which acts when it receives those molecules).
    Nerve conduction is also something that exists in every cell. In every cell that has a membrane (a membrane that surrounds it) there is a charge difference between the inside of the cell and the outside of the cell. Nerve cells are simply cells whose pumps have been perfected so that they can greatly increase this charge difference when necessary. But again, the basis is already present in normal cells. He just needs to evolve in the right direction. You don't even need the myelin here, in those primitive nerves.
    Did you want three main ingredients? You got five. Electrical conductivity, nerve cell, signal, receptor, muscle.++

    == A creature without a heart->>developed a heart (at this point could he live without a heart? After all, a moment ago he could)->>a person who depends on the heart. How is this possible? ==

    ++Small changes can happen one after the other, so that they help each other. For example, it is possible to understand why a creature would open internal spaces for blood flow. These spaces, as we see in the bodies of several creatures living today, contain cilia which are used to circulate the blood within these primitive 'blood vessels'. The eyelashes are a good way, but there is a better way, and it is a pump that circulates the blood with more force. Such a pump began to develop (it is actually the heart), and the more it developed, the more the eyelashes disappeared. Today, only the sophisticated pump (the heart) remains in humans, but the other ways to circulate the blood - the eyelashes, for example - have already degenerated long ago. Eyelashes can still be found in other places in the human body, such as the vagina. This explanation is based on evidence from nature showing animals in different stages of development. ++

    == "Evolution relies on thousands of pieces of evidence, among which it developed a theory" - a theory but not a fact. I'm tired of repeating that. There is no evidence for evolution. ==

    ++And I am still not tired of repeating that there are thousands of evidences for evolution. None of this is the kind of evidence you can get in other experiments (did the ball hit the wall or not, did the glass shatter or not), but that's for the simple reason that we can't go back in time. We can also receive indirect evidence accumulated over billions of years of evolution - and they all point to the correctness of the theory. Therefore, it is a scientific fact, until we find evidence that contradicts it.++

    == And here is a self-contradiction - "This is empirical and rational science, Gil. It requires thought to see how all the evidence is connected to one theory."....contradiction to the sentence-"the fact that it is difficult for you to think how human systems were created is not good enough evidence to disprove the theory"-you have to decide-is it thought that determines or not?. ==

    ++ Thought does determine, but thought must take into account all the existing evidence equally. If the thought is biased in advance by what you want to find, then it does not count. The fact that it is difficult for you to think does not represent scientific thought, which relies on all the facts and evidence. She's just tripping over you.
    It is interesting that millions of scientists all over the world are convinced of the correctness of evolution.
    Only one is not convinced.
    Who is not convinced?
    Gil is not convinced. Gil is the only one who thought about evolution and came to the conclusion that it is not true. To prove this to the general public, he publishes a chain of half-truths, lies, arguments that are based on incorrect models and many other reasons that many scientists explain to him that miss the point and the theory.
    Indeed, a decisive argument against evolution.++

  106. To all the 'enlightened' writers I owe a small point of clarification.

    As a scientist in essence he is a believer; Not as demagoguery but as a factual description:
    After all, what we see is just a sequence of events. Who even said there is a law behind this; Maybe it's all a coincidence??? When a person looks for a law and invests years of life and effort in doing so, he does so because he assumes that there is a law at all, and he just needs to find it. This is pure faith because no one has proven that everything in the world has a cause and effect (remember David Hume's words and Kant's answer about the categories?).

    In the physical sciences - astronomy in particular - this belief is much greater.
    You look at some beautiful ellipse (some NGC or something) and determine its distance from us based on the red shift and according to a specific type of supernova and according to its spectrum and according to the Hubble constant and all kinds of other beautiful things, which is let's say a billion light years.
    Who even said that a billion years ago - the time when it began to spread the light that reaches us now - the physical laws that rule today ruled?
    Who even said that the same laws that govern us govern there today? Has anyone been there to check it out?

    As you deal with larger orders of magnitude, you necessarily act out of faith in any unity that exists in creation. No one proved it, yet all the great scientists of the twentieth century spent their lives on it.

    Finally, I copy a real number.

    My world figure (the world as it appears to me)
    Albert Einstein
    Translated from German by Dr. S. Ettinger
    Stiebel Publishing. Tel Aviv XNUMX (yes, yes I wasn't confused)

    Page 40:

    "It is very doubtful if a man of profound science will find that there is no miraculous religiosity in his kind from the virtues of his soul.

    This religiosity is different from that of the innocent person (who believes in God. S.B.A.)...

    His (the scientist's) religiosity - awestruck by the harmony in the Genesis order. The revealer of this sublime intelligence, all wisdom and understanding that in man's thought and counsel are not against it but a dim flicker
    Null and void…

    There is no doubt that this emotion is very similar to the one that filled the souls of the people of religious creation in all generations"

    When Einstein talks about the scientist's religiosity, he means exactly that, that the scientist's motivation to investigate is the belief - completely unproven, that there is lawfulness in nature and harmony - complete unity.

    Einstein himself was a complete atheist
    (But not at all out of a belief in evolution, but out of complete agreement with the words of his friend Freud, who believed in absolute determinism, and hence there is no place for higher orders and reward and punishment. He writes his belief in determinism in an epistle that will save me the trouble of copying it), and claimed that he believed in cosmic religion, that is, the admiration of the wonderful unity What is revealed in the universe - a Spinozaian astonishment, which in Einstein's eyes was much more sublime than the 'primitive' (as he put it) belief in the creator of the world.

    Important for our purpose is Einstein's self-admission, that he acts only out of faith - that there is no way to prove it and that it all stems from his 'religiousness'; I personally do not believe in his faith, but I am a continuation of a tradition that passes in my family - as in tens of thousands of families - a tradition that passes from David to generation for thousands of years and tells about the exodus from Egypt and the giving of the Torah.

    Now we will ask who is rational and who is the person who believes???

  107. Response to Nir-"I'm guessing that Yukai calculated how many ways one can change amino acids in the sequence of cytochrome C without destroying its function"-don't guess... written in the commentary-Spetner" claims that only 1 sequence out of 10^180 perform the function"
    of cytochrome c. But as noted above, this is not true. Yockey notes
    that there are 10^93 different molecules that will perform the
    cytochrome c function. (Information Theory and Molecular Biology),

    Did you hear? 93^10 different molecules out of the number of possible combinations. Do you have a source to the contrary?

    "I already referred you to such an experiment that was published in the most respected scientific journal there is" - true. The purpose of the experiment was to find a molecule that could be used as ATP, and not any other function. And even if it were true, let's see how many births we would have to scan for all the genes in the world .
    How many genes are there in the human body? 30000. (most of them are not homologous)
    So we multiply 30000 by 100000000000 and we get 3000000000000000 mutational births to create the human body alone! Multiply that by the rate at which a mutation occurs once in a while + the time it took for each mutation to take over the population, so that there is some chance for the next mutation to take over the person who received the previous mutation, and you get zero time By any measure! What do you have to say in your defense?
    And with regard to more specific combinations - it is known that a point mutation in the hemoglobin gene can create a serious failure (sickle cell anemia). So how is it created? After all, this indicates the incredibly precise nuances of its amino acids. How many combinations can already create it? A trillion? A trillion squared squared? These Zero percent of the possible combinations!
    And how many combinations do you think create milk? Or a transparent jelly in the eye? Or blood vessels, or a heart and its chambers, or one-way valves, or taste buds, or tooth enamel, or an incredibly accurate neurotransmitter or receptor and what not?

  108. Gil (or any other name you are not called)

    The 93^10 number you are relying on comes from a scientist named Hubert Yockey
    Here is what it says on Wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Yockey

    As you can see he is not exactly an evolutionist. On the contrary, his main claim is that "the problem of the origin of life cannot be solved in scientific ways." Anyway, okay
    This is not a biologist or even a biochemist, but a mathematician specializing in information theory, and all his calculations are completely theoretical. The specific number you refer to isn't even quoted from a peer-reviewed journal article, but a named number
    Information Theory and Molecular Biology

    Since I do not have access to this book, I am not clear in what context Yoke entered his number and how he calculated it, if at all. Have you read the book and can you tell us?

    I'm guessing that Yukai calculated how many ways one could change amino acids in the cytochrome c sequence without destroying its function. Such a calculation (assuming it is correct) finds all the functional variations of cytochrome C but of course ignores all the possible sequences that can perform the function of cytochrome C even though they have a completely different structure, and the number of these sequences can be huge. As far as I know, no serious molecular biologist today would pretend to calculate how many of the possible sequences have a certain biological activity. The biological activity depends on the three-dimensional structure of the protein, and the folding problem of a protein with a given sequence is notoriously known as a very non-linear problem and therefore almost impossible for theoretical calculation. A serious answer to such a question can only be given by an experiment that will actually test how many active proteins can be found in random sequences. I have already referred you to such an experiment published in the most respected scientific journal there is:

    Keefe AD, Szostak JW
    Functional proteins from a random-sequence library
    Nature. 2001 Apr 5;410(6829):715-8

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6829/abs/410715a0.html

    This experiment actually found (note, not theoretically calculated but actually found) four active proteins new to science in random sequences. The frequency found by the authors of the experiment was one active protein for every 11^10 random sequences, which is a frequency that is tens of orders of magnitude higher than the one to 93^10 that Yukai pierced, and is in good agreement with the predictions of the theory of evolution. Needless to say, what the true frequency was Even close to Yukey's number then the experimenters would not have found any active protein even if they had searched for a thousand or a million years.

    At least until another experiment is published that contradicts these results, this is the realistic scientific estimate of the prevalence of active proteins in random sequences, and not a theoretical number calculated by a single scientist in a book that has not undergone peer review under assumptions that are not yet clear to us.

  109. to ask. Thanks for the compliments.
    I agree with you that the programs are mostly bad, but I do not consider them to be heresy, because I disbelieve in the very existence of this concept. They are shallow, superficial, educate for immediate gratification, so that their viewers will not think about the future, in part they encourage superstitions such as astrology, numerology, etc. Holders of amulets, which unfortunately the religious establishment does not condemn but even embraces into it.

    And at this point, I wish you a good night and enjoy the Weizmann Institute special.

  110. The books on Feynman that you (probably) talked about are not biographies, and they are certainly not the only two.
    (There are the lectures, light and matter, the pleasure ("joy") of discovering things, you must be kidding Mr. Feynman, what do you care what others think, the meaning of this, a biography by Glick, and all sorts of other things)

  111. N. B. Last: I understood the hint: thank you very much on my behalf and probably on behalf of many for the updated and meticulous website.
    Believe me, no matter how hard you try, you will have less heresy on your site, than the amount of junk that is in one show on TV...

  112. post Scriptum. The claim that supposedly in Giami's book he wrote differently than he would have written in a scientific article, can only be claimed by those who have not read the book.
    This is a thorough and meticulous book. Obviously, the relatively modest publication in which the book was released and published is a result of the simple fact that the author did not have time to finish his writing (I wrote: "passed away from cancer"), and his family members, with the vigorous assistance of Amos Carmel (not a person defined as ultra-orthodox as far as I know) had to publish what the author left without the final 'finish'.

  113. I am trying at the expense of my energy and time to put up an invested website, and all kinds of representatives come in their own eyes of bodies that oppose the very existence of "heretical" science (my opinion about television is also not favorable, but I wish it were true that they educate for heresy, according to the words of Lupoliansky, Schnitzel a very important ceremony for religious preaching) and instead of saying thank you, they attack me, for daring to write about the things at the root of science (such as evolution) and not just about another gene that was discovered or another flight into space.
    To remind you, Charles Darwin was also criticized for writing a book that has a kind of challenge to religion, in contrast to all his books in the twenty years before that dealt with specific scientific topics (comparing different species of a certain mollusc from different parts of the world), improving breeds of pigeons, etc.

  114. Dear Mr. Blizovsky,

    If I could, I would copy Feynman's entire conversation (there is simply no reason to claim that it is the most successful in his book, and I don't have the power to copy the entire book, and there is probably a copyright problem...).
    It is a conversation at the end of which she speaks with much humility about the heavy questions of existence, emphasizing what we do not know; Read and enjoy.
    On the contrary, it does not seem at all that he is trying to be nice to anyone in this conversation, but to claim that all the answers are possible, and therefore, for example, no government or force is allowed to 'lock' on any possibility while blocking those who argue for alternatives, because it is possible that in the future evidence of a different truth than the truth claimed today will be revealed .

    When I spoke about education for heresy, I meant not necessarily the academy, but the theaters of all kinds, the television mediums, and the other 'cultural factories' that the State of Israel pours millions on without blinking an eye.

    Again I ask: Is it necessary to raise all emotions above all debate? Why can't you hold back? (Read in my first comments to Roy about the article).

  115. the whole thing is stupid

    the fact that there are open questions in science won't make me believe in the stupidest biggest nonsense in history - religion.

    all of them, from judaism to shamanism is just fear of death and mysticism

  116. post Scriptum. In some examples they cited Dawkins and other scientists who in their books also explained the claims of the other side, as if these were their claims.
    As for Feynman, it seems to me that you took things out of context. He simply respects those who believe there is meaning, but does not believe there is such meaning. I read both of his books.

  117. A. There is no such thing - educating for heresy, this is the position of those who believe that religion is the only truth. The institutions of science and research educate to the scientific truth, and if this involves heresy, it is a side effect, which you may think is undesirable and in my opinion it is desirable.
    B. There are religious and even excellent scientists such as Prof. Zvi Maza, and apparently what they (such as the book you presented) write in books they cannot write in scientific articles and rightly so.
    third. As for the origin of life, read Iris Frey's book The Beginning of Life published by the GLAZ Broadcasting University and you will see that there is not much to fight about, it is true that this is an area where knowledge is scarce, but there is enough knowledge. What's more, it didn't take much - it was enough that one primitive cell was created that managed to divide, it multiplied until the food was not enough, and then life began to spread and diversify (a phase that lasted 3 billion years) and about 560 million years ago the eruption began. The very fact that we are all built on the same molecules shows that all life was created from one single cell that survived.

    Only the institutions that teach the faith receive funds mainly from the taxpayers, the higher education institutions also receive quite generous tuition from the students, while with their ultra-Orthodox counterparts, not only do they not pay, they also receive a subsistence stipend. They don't work and don't pay income tax, so they are both poor and they make the country poor, because they don't engage in productive work out of ideology. Before you come up with some opposite examples - it is still 85%, so if there are some who work they are a minority. These people have endless air time on television (on the community channels and on the state and private channels - for example, on Channel 1 they showed a program that was filmed 3 years ago in Jerusalem on the day of remembrance for the assassination of Rabin and Uri Lupoliansky spoke there about something that has not happened in the six thousand years of the world's existence - mind you, from my fee money. ), huge budgets for publishing books, brochures, countryism, are also the best clients of the lecture halls throughout the country. While the scientists are cooped up in their rooms and are afraid to come out as a buffer against the social phenomenon of the exploitation of the working class and the middle class, and the introduction of contents that have already lost their cool, such as laminia creationism that causes innocent teenagers to lose their way and not want to contribute to science, because there is nothing to explore anymore, everything is written in the Zohar The Holy One (an answer I received a week ago in an argument on the bus with a seemingly secular passenger).
    Instead of investing effort in repentance and taking care of websites that try to somehow filter through all this noise the scientific truth, send the lazy among you to work and the good among you to universities, donate to the state and then there will be something to talk about for a fair debate.

  118. Small addition:

    Have we heard about Richard Feynman? We have heard, and if anyone has not heard, let them close the computer now and sit down to read the two volumes of his biography.
    If there is a scientist who is enslaved only to scientific truth and not to any other convention, it is him.

    In the anthology of his semi-biographical essays and philosophers 'The Joy of Discovering Devarim' (Literature Notebooks 2006), there is on page 110 a rewrite of a conversation he gave: "The role of scientific culture in modern society".

    Apart from the fact that the conversation is beautiful, it is very honest, and in summary Feynman (peace be upon him) says that many answers have been given to the question of the meaning of man. From his words it appears that he himself does not rule out any view in principle, with the exception of the fact that each view in itself is hidden from the rest of the views that negate it, and if so it is difficult to locate the correct view.
    In the summary of that conversation (p. 128): "What is the meaning of the whole world? We don't know what the meaning of existence is." If, after all, Feynman does not claim that surely human life has no meaning, but he admits that it is possible that there is a meaning (and it is just possible that we will never know it), it means that at least he thinks that it is permissible to be both a scientist and a believer.

  119. to various writers.

    I think that everyone will benefit if, before the statistical debates, you consult an entire book devoted to the subject of microevolution (that is, the technical and statistical feasibility of the formation of complex molecules from a primordial soup):

    Evolution - explanations and mysteries.
    By Shimon Giami, edited by Amos Carmel
    Published by the Hapoalim Library. Tel Aviv 1998.

    The author died of cancer before the book could be published, but for our purposes it is important that he was a doctor of biology from the Hebrew University in genetics and also a favorite lecturer (of my wife, for example).

    God is not mentioned in the book even once, probably on purpose, but the whole book is a confrontation and pointing out the difficulties - which seem to the author to be insoluble - in the various theories about the earliest primordial evolution.
    Obviously, since the book was written until today, new studies have been renewed, but it is certainly a good book as a starting point for discussion.

    And finally, a small suggestion to Mr. Blizovsky: you have an excellent website, with many hits and commenters with a level and diverse education. Why do you 'get dirty' with derogatory expressions? There are institutions that educate for faith that are funded by tax money, and there are just as many institutions that educate for heresy that are funded by tax money.
    Did I understand correctly from your words that it is not possible for a true scientist at that time to be a believer?? If I were Newton I would be offended...

    Good night and Shabbat Shalom

  120. Sorry, but you have a mistake. All the responses are rhetoric from the Jewish people which he repeats and ignores all the facts that Roy brings up. When he is comfortable the system is not degenerate. When it is proven to him that it is degenerate if you look at a variety of animals, then he takes a step back and demands that it be degenerate in man, meaning that man was created without evolution.
    If this is not a circular or rhetorical argument, what is? Roy refuted all his arguments one by one, and he did not budge. Conclusion He came to make propaganda. It is not wise to cut and paste arguments written by one convert (Jewish or Christian for that matter, even if he translated) one or another.
    His arguments are designed to capture even the most anti-creationist site, followers of this superstition.

  121. To my father
    Your response, to the comments Yonatani wrote here, is out of place. It just shows that your approach is emotional. You should have at least recognized the man's genius.
    In my opinion, Yonatani's responses here are admirable, and immeasurably surpass everything that has been on this site so far in terms of a debate between evolution and creationism. And this site is actually very lacking in commenters at its level.

  122. "You had a "winning" argument of statistics, with big and scary numbers for anyone who reads talkbacks. It's hard to argue with big, scary numbers, as you well know. It's a shame that they were all plucked from the finger and not related to evolution at all" - you asked? ... you got it - I never wave my hands. I always make sure to provide evidence for what I say ... please - here is the relevant section from an evolutionary website - Spetner claims that only 1 sequence out of 10^180 perform the function
    of cytochrome c. But as noted above, this is not true. Yockey notes
    that there are 10^93 different molecules that will perform the
    cytochrome c function. (Information Theory and Molecular Biology, p. "-an evolutionary researcher named "Yuki" checked and found that the cytochrome c molecule may have about 93^10 combinations that encode it from a selection of 180^10! That is, for evolution to be able to create the function it found, it would have to scan about 87 ^ 10 mutational births and even all the time of the universe was not enough for that. So how was the above protein created?

    And here is the link itself so that you will believe. What do you have to say in your defense? (By the way, the site is evolutionary)

    http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199909/0281.html

    "As the creature grew, more and more inclusions were created in the blood system until it reached its current state" - what does this mean? Does the growth of the creature simultaneously result in another inclusion? Does evolution believe in inclusion?

  123. Good. Let's try one last time..."From among those creatures, it is possible to progress relatively easily to humans, through evolution with strong natural selection." - Where did you wink at that? Even for my explanations of what preceded why in humans you can't, and again it brings me back to simple systems, etc., etc.

    "But you refuse to pay attention to what I say. I'm telling you that some creatures don't have myelin like in humans, and you don't answer." -Answer also answers-Is the insulating material created at the same time as the axon is created? (Look for a diagram of myelin on the Internet so you can see what I'm talking about)." I'm telling you that in some organisms the primitive electrical synapses developed first, and you don't answer" - again I don't answer? You know what? I'll be big with you (as usual). Let's focus on something much simpler... Let's divide the nervous system into three main components - neuron (cell nerve) + signal + receptor + muscle + willing brain + nerve conductor.
    Are you willing to tell me which of the above parts first appeared and what it was used for? We'll leave everything else for now.

    Further - "A person cannot work without a heart, because his circulatory system has already been refined enough for the heart to be an important part of it. But some of the earlier circulatory systems didn't need a heart. The heart developed during the evolution of those systems" - here is the critical part! What does it mean to be sophisticated enough? After all, if in the past man (or he was something else, so to speak) could live without a heart. Why and how did he develop the dependence on the heart? Let's imagine the route for a moment - there was a creature Without a heart->>developed a heart (at this point could he live without a heart? After all, a moment ago he could)->>a person who depends on the heart. How is this possible?

    "Evolution relies on thousands of pieces of evidence, among which it developed a theory" - a theory but not a fact. I'm tired of repeating that. There is no evidence for evolution.

    And here is a self-contradiction - "This is empirical and rational science, Gil. It requires thought to see how all the evidence is connected to one theory."....contradiction to the sentence-"the fact that it is difficult for you to think how human systems were created is not good enough evidence to disprove the theory"-you have to decide-is it thought that determines or not?.

    Continue on the next page…..

  124. A basic note for the debate between creationists and evolutionists:
    The creationist's last defense for the reasoning of the need for a creator is that the evolutionary ones also reach a starting point where they cannot say what created the initial material and how.
    They ignore history. The answers given by science today to the questions of the development of species are much more comprehensive and advanced than four hundred years ago when the creationists had the upper hand. In fact, the progress of science through research constantly reveals and proves the correctness of the developmental theory and withdraws the creationists to a more distant position. The current defense position of Shell The creationists are always the last discovery position of the evolutionists.
    If they all accept the thesis of creation there will be no need or reason for the investigation and development of science since everything was created by a supreme being.
    Science and belief in a divine creator cannot coexist.

  125. I will mark my answers with ++ and your arguments with ==.

    ++But… you know, Gil, I just noticed a strange thing.
    I show you facts from nature about stages in evolution - creatures with less developed systems than humans, which preceded humans in evolution. From those creatures, it is possible to progress relatively easily to humans, through evolution with strong natural selection.
    But you refuse to consider what I say. I tell you that some creatures don't have myelin like humans do, and you don't answer. I tell you that in some organisms the primitive electrical synapses developed first, and you don't answer.

    The thing is, in your demagoguery you try to focus the debate on the person and treat him as a finished being. Everything had to be created in man from Genesis, according to you. As much as I try to explain to you that evolution is a gradual process, I don't see that it is progressing anywhere, because you are not willing to depart from your premise that human systems must be treated on their own, and not think about all the less sophisticated systems that preceded them - and with a little refinement they became to human systems through evolution.
    Evolution does not refer to man alone, but to all the processes he went through until he became a man. As much as you say "explain to me how the human circulatory system would work without a heart", you can say "explain to me how a plug without a socket works". It has nothing to do with it. A person cannot work without a heart, because his circulatory system has already developed enough for the heart to be an important part of it. But some of the earlier circulatory systems didn't need a heart. The heart developed during the evolution of those systems. I explained it to you three comments ago, and you completely ignored it, which is a shame.++

    == The debate here is about whether man could develop evolutionarily. And the very fact that you cannot explain what preceded what until the complete system arrived, only proves the exhaustion of evolutionary arguments. (Be aware that even biologists could not give me an answer). ==

    ++I explained to you how the circulatory system developed throughout evolution. This explanation is based on primitive creatures still alive today. It is enough to analyze their bodies to discover those intermediate systems that have evolved to the point of the human system. ++

    ==thought?
    Are we dealing with false imaginations or rational empirical science?==

    ++Empirical and rational science relies on testimony and evidence to develop theories. Evolution relies on thousands of pieces of evidence, among which it has developed a theory.
    Why is it similar?
    Please take a look at the chair you are sitting on. I have a theory about him (which I assume you also share):
    "This chair cannot go out in a boisterous Congo dance."
    What is our theory based on (which is completely scientific)? It relies on the fact that every time you see the chair, it has never moved on its own. You have thousands of proofs that the chair does not move on its own - and therefore will not move on its own either.
    What is the problem?
    You can never be sure that the chair doesn't break out into a fiery Congo dance the moment you turn off the light and stop looking at it.
    So maybe you'll look at it throughout your life, and put guards over it?
    If you do, you'll find that you still don't know whether the chair isn't dancing because it doesn't want to dance, or simply because it can't move.
    Does this problem negate the credibility of my theory and yours, that the chair cannot move by itself?
    No. Specifically not. If millions of observations around the world state the same thing, we have a strong enough argument in favor of the theory. The day we see your throne dancing Congo - then we will know that our theory is wrong.
    This is an empirical and rational science, Gil. It requires thought to see how all the evidence fits into one theory. But from the moment it is there, you have to find very strong counter-evidence to disprove it, because we have already confirmed it in so many different ways.
    The evidence for evolution is based on fossils, primitive systems, duplicated genes, natural selection that we know exists, and many other factors. The fact that it is difficult for you to think (and indeed it is possible to connect the lines together and arrive at a not bad explanation, if you only think deeply) how the human systems were created is not good enough evidence to disprove the theory.++

    =="So what happened? You lost interest in statistics with the exaggerated and unrelated numbers that scared everyone"-I didn't lose interest at all. I just saw that you don't have the knowledge required for that.==

    ++You had a "winning" argument of statistics, with big and scary numbers for anyone who reads talkbacks. It's hard to argue with big, scary numbers, as you well know. It's a shame that they were all finger-sucking and not related to evolution at all. Those numbers would represent pure randomness, something that does not exist in evolution.
    I am quite satisfied at this point. It's been almost ten comments that you haven't told me about crazy numbers that have nothing to do with reality. ++

    =="They have an answer, but they are not related to evolution at all"-
    So why are they related?...to margarine?==
    ==Is the blood created at the same time as the mechanisms that allow it to flow? How did the creature live until some kind of blood system was created? And if it could live without blood at the time, then why can't it live like this now?==

    ++ Take the spider, for example. It has a system of tracheas (holes) throughout the body that flow oxygen into it. It has no real arteries or real blood. Instead it has a fluid called Haemolymph that is pumped through a primitive heart into internal body spaces that surround the internal organs. The fluid gets its oxygen from the blood.
    This is an example of a very primitive blood system. Over hundreds of millions of years of evolution and natural selection, larger creatures began to emerge, and for them this circulatory system is not good enough. It is only good for tiny creatures. Therefore, as the creature grew, more and more blockages were created in the circulatory system until it reached its current state.
    If we look at a person today, surely he cannot live without a heart, or with an open blood system. But this does not mean that his predecessors in evolution could not do so, and from them he evolved.++

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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