Researchers from the Rockefeller University have revealed the presence of a new base in DNA, which may play a part in deciding which genes will be expressed and which will be silenced.
While studying at the Technion, I learned the simplest and most basic truth of all: the genetic code, which contains all our genes, consists of only four letters. These letters are affectionately referred to as A, C, T and G. But now the time has come to write the DNA Bible from the beginning, and to bless the new base in the neighborhood, which is about to make a revolution in the field of epigenetics and DNA research.
The genetic code contains the instructions for creating proteins, and it is the proteins that create the cells and do the dirty work in them. But in the last decades the scientific community has come to understand that the genetic code is not enough by itself to explain the differences between worms, mice, monkeys and humans. After all, everyone has about the same amount of genetic material. If that's not enough, it turns out that the entire difference between chimpanzees and humans amounts to about one percent difference at the DNA level.
The science of epigenetics explains the difference between the sexes through another level of complexity - 'above genetics'. The genetic code does contain the instructions for creating proteins, but to read the instructions and put them to use, you need unique proteins that choose which part of the code to read. This is the level above the genetic code, and if this level goes wrong, then all the instructions in the genetic code are worthless. If a gene is present in the DNA, but does not undergo transcription and translation by the proteins, it is as if it was not in the DNA in the first place.
Some of the differences between the species are explained, therefore, through the dynamic control over the reading of the genes and their translation into proteins, and not only through the genes themselves. And how do the proteins decide which genes will be silenced and which will remain silenced? For this purpose, there is a protein enzyme called DNA methyltransferase, which is able to attach a methyl molecule to one of the letters that make up the genetic code, known as cytosine - C. After the attachment, a stable signal (or in its scientific name, a base) called 5-methyl-cytosine is obtained. If this new letter appears at the beginning of the gene, then that gene will undergo silencing and will not be translated into a protein.
In this phenomenon, known as methylation, genes are silenced through the coupling of one simple molecule to DNA. It occurs in all stages of life, but mainly in the earliest stages of development, still at the fetal level. Silencing the genes helps determine how embryonic stem cells will differentiate into different cell types, from which all tissues, organs and body systems will develop. Even after birth, the methylation in the cell occurs non-stop, and as an example of this, a recent experiment demonstrated how puppies that receive loving maternal care, develop unique methylation patterns that are inherited through the generations.
It is therefore clear why the DNA 'fifth' letter - methylcytosine - has received such attention recently. But now it turns out that there is another new base in DNA capable of influencing gene transcription. This base is 5-hydroxy-methyl-cytosine, which until now has only been identified in the simplest life forms - viruses that attack bacteria. This basis has now been discovered in the neurons in the brains of mice.
What is the role of the new base? This is a mystery that has not yet been solved, but preliminary tests suggest that it may play an important role in re-opening blocked genes for reading. In an article to be published in the scientific journal Science, a group of researchers reveals the existence of enzymes that convert the base 5-methyl-cytosine (the silencer) to 5-hydroxy-methyl-cytosine, which is the newly discovered base. Those enzymes imply that there is a dynamic system that silences and activates genes on demand in the DNA.
The article about the new base was published last Thursday in the scientific journal Science, and will cause a revolution in the field of epigenetics. But why was the new base discovered only now? Nathaniel Heinz, one of the authors of the study and head of the Molecular Biology Laboratory at Rockefeller University, explained that the blame lies in the methodologies used in most epigenetic experiments. The tests that scientists use to identify the areas where the DNA has undergone methylation and silencing, do not distinguish between the old base - 5-methyl-cytosine - and the newly discovered base - 5-hydroxy-methyl-cytosine. This limitation has obscured the presence of the new base for many years.
What does the discovery mean? The discovery of the new basis forces researchers in the field of epigenetics to reproduce, in practice, almost all of their research. If in the past the researchers thought that there was only one basis that affects gene silencing, now there is another basis. To better understand the way in which DNA is transcribed and read, it is necessary to understand how the new base affects DNA transcription, and how it integrates with the methylation and demethylation system in the cell. A better understanding of the process will inevitably lead to the development of new drugs, and a better understanding of genetic and metabolic diseases.
127 תגובות
Relevant question:
Each cell contains virtually the entire human genome. The length of a nucleic acid sequence (the double helix of DNA) is between 3 million and XNUMX billion GTAC sequences (as far as I understand). Is it correct to say, or will it be discovered, that in fact the entire double helix contains in itself the entire human genetic code, and only the selection of transcription versus silencing of a gene (or genetic sequence) enables the dedicated replication and cell differentiation, or is the general code nevertheless divided into genes (or chromosomes ) have a specific designation that are in the same cell.
Thanks in advance.
We cannot escape our identity and no one has ever tried to. The question is what defines our identity and I can faithfully assure you that it is not some stale book from thousands of years ago.
This book and everything contained in it suppresses all the rest of the spirit that a person who is freed from his chains can have.
The notebooks' salad is indeed scholarly and full of taste, smell and wisdom, but it is not as tasty and nutritious as the stew that Dawkins prepared long before them.
The recommended meal consists of both plus some spices to neutralize the sections in which the problems I mentioned in response 75 are expressed
Michael: Sorry
124 is a continuation of the discussion between us about the book 'Evolution in Four Dimensions', of course.
In the heat of the answer I did not answer you.
The 'parable' of the culturalists brings us back to another and equally important book: "German Requiem" - which goes back and forth with us 300 years before 1939, and perhaps to this day when we as 'genome' creatures 'culturalists' try to trace the tendencies of the 'memes' and others and find ourselves After all, we are 'trapped' in the seal of a Jewish 'word' and 'other-spirit', from which we cannot escape wherever and wherever we are.. (take temporary vacations:).
Besides, the 'salad' of the notebooks: a professor of scientific thought and a senior biologist who put them together, very learned and full of taste, smell and great wisdom and an inquisitor lasted 20 years.
Hugin:
The book is in my possession and will remain in my possession until it is stolen from me (I try to keep track of books I borrow, but it doesn't always work).
I don't understand what you are trying to conclude, the administration of the culturalists.
The cultural inheritance of course exists and as I explained - in my opinion its description as "memes" is more successful and useful than the salad of Chava and Marion, but no matter how you look at it - this type of inheritance does not necessarily have a positive value (and the value of smoking, which the respected notebooks also mention)
Michael:
1. In the context of 11, he spoke of an 'abysmal gap', so I responded in his language. Let's leave it at that for now.
2. Regarding the book by the two scholars that I liked, see VAT 173 onwards, if the book is still in your possession.
I find there the essence of honey (emancipation as a 'civilizer') and also the necessary sting (as a learned and binding sign) and also the disease or the 'defect' itself when the 'specific genetic factor': the one who imitates or imitates loses the value of the 'selective recognition' of His identity and necessary continuous essence, as a 'genome' that is fatefully sealed from there on for all the rest.
Hugin:
It's unpleasant to remind you of this in the style of a kindergarten, but don't make complaints to anyone because, as they say, you started it (response 11).
Not that your responses before this response were fine, but the clear crossing of all boundaries happened for the first time in this response.
Avi,
I really, really hope that you know for sure that the entire access was not attributed to you but to certain standouts on the site who are trying to divert and take over in this way.
But your interpretation is your business.
For example: Yes, we could have a discussion about the extremely interesting book by Chava and Marion in connection with genetics and epigenetics in additional and expanding aspects, and it will not surprise you that "Michael" Yes was the only one who responded to his matter. I greatly appreciated the very reading and reference on his part, although it would have been nicer if he had given a little more Pirgon praises the scholarly notebooks and encourages others to read their book, but it was not possible to reach out and talk because of the scheming and empty intervention of the "long and poisonous needles" of "Oran" and his domo, which are already creating extreme reactions and allergies even among the most moderate.
Not pleasant, too bad.
And it's a shame, it's a shame for all of us that you're being dragged along by the anarchist deviants on your site, all the disrespectful ones and expressions of terrible contempt for their origin, as Jewish-Israelis.
I downloaded As the son of a Holocaust survivor, no one can call me a neo-Nazi. Thanks for the attention.
Father, download, download
Pine:
I guess you won't be surprised if you learn that "biologist" is actually also "." And both the anonymous and the non-obvious (yes, and Hugin too)
He is of course a biologist as well as a cosmologist, cardiologist and just a log.
The only log that she really is is of course Astro (actually also smart)
"biologist",
Usually those who call themselves a nickname in "profession" and the education they supposedly have, is the furthest thing from them... are you a troll?
Pine
You've told us enough about yourself.
Maybe you should rest and let the head of the site and others? The amount of blah blah coming out of you does not fall short of the amount of phenomena you come out against.
Concentrate on the article.
Uncle,
The discussions regarding science and the exchange of knowledge is what the site is for and people besides me (Michael, Noam, Avi and more) strive for this all the time. The problem is that, as you can see, there are people who come to the site with the first intention not to enrich their knowledge like we do and to exchange scientific knowledge, but to harm science enthusiasts and slander scientific theories.
There is a difference between non-acceptance of a scientific theory based on scientific considerations - such as: counter-evidence - physical and mathematical, an alternative (scientific!!!) theory that is more suitable (and proofs and sources must be provided when brought) - versus disagreement based on non-acceptance of science because it interferes to the tenets of your faith.
That's all we tried to convey to those people, and all this through logic. When the people realized that they "lost" with logical tools then they turn to slanders, distortion of the truth and slanders and expressions like "I know from somewhere" and invent facts that are not based at all in the hope that we will not start looking for their truth (and if one of us has the power - we do).
In conclusion, I and others pursue discussions regarding proper science. Unfortunately, there were not long periods when this was the case, and we often had to concentrate on fending off claims from people who came to attack theories that contradicted their beliefs (without scientific substantiation), to defend established scientific theories against beliefs, and the principles and articles of the website. In the few periods (when some people declared in a statement that they were taking "days off" from interfering with the site) when I foresaw whole days that almost every response to the site was really out of a desire to enrich knowledge - you could ask a question in the field of the article and receive a factual and satisfactory answer, each from a field that interests and engages. See an example of the way you asked me and I answered - I experienced it from your side several times. Isn't it fun?
And yes, I love the field and am interested in it. It has already happened that people said that I have the crazy "spark" in my eyes when I explained about my areas of interest (especially those that I was engaged in research) 🙂 Not many people get to that point. It satisfies me "spiritually" like other people need faith. The mere fact that I know that I still have a lot to learn about the universe, and that it is wonderful as it is - a mystery just waiting to be discovered (in science, you don't need magic to be wonderful), all this is enough to make me want to move on with my life, in anticipation of what else I will discover about it.
Pine:
Now you see what a religion that "educates the soul" is?
Somehow I can't avoid the association of "bringing to slime".
I wonder what causes this association - is it just the ring or is there a more significant similarity here.
Avi,
By the way - this case (109) and others only remind me of a problem that exists on the site. Why is it not possible to "report a certain message"? This way it will be possible to block the user's IP. Amsher to add an "alert" button next to the messages.
And if it is not possible to block a user for a long time (until he changes his IP), I would even recommend making leaving a comment conditional on quick registration (to some mailbox and confirmation). This will at least somewhat deter the spammers and those who came to the site just to slander and defame the site, the articles and the readership (and also limit the amount of people who will click on the "alert" button just for the heck of it).
Hello Oren,
(and to Noam)
Many thanks for your follow-up comments - 99, 102, 103.
I admit that at first, I thought that in response 78, you purposely "plugged in" explosive words and high concepts to highlight and show me how "ignorant" I am in the field and have no chance of understanding anything, thus giving me a winning blow!
At first I was a little disappointed, but I decided to swallow the "frog" and flow with you, and add and ask, with a real intention to understand the issue, as well as to prove my point that there can be another way here!
To my great joy, I was deceived and I am glad that I was completely wrong about the intentions of your answer (response 78).
Answer 103 (especially) was pure pleasure for me.
Oren (and also Noam and Roy), look how beautiful it can be here when we hold such discussions, which focus on what we have in common and not on the faction!
Everyone here (from both sides of the traditional debate here) can, with a little good will, give the little light that is inside him to the benefit of building a big fire, it's all a matter of good will! No more than that!
Oren, I'm sure that when you wrote me your learned answer on a subject that you know and love, you had light in your eyes and joy in your heart, and I can see it in the smiley you gave me (twice!). Isn't it more fun that way? You too and surely me too?
I'm really urging everyone here, let's focus only on the positive and give positive responses and constructive criticism, there's no need to cut and destroy each other, it's not helpful in anything, haven't you noticed it yourself yet? After all, these cells here are the precursors of Dana and remain all the time in the same place, without any development.
As for your answer (103, 102) - I will carefully read the link on Wikipedia and try to understand as much as I can.
Regarding what you wrote to me in 103 - "Composite materials are a group of materials that are built from a combination of two or more materials. The combination is done in such a way that a composite material is created whose structural properties are improved compared to the building materials."
In the field of psychology there is a concept called "gestalt"
(http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%92%D7%A9%D7%98%D7%9C%D7%98)
Which basically says that - "the whole is more than the sum of its parts", it seems to me that this describes quite well what you tried to explain in response 103, right?
And again in conclusion - many thanks and hopefully for such a fruitful continuation.
With the blessing of Shabbat Shalom,
Uncle
To-.",
I thought you would try not to stoop to the level of slander. I'm sorry that a person like you "infiltrated" such a site. And a few more days after the day when racism is recognized in the world and in Israel... and he is another Jew just like you.
I hope you still have enough dignity to go home quietly.
Michael (in the past it doesn't matter what).
If you were in the spirit of Hugin, so many victims would not have fallen around you, in your country and at your feet.
It is clear to all of us that you are certainly not the keeper of Israel, but a bully and a bully against the heart of Israel.
Pine:
And I'm already pretty convinced that we're in for a show called "The Hoggin's Return"
Stu:
As soon as you demand from us to give up rationality, then - as Noam said - there is no point in arguing with you.
The truth is that I had the same impression before.
After an "educative" response like that of ".", I am reminded of the words of wisdom of one of my childhood heroes - Al Bundy, from Married Plus: "bla, bla and blaaadios".
(How much meaninglessness or bloat can be put into so many words?)
indeed,
I talked about their "principles" as the mentoring of the soul.
The shell of the religions is only the outer stage, and it is subject to "interpretations" and disputes of the various minds that create their interpretations and the multitude of theories according to their temperaments, levels of maturity and their "selfish" or separatist or inclusive tendencies here and there.
The faith stems from the emanations of the central source as the main cores of the religions (the inner Torah within them and their central essence: the heart of their soul).
Belief, as a Torah, as a core or the heart-soul of the source radiates from "integrity" (internal and external integrity) or "deep internal honesty" and since it derives from this it does not have the angular tendencies or inclined to deviation as the brain's job is to do in its splitting into many neurons, branches, Multiple opinions, quibbles and so on.
Still the main part of Judaism, as the mother of the great religions brought the heart of the central Torah.
Still, when you look at the 'cores' of the rest of the spirit of the ancient and present teachings and religions of all peoples, you find a connecting line between them all which is the legality of the one to infinity, from which many lineages branch off into a chain of gods, idols, deities, God, fathers, mothers of the human race and the theory of evolution that emerges through its many interpretations.
In any case: a "genome" without a heart-soul or faith, as a central inner integrity in the center of the heart, comes out as an 'empty photographer's tool' and also with a 'full' (similar to a brain - computer, for example) comes out as a deviant (from the S.T.A. root, exit , leakage, or escape) from the essential essence of its purpose, as its essence, its origin, its origin, and its destiny
The small or the big-the binding one by its very behavioral dynamics: cause-result-cause-result...
Development or retreat according to given timed cycles, according to exchange of rhythms misunderstanding and understandings.
It's clear that randomness is only an illusion when you don't see the connections and a connecting factor between everything: the unknown source and the questionable: as God .??? or !!!.
'Faith' (as trust and correct training) allows at least the adjustment necessary for an informed and desirable development, even if it has the price of causes-results-circumstantial reactions and difficult or challenging associated factors.
'Job's Parable' and 'Kohelet' illustrate something that is eternal for the deepest and most sublime insights to be seen only here and now and negate the main thing: the core - "heart" - and the origins of his soul.
Also the hymn of the people of Israel: the main thing is "Heart".
Indeed, renouncing the rationale makes the debate - actually any debate - meaningless
Oren, you are busy fending off objections instead of understanding things deeply,
In order to receive proofs about God one must understand his world, for his world one must read and understand religion, in order to truly read and understand religion one must come from a certain point of openness that excludes previous rational assumptions, because it is a system of concepts that has a cause-and-effect that works in a completely different way. You state facts based on knowledge of science only. Religion doesn't only talk about the rational, it has other faces, the debate is meaningless..
David, one last thing 🙂
I found a nice and simple definition for composite materials in a cliché way of what to do - train me more in learning and not in teaching (short...):
"
Composite materials are a group of materials that are built from a combination of two or more materials. The combination is done in such a way that a composite material is created whose structural properties are improved compared to the building materials.
The groups of composite materials The composite materials can be sorted into three groups, according to the structure and the way the materials are combined.
In a layered composite material, the materials are combined with each other in layers. Plywood is an example of a layered composite material: thin boards of wood are glued together using polymer glue. The wooden panels are glued in alternating directions. In this way, a more rigid structure is achieved. Solid wood, compared to plywood, has a greater tendency to warp due to overload. In a granular composite material, grains of one material are immersed in another material. Concrete is a composite material of gravel and sand grains mixed in the wet cement pulp, and the whole pulp hardens.
Fibrous composite material is built from fibers that are integrated into the main material. Reinforced concrete is a composite material of steel rod fibers immersed in the concrete pulp and strengthening it.
"
This is a very general definition of what a composite material is in general (maybe I should have started with that huh? 🙂 )
Yes, I started to understand. Thanks again...
David, something small,
I may have used terms that I take for granted because I learned them. An armoring material is those particles of another material (can be polymers, carbides, etc.) that are inserted in a certain amount into the matrix of another material (it constitutes the parent material - bulk) in order to strengthen the parent material.
As we mentioned before, as I understand in a certain specific field (in the case of a part of the field you asked about) I will not know much in other fields in materials engineering - there are too many fields that require even after one degree more education (experience and additional degrees) in order to specialize in those fields. Not to mention fields outside of material engineering and chemistry, such as perhaps the field in which you are involved and others, which I will not know at all. I try, like you, to expand my knowledge not only in my field but in other fields of science and I tried to do this from a young age.
For those who blather on about a religion that "educates the soul" it is advisable that they give themselves an account with the following questions:
How is it the commandment of all monotheistic religions to kill people for doing no wrong to them?
How is it that these religions are the basis and driving force behind the vast majority of wars in our world?
How can one justify the fact that each of the religions defines "good" and "bad" in a different and even contradictory way?
The attempt to compare the meaning of the word faith in religion with its meaning in the scientific world is nothing more than throwing sand in the eyes.
The plain fact is that the vast majority of religious Jews were born to Jewish parents, the vast majority of religious Christians were born to Christian parents, and the vast majority of religious Muslims were born to Muslim parents.
The same of course applies to Buddhists and members of all other religions.
How can it be?
Is it even possible that the choice of religion is based on logic?
of course not.
In fact - everyone of the different religions believes that most people are wrong all the time!
The Jew thinks that the Muslim chose the wrong religion and the Muslim thinks that the Jew chose the wrong religion.
The considerations and processes that brought each of them to their belief are the same(!!!).
Logic should have required each of them to conclude from the fact that most of the people who went through the process they went through reached wrong conclusions that this is a process that cannot be trusted - not even about themselves.
The problem is - of course - that as a collection of memes that preserves itself - religion makes sure to erase logic and therefore avoids drawing the required conclusion.
Oren, the system has keywords that it itself learns and adds and does not depend on me at all.
Uncle,
Regarding your question - you may not have been clear. The "nano" in the armor of composite materials is reflected in the particle size/fiber diameter (depending on what is being armored) of the armoring material. To date, most of the particle armored material developments have been in the order of tens of microns or even a few microns. Slowly they are starting to enter the domain of nanometer particles. There are many superior properties to these particles. The same stress field that I described to you that on the one hand hardens the material by blocking the movement of the dislocations, on the other hand also creates disadvantages - the stress may lead to the development of stress cracks and actually lower the mechanical properties of the material. There is also a problem of adhesion (the degree of "wetting" is also called) Between the matrix and the particles - there is a noticeable improvement in the use of nanometer particles (for reasons of surface energy and geometry that creates less residual effort). In addition, directionality is of great importance - especially in armor with fibers.
I was even a participant in these attempts to move to armor with nanometer particles. I can tell you that the road is long - there are many problems. This is not the forum to mention them all, it is an article in itself actually, but there is a lot of progress. A lot of hard work of trial and error and the willingness to discover that your initial theories and assumptions are incomplete and to think of new directions to "attack" (links to the discussion that takes place here on the website, something that scientific objectivity allows - to be willing to accept inconsistency of a theory, including yours).
Hence, if in the past we used a certain material for tank armor that required a certain thickness to meet mechanical requirements, now it can be replaced with a stronger material that gives the same properties in much smaller thicknesses.
By the way, one of the areas where these materials have already come into widespread use is in airplanes, and slowly in cars - use of composite materials as a replacement for the chassis/frame and more that was done in the past with conventional materials. This guarantees the durability of the shield, while using a matrix that may be made of a weak material that is originally weaker, but with particle armor it reaches properties that even exceed the original material (which is usually heavier - like steel). And thus achieve a significant weight loss, fuel savings, more Environmentally friendly - longer travel/flight time for the same amount of fuel.For example, the huge new Airbus (I think A380) uses unprecedented amounts of composite materials, most of which have been replaced with composite materials!
The field contains a lot of background that needs to be understood and I brought you a link at least on the topic that starts it - composite materials:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_material
It's really in general. I brought the entry in English because I took a look at it in Hebrew, and the word "chopped" does not sufficiently describe the degree of cutting that was done in the explanations.
I think that further explanations are not exactly in this forum - especially that they are not related to the article or the discussion about it.
There are many areas of "nano". And today many stick the word "nano" to research just to increase publicity and attract budgets...
Stu-edu-kishkish,
What is trying to catch you in a word? It was clear from the wording of your question that you tried to catch Noam "at his word" to try to demonstrate that the way you perceive faith is equal to the way he "believes" in the same scientific theory (but which is clearly not the case). And this while you deny his attempts to explain to you that there is a fundamental difference - faith in science is not permanent and must be re-acquired again and again and can be lost if there is contradictory evidence or no supporting evidence at all.
Can you and others tell me there is a chance you will stop believing in God? Is lack of counter-evidence enough? Because there is no supporting evidence. Lack of supporting evidence is reason enough not to accept a scientific theory. You cannot describe a divine influence even mathematically, so even predicting phenomena is not possible.
Why did I insist on not confusing black holes as a transition that uses gravitational warping? Because many programs and books refer to it in this way. And I saw this as your trap for Noam - "belief" in fanciful things. which is actually your religion.
And besides, my request to my father, which I'm sure didn't seem strange at all, is not at all interesting to you. The truth is, I thought the problem was related to your name - there are names in English that the system in many forums will not accept because it can identify them as commands that could harm you on purpose (for example, the word system in many places will be blocked - I hope this time it will not result in a rejection of my response entry). My response was related to our exchange and I did not want to repeat Debbie. I haven't known my father long, but I've known him long enough as a dedicated website editor who really cares about readers expressing their opinions. Even, as in your cases, ones he doesn't believe in.
To-".",
Like many of your kind, you specialize in throwing gibberish: saying a lot and actually saying nothing.
"Men of science who have a spiritual base of values derived from a nurturing religion and are found as believers, their findings are known to be valuable and eternally valid or longer than the skeptical cynics."
Where did you get this nonsense? On the contrary, today, the more a person believes in religion, the more skeptical his words are for fear that he will let his faith influence the scientific process. Give me one example that precisely the fact that the person believes, is what causes their discoveries to be appreciated more. As usual you do not accompany your words with evidence. And if you give me in response an example of a believer who was a scientist, and distort the reality that his discovery is more important or reliable because he believes, I hope you don't really believe it.
"If you examine the science infrastructures from which you derive basic assumptions for new theories, you will see that those who brought 'foundation stones' (including genomes) were at the beginning of their journey from a 'religious' or 'traditional' home, possibly on the path of 'atonement' and later, after the passage of doubt, returned to their faith on their path, as people of faith According to their religion and origin and even if they replaced the same infrastructure from which they drew or came with a 'different name'."
Again the same nonsense, the best example of this comes from the same field you thought to bring as a distorted example - evolution. Darwin, who came from a pious family and was brought up as a believer, underwent a clear transformation that when he began to understand the secrets of evolution, he writes in his books - I am unable to believe that God exists in view of these discoveries.
So again, check your words first before you write them, and don't write out of blind faith.
The only real "paranoia" that was also seen on the site came from you when you started accusing the science enthusiasts of being "the oppressors of the Jewish people". Again, shame on you.
It only proves your immaturity and maturity to distinguish between the ability to ask yourself questions all the time in order to improve and understand the world around you (yes, it's also called skepticism), and paranoia. You and other devout believers are paranoid about asking questions. This is the thing they are most afraid of - to put their faith to the test with tools that neither they nor their rabbis, sages and Yosen chose.
Science passes all tests. He is also looking for new exams all the time to test the theories - and the exams are not for the purpose of proving himself, but for the purpose of really testing their correctness and whether there is room for improvement.
The so-called "questions" that the faith allows itself come from those rabbis who believe themselves with one and only goal - to support the faith. They are not ready to accept the possibility of another option that they are wrong. And they don't listen to questions that might determine this.
This contradicts the assumption that "the main religions educate the soul so that the informants, whatever they are, will be more correctly internalized into them."
If you are not able to ask yourself particularly difficult questions about your nature and your faith, how will you truly know your soul?
In addition, in light of your previous formulations and statements, you seem to be the lowest morally here - the only one who will degrade to insults, slanders, disrespectful use of the memory of the dead and more. Is this what your religion and belief got you? To feel morally superior while still being able to act on the same principles you claim only your faith gives you?
Look what a miracle - we are civilized, we observe the principles of ethics and morality, we believe in the preservation of the Jewish people - and we don't believe... how does this happen?! How do we even tolerate ourselves? Live in constant doubt? Live with the fact that we may have to face life alone, with our friends and family?
What I am trying to say here is that taking one position excludes understanding of another position. Once as a human being I stick to my position and only look for ways to contradict the other opinion. How much is really a concept, real, pay attention not necessarily rational or non-rational, I will accept about her.
A. It is not important who is behind the words and messages exchanged between the articles and the commenters. What is said is more important. If you give a little trust to everyone else here, you may also be able to interpret the terminology more clearly and cleanly. In other words, in any basic conversation a certain neutrality is necessary, free of bias and closing opinions.
B. Every person also harbors doubt and hypotheses regarding different areas of life. There are people who have gone through the stations where you are in questionable or scientific doubt (according to your belief) and they believe their way after becoming familiar with proofs from their studies and their time.
Science is not a religion that educates the mind, but informs. In contrast, the main religions educate the mind so that the informants, whatever they may be, are more properly internalized into them.
C. The word Amen means: indeed. yes. true. than (giving trust).
D. People who are in great doubt for long periods of their lives are called suspicious. There is a tolerance threshold of suspicion that the soul of a person or any other creature can bear. At a certain level, excessive suspicion and doubt cause a psychic syndrome at certain levels of paranoia. Certain degrees of paranoia create simulated fears and wars of attrition Unnecessary to the loss of vitality to the urge to destroy real or imagined enemies to self-destruction.
From a scientific collective point of view: today's world of science may have reached a kind of peak of skepticism and a chain of behaviors and scientific studies in which the opinion and sanity are in doubt.
God. Men of science who have a spiritual base of values derived from an inculcating religion and are found as believers, their findings are known as valuable and eternally valid or longer than the skeptical cynics.
If you examine scientific infrastructures from which you derive basic assumptions for new theories, you will see that those who brought 'foundation stones' (including genomes) were at the beginning of their journey from a 'religious' or 'traditional' home, possibly on the path of 'atonement' and later, after the doubt had passed, returned to their faith on their own path, as people who believe in According to their religion and origin and even if they replaced with 'another name' the same infrastructure from which they drew or came.
Pine
You're trying to take me at my word and missing the point. (what a rhyme 😛 )
You are asked to stop ranting and bothering the site administrator because of one comment (what audacity), what's the problem with writing again
Indeed, these are two different topics, the meaning of course being wormholes. Although both black guys and worm guys have a distortion of space / and time. Yes pine, Kerr type.
Noam
The word knowing for sure is problematic, in terms of religion, because in religion, like secularism (and I am not a religious person), new questions always arise, and there are not always answers. I favor an inquisitive approach towards religion, always doubting and not ruling something out because it does not go with the scientific approach one to one. And after reading (a lot!) and understanding (a lot) I definitely don't call myself an atheist. The problem of academia and in general from the age of enlightenment when you want to take it even further back to where the scientific investigation began, is to take one clear line. What can be proven with scientific tools (or disprovable) is certain and true. And that is very, very, very problematic.
Pine,
First of all, thank you very much for your learned answer.
Honestly, I didn't understand much from her, I really lack a lot of knowledge in the field.
Nevertheless, I would be happy if you could direct me to the directions and sources from which I too could derive an understanding appropriate to my level in this field.
I would love to become educated even if it doesn't mean that I have to go through all the arduous training that you went through in the field (I would like to emphasize - I do not want to be an engineer in the field. It simply interests me on the level of popular science and self-enrichment only. On the professional level, I specialize in a completely different field, and so is good to me).
To remind you, I refer to your response (response 78):
"I cannot refer to the article you are talking about without you referring me to it. I have personally dealt with the armor of metals in nanoparticles (called MMC - metal matrix composites) in the past. I can try to explain but there is a gap in background that you lack. Basically the field I am talking about is that by inserting particles the particles create both physically and by inserting an effort field into the mother matrix (the material they shield), a barrier to the movement of "dislocations" (again lack of background - basically this is defects that move in the material that have united to form a kind of front) and this is one of the ways that The strength may increase in a very significant way - depending on the size of the armor, the shape of the armorers and of course the material they are made of and the success of the adhesion between the armoring material and the matrix.
I can find you additional material on the subject that might simplify my words, but again - you need a background in materials engineering"
And as for the article I was referring to, here it is -
Nanotechnology: smaller than small (with Eti Shmushkowitz)
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3693986,00.html
And the quote I referred to from this letter - "What additional developments is expected to result from the current research? A tank with more durable and thinner armor, which can move faster. There are already completely transparent nano-based materials, with the quality and strength of metal. It is possible to create durable and light armor for soldiers, glasses special ones that will protect the eyes from laser rays, so that the enemy cannot use a weapon designed to cause blindness."
.
Please correct me - from all my educated teachers
Or to your judgmental or dismissive and erroneous interpretation of those words and language..
Stu-edu-kishkishu
The word "believer" has a completely different meaning for a religious person and a non-religious person:
For a religious person - to believe = to know for sure, there is no need for further proof or substantiation
For a non-religious person - to believe = I assume, but am not sure, and will continue to look for evidence to support my hypothesis
You see, a different worldview - religious versus non-religious - causes not only a difference in lifestyle and customs, but also a different use of language
The crimes = the effects*
(sorry just woke up)
Father, my message has already been received (a good few hours late, but received in the end). thanks anyway.
and "stu-ado blah blah",
I don't know for sure what Noam believes. But from what I know of him from his comments on the site, I am guessing that he will only tell you what is known and that he has reliable and meanwhile proven theories - black holes exist, but there is nothing that connects them as a transition to parallel universes. You are confused with the wormhole theory, which is a theory for which no physical evidence has been found.
Compared to black holes, signs have already been found that do suggest that they exist - they cannot be seen directly, but you can see the "halo" that is created due to the rapidly rotating gases at the edge of the hole's gravity, and the radiation emitted from it, and you can see its gravitational disturbances in its surroundings. That is, the existence of a black hole definitely has supporting evidence beyond theory and mathematical calculations.
And again, I don't know what Noam believes, I'm just guessing from the little I know him.
I didn't have time to go through the hundreds of comments in the spam folder.
Please resend it or email it to me and we'll see what the reason for disqualification is.
You don't believe in G-d Noam, but you do believe in Sobra Blacks blacks the possibility of crossing over into parallel universes?
To .
This is not exactly the right site to say this, and Avi Blizovsky will forgive me, but I want to state in the most blatant way:
I do not believe in God, and I am a proud Jew in all my limbs, and certainly not a less good Jew than you.
You are confusing religion and nationality, between religion and people.
There is no greater insolence, and no greater lie, than implying that those who advocate the scientific method are alienated from their Jewish identity
In the days between the Holocaust and the resurrection, the Jewish 'genome' in my Saturn and in my blood needs deep thought and repeated examination to be breathing and my identity as an Israeli-Jew, therefore it is not advisable to enter into a debate that is out of place at this time and at this time.
As I recall, it was your grandmother Noam, who once said something like "Even if there is no God, why upset him..?"
To pine
That was a compliment. you can calm down..
(yawn)
Pine,
What about you?
You haven't heard of: "Psalms instead of missiles"
And seriously, two comments:
1) Indeed, some of those who raise religion in their throats, who preach to us about religious national resilience, are the ones who endanger our existence the most
2) The more despicable, the lower, the more personal the reactions, the more it should be clear to us that we hit the target well, and caused these people real distress
By the way, my father - or to any other administrator of the system, why is my response 78 still waiting for approval? It doesn't even have a single link.
Noam,
It is as he wrote "Math is not self-evident.", which, like Michael, I suspect that "." He is the same person
"Perhaps you also do not believe the witnesses who today are busy with the stories of the Holocaust?"
Such people are not able to deal with questions or requests for proof or any cultural discussion that requires an exchange of proofs and the use of logic. They will demonize the "enemy", slander and insult, distort and lie - and all this in order not to face the same questions, with the truth and to promote their faith - at any cost.
They take advantage of the fact that we, who believe in cultural debate, will not stoop to their level and expect to be able to respond to their insults.
They make insinuations (part of the demonization attempt) that we are less Jewish than them by nationality, and there are some who dare to imply that we are Holocaust deniers (there is no end to the shame of how the memory of the victims is exploited for their own interests...). People like us are the ones protecting the nation these days more than anyone else. The very progress and technological advantage that Israel is in maintains its existence. I can say about myself that I am involved in the field, and I am a less than minor screw of this system, which makes sure that we have an answer to the various threats towards us and towards the entire Jewish people.
To .
You wrote (68):
"It would not hurt those who advocate 'science' and as Israelis to check their identity from time to time, in order to remember their fate. We have learned from experience that no Jew, no matter who he is, can escape his fate, and the questioning of the soul - the heart of his identity."
Tell me, are you completely crazy?
Is your faith so fanatical as to be blind?
Do you want to convince us that all advocates of science deny our identity as Jews? as Israelis?
Do you want to convince us that there is a contradiction between science and our national identity?
You want to convince us that all advocates of science endanger my fate:
It's hard for me to remember a passage so short on the one hand, and so ugly and misleading on the other.
Please explain to me that I didn't understand you...
refresh,
Happily, or at least I was glad - no.
Stu-edu-kishkishu,
what is that supposed to mean? That I think in a scientific, logical and engineer's way of thinking? Am I thinking too sanely? I will choose to take your words as a compliment (that's how I prefer). Didn't we talk about the experience of personal insult when there is no way to contradict logical claims?
David of Nazareth Elite,
I cannot refer to the article you are talking about without you referring me to it. I personally dealt with metal armor in nanoparticles (called MMC - metal matrix composites) in the past. I can try to explain but there is a gap of background that you are missing. Basically, the field I'm talking about is that by inserting particles, the particles create both physically and by inserting an effort field into the mother matrix (the material they shield), a barrier to the movement of "dislocations" (again lack of background - basically this is defects that move in the material that have united to form a kind of front ) and this is one of the ways they bring about its hardening. The strength may increase in a very significant way - depending on the size of the armor, the shape of the armors and of course the material they are made of and the success of the adhesion between the armoring material and the matrix.
I can find you additional material on the subject that might simplify my words, but again - you need a background in materials engineering (again going back to what Noam mentioned).
The fiber optic part is not related at all (at least from what I understood from your question). The material is made of crystals (although glass is not completely crystalline). The degree of crystallinity order (long or short term) affects the properties of the material (in addition, there are several forms of crystal structures of which the material may be composed). In "regular" glass, the properties are poorer mainly because the method of growing the structure of the material is imperfect and full of defects (shorter-term order of the material - this is one of the problems). While in an optical fiber, one of the reasons for improving the properties is a more controlled growth of the structure (the production process is controlled - one of the methods is epitaxial growth) and therefore improved properties in certain areas. I can add more….
fresh:
I'm glad I made you think
I already thought we got rid of him.
to the anonymous user which is not self-evident and identifies itself (to mislead even more) as ".".
If you want to understand why you fell victim please read the following link:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,261,Introduction-to-the-Menlo-Park-CA-event,David-Cowan
Your aggression against Noam and against all the defenders of reason is nothing but your illness and the sooner you heal, the better off you and others will be.
All this is also true for all defenders of religion, regardless of who they are - even the moderates among them who claim (in clear contradiction to the facts) that there is no contradiction between religion and science and that religion does not impair our ability to understand reality.
By the way - contrary to your words, the information in the article does not (I repeat: it does not!) appear in the book by Chava Yablonka and Marion Lamb.
In relation to the article itself, to the field of epigenetics and to the book by Hava Yablonka, it is advisable to note the following:
The term "gene" was invented long before the discovery of DNA
At a certain point - with the discovery of DNA, many began to identify the DNA codes with the genes.
This significantly reduced the meaning of the word "gene" and is the only reason why the word "epigenetics" was needed.
This reality (which is just a reality of confusing words) is also the background to the librarian of Chava Yablonka and Marion Lamb (this name always makes me laugh because I imagine that when Marion Lamb had a son - everyone sang Marion had a little Lamb).
Chava Yavlonka and Marion Lamb do indeed write many good things in their book, but four things are jarring to me throughout.
One is their attempt to present the other scientists and Dawkins in particular as not recognizing the importance of "epi" genetics.
The second is the desperate attempt to include in the term "epigenetics" as many things as possible to the point of the pathetic presentation of the multiple occurrences of a DNA gene as an epigenetic phenomenon.
The third is emphasizing the (external and totally immaterial!) imagination of some of the revelations of "epigenetics" to Lamarckism (whose existence in the accepted meaning they deny themselves!).
The fourth is the attempt to reduce the importance of the genes only because of the complexity created by their interaction.
The first three points seem to stem from the need of the authors to emphasize their uniqueness - something that many scientists are bad at, unfortunately, and which is always used as a weapon by science detractors who always quote things out of context in their attempt to claim that "there are also modern scientists who disbelieve in the accepted conclusions of science".
The fourth point could be the most problematic of them all (I say this in conditional language because I don't think that others take these things too seriously) because the only operative conclusion that can emerge from it is that there is nothing to further investigate because we will never understand.
This point is particularly striking in that they do not notice the fact that Dawkins' presentation of the development of ideas as "memes" is infinitely more operative than the presentation they give of behavioral inheritance.
Well believe me that the field of occupation many times affects the way and way of view of that person.
Pine,
I recently read an article in YNET on the subject of the nano, and it was written there that when a substance is produced in nano dimensions, its physical properties change from end to end (it was described there, if my memory serves me correctly, that armor is as strong as a tank's but as thin as paper - maybe I got a little carried away, but you understand the direction I hope).
Can you expand on this? How does that happen? Why?
I once heard that glass as we normally know it, is full of microscopic cracks and that is why it is so fragile, but when it is produced as an optical fiber, then it has no cracks at all and then it is both flexible and much stronger than steel - is this the same direction? Is it related?
Regards and thanks in advance,
Uncle
Stu-edu-kishkishu,
Not that it matters so much for the discussion - I am engaged in research in the field of materials engineering and chemistry.
to "from ." –
You are absolutely right, sorry!
sincerely,
Uncle
1. You asked not to stir up controversy by way of an imperative, with an exclamation mark: even if your intention is correct, the mere request with an imperative tone provokes a response, with all due respect to the essence of your request.
2. Some people today call the extreme knowledge and knowledge devoid of the necessary internalization accordingly by the name: "regressive evolution".
to "from ." –
enough! Why stir up controversy again?
Respect and accept others and let them treat you as you are - live and let live!
We've had enough of the controversy and hate for nothing, let's get down to building and doing for the greater good of all of us together - you and I will call it God, they'll call it nature / science - what does it matter? The important thing is the essence, not the means and terminology!
Uncle
Religions mainly deal with the initiation of the soul.
Any education whatsoever, and any most wonderful 'discovery' that may be, if it falls into hands that are not mentally, morally and spiritually mature to engage in it and deal with it is found to be more dangerous than beneficial.
If so, it is not always the abundance of knowledge or the degrees of education that are the measure of the main thing, but the 'within' or the 'tool' as the person who uses it.
If there is interference from parties that are not always acceptable on this site, then the reason for this stems, among other things, from extreme manifestations of expression on this site which cause those 'secondary' to intervene here and draw your attention to the heart of the matter.
It will not hurt those who advocate 'science' and as Israelis to check their identity from time to time, in order to remember their fate.
We have learned from experience that no Jew, no matter who he is, can escape his fate, and the questioning of the soul - the heart of his identity.
both in Israel and in the Diaspora.
Another addition 🙂 –
Noam,
A discussion / debate like I have with you, even if I don't always like what you write to me and vice versa from your direction - this is a cultural and constructive debate like I would like to see here much more.
This is how people who respect each other behave and want to build something bigger than themselves with joint forces, and not grab each other's throats and spill blood just to see blood.
In short, pleasant, pleasant your walks have been very pleasant to me so far!
Uncle
extension:
Even if such a discussion will not benefit people like Roi in anything, and will even burden him to a certain extent, the general gain is still the addition of knowledge and the enrichment of entire communities that thirst for such knowledge and are not always accessible to it, except from places like the current one.
It is true that the articles themselves shed a lot of light, but many questions arise regarding all kinds of points and the discussion is the place to clarify them, and from such discussions, someone "expert" can read something and say "eureka" - wow, I didn't think of that! How did I not think of this until today? After all, the "expert" is also a human being.
Uncle
I really don't suffer from any frustrations. I gave myself and Roy only as an example to illustrate the idea in principle only, it is likely that even if it were to come to fruition I would not have too much time for it, what can I do there are also people who work occasionally 🙂 (no offense and no hidden intentions - just a joke !!!)
I will not get into an argument with you about whether my belief in Judaism is New Age or not, and the like, I no longer have the strength and desire for that.
I don't pretend that laymen like me will come and discover America to people like Roy, little one!
I'm just asserting that sometimes it is possible that a person with so-called "street wisdom" or a "criminal mind" (I don't know how exactly to translate the terminology into the relevant field, but I hope you understand my meaning), in any case - such a person can sometimes give a direction of thought that is not is under the street lamp (thinking outside the box, and only for the reason that he does not know the box) and thus he can add the tiny spice that is just missing so that the dish turns out perfect.
I agree about ending the debate about belief in God, let's agree to respect each other's faith and certainly not try to convert each other - this is disrespectful to me and not accepting the other person as he is, first class - and I mean both ways!
Best regards,
Uncle
David of Nazareth Elite,
Unfortunately, the days have passed forever, when a person without a higher education could contribute to the advancement of science, discover new mathematical proofs or discoveries in nuclear physics.
It is precisely the great success of science that causes feelings of frustration and antagonism on the part of laymen.
Understand, in order to develop some kind of new theory, you don't even need a bachelor's degree - it's enough to tell an amazing story, to claim that even science doesn't know everything, and already to reap admiration from certain people.
I don't like pouring cold water on your hopes of helping Roy reach new insights - but the chance for you is exactly zero - and not because you suffer from low intelligence - on the contrary, it is evident that this is not your problem.
The reason is simple and frustrating: the enormous amount of accumulated knowledge does not allow you to add anything without long and exhausting training
Regarding the discussion about the existence or non-existence of God - in my opinion this is a fundamental point like no other, which affects the method of gathering knowledge, but I think we have exhausted it.
Out of interest, what field do you work in Oren?
Read my response 55, doesn't this sort of thing suit you?
Let's put all the unnecessary and stupid arguments aside, and deal with the essence itself.
Let's complete essential knowledge of the subject itself, to each other and from there we will march forward together with combined forces, and not waste and consume our forces for nothing!
Come enrich me with nanotechnology, with epigenetics and I'll give you my feedback on this subject and that's how we'll both move forward together (both of us as an example!). What does it matter now if I believe in God or not to the subject of nano technology and the like?
Uncle
And again with great grace we returned to exactly the same endless and tiresome bickering. . .
Uncle,
You will notice that I wrote that the site is open to everyone, as I mentioned that in the past, beyond my involvement in science in my day-to-day life and being a constant reader of the site, I had a greater openness to the existence of God and Judaism in particular.
What's more, the site is intended for everyone to read, enjoy, learn, ask questions - but is not intended to be a platform for defamation and incitement. You will notice that in the responses of the website people who love science as a response to these slanders, they explain and present questions, and do not answer - at best there are evasions or unrelated "answers" (almost the same, but they do not differentiate). And in the worst case - and in the end it almost always comes to this, especially when there is nowhere else to escape - comes the part of defamation and slander.
What to do, every belief is a belief - it has no ability to deal with questions, because it not only does not have proofs, it also has no need for proofs, on the contrary - questions only interfere with the process of accepting their faith. Then they go against the questions that are presented (usually cultural), the ones they asked - and all this in an insulting or just unclear way - so that there is no longer a discussion, but simply an attempt by the site's readers to protect the "spirit" of the site and the scientific method itself.
Pine,
In addition, you, like anyone else, will always be welcome to enter "religious" websites (such as - http://www.roshy.org) and argue with them there about everything (with mutual respect and in a constructive way of course). On the contrary, they will welcome you there!
The fact that a person like me believes in God does not mean the fact that I cannot believe in science either (and enjoy this website very much), therefore I am banned from entering websites like the current one, and I and my ilk really become persona non grata here, this is really ridiculous, not to mention vulgar and insulting to hear Such a thick innuendo.
Best regards,
Uncle
Pine,
Please read my previous response carefully and note the subtleties. All in all, I wanted to sharpen a point and that is that Shahar believes (!) and does not know for sure, just as you yourself stated in your response (quote - "however the fact that I don't believe...").
Therefore we really have no argument at all! I agree with you completely, you burst into an open door.
Regarding - "If in the past I was involved and fond of science, and kept an open option for the existence of God, now I am almost convinced of his non-existence - and it's all thanks to you." - I don't know who it is thanks to you? It's a shame that you generalize in such a broad way and smear a very large public for not doing injustice.
I'm sorry that people (probably not so positive to say the least) made you dismiss the essence outright and all because of the means. The fact that there are all kinds of "representatives of God on earth, and who know his absolute will" does not necessarily mean that Judaism and God himself are invalid in themselves! I hope That you understand the difference I'm trying to clarify here.
Uncle
Uncle,
Shahar is known to believe in certain things, and not necessarily God, this is not the place to mention them.
What's more, the fact that I don't believe is not equal to the fact that I'm trying to convert you.
I do not enter the website of religious people, people of other faiths, spiritual people, "New Agers", who believe in conspiracies and UFOs and preach to them - this is called a conversion attempt. Worse than that - shows disrespect to the readership of that website.
But that's exactly what these people feel comfortable doing here. They justify themselves because they are sure that their belief is an unquestionable truth and are not required to prove it, so they can impose or preach on a website that is not intended for that audience.
This site is intended for everyone to read and enjoy. It also enables and encourages cultural discussion in what is known as articles - scientific discussion and the expansion of knowledge. Different types of people take advantage of the fact that it is science and the fact that the site (like any other scientific method) advocates openness and discussions to turn it into a stage for conversion attempts, at best, at worst - attempts to incite, slander, insult. If you are interested in promoting your faith, or spreading it to many - this is not the right forum. There are many other sites dedicated to this. For the same reason I mentioned in the first paragraph - even if it doesn't seem that way to you, you are trying to impose your knowledge and belief on me and the audience of readers who come to study science.
I can speak for myself, that since I came across comments on the site that discredit and attempt by force or in the form of brainwashing, to mock science, articles, and people who love science, I have only become more secular. In fact, I have already passed the secular field and have reached more and more total atheism. You don't understand that it is precisely civilized people who come across such language and expression and disdain on sites intended for science that drives them away from the faith. I don't want to be like you. If in the past I was involved and fond of science, and kept an open option for the existence of God, now I am almost convinced of his non-existence - and it's all thanks to you.
Dawn,
I get everything! But just a small correction - "A person without faith in God must be mature in his soul and know what to do we are here in our hands and no one is watching over us and there is no afterlife either."
A person without faith in God must be mature in his soul and believe that whatever he does. . .!
Long live the little difference.
You also believe, albeit in something different, but believe! You also don't have proof that there is no God, you don't know that for sure, so please be precise, because as soon as you state knowing that there is no God, you already disqualify me and my faith, and in doing so you do exactly what you hate so much - "convert my faith and return Another lost sheep."
Best regards,
Uncle
Lanaam, Roy and the whole company
I read all the responses here to this article as to other articles in the same field, and I really can't understand why the hell all sides of the debate (those who believe only in God, those who believe in God and science, and those who believe only in science), waste so much vital energy, on exhausting and endless arguments that at the end of Nothing brings any benefit - nada, gornisht, zero, absolute zero!
Enough ! ! ! Come on, enough of that! You finish each other's shape, and for what? What do you get out of it?
Why can't this amazing and important site be turned into a place where laymen alongside experts will violate each other's opinion? After all, even those who are not experts (like me, for example, and in complete contrast to people likeRoey Tsezana), have sparks and enlightenment here and there, these can, here on the site, reach during the discussions those experts who have the tools to turn those insights into practical things for the benefit of all humanity - and that's what Which we all want here, don't we? To make our little world a better place for us and our children to have fun living here now and in the future!
Roy, I'm sure that with all your knowledge and expertise in front of him I stand humbly (since I don't even come close to your ankles, in your field), even I, as a layman, can sometimes contribute to you another angle of view that you didn't see and didn't even think about. Who knows how many things are missed that way? Why let it get lost in a stupid and fruitless debate on questions like - is there a God or not?, is evolution true or not? - These are pointless debates, which only divert all the tremendous forces I see here in wasted directions instead of really dealing with the essence of the issues. There is not a single relevant comment here that deals with the essence of the issue, it is simply unbelievable, everyone here has really gone off the rails!
Roy, if, for example, my immature and initial idea brings you world fame at the end of the process thanks to a discovery that will change the future of humanity for the better, then that will also be my net profit! My goal is for my children to have a better world and if the invention was registered to you and not to me it is still much better if I had not told you my ideas and you had not developed it and it would have remained forever as an abstract theory in the realm of imagination. It is very possible and it is almost certain that the level of my formulation (for example) regarding my ideas and insights will be at the level of street language for you, but I believe that if you examine things in their essence, beyond the accepted formulations in the field, and put aside for a moment, the "rules of ceremony" and the accepted procedure, we can all benefit Lots.
It is also very likely that many ideas will be really stupid and a waste of time, but among them the next "big idea" can be hidden, and only because of it everything is worth it, in addition of course to the good spirit that will develop from such interpersonal conduct.
Say I'm a romantic fool who lives in a dream world of utopia? So tell me! I really don't care. I really believe that if you really want, then anything is possible! Everything in life and every place (including this site) is the sum total of what the people involved in it pour into it - heaven or hell, you decide. Which do I prefer? You already understood by yourself, I suppose.
I know I've repeated myself here several times and for that I apologize, it just hurts me terribly to see all the nonsense (I'm not being cynical about it!).
I don't want anyone to leave (unlike some of the commenters here), everyone is important and everyone can contribute, from small to large! You just have to want it and start acting out of free love (I say this in all seriousness!).
Best regards,
Uncle
Why did we run out?
Until there is a normal flame here? 🙂
I will try to be serious.
For a really long time I asked myself whether or not there is a God. I went to reception, I went to philosophy, I went to my grandfather... I went and I didn't come back with a clear answer.
Those who say there is a God are "believers" that there is a God. There is not a single proof that there is such a thing.
Those who claim that there are no "believers" that there is no such thing because you will prove a collection of circular arguments with logic.
If that is the case and those who delve deeper than me did not reach an overwhelming answer and you can always say that if you can't prove it doesn't mean there isn't. But my "belief" is that there is no witness to prove otherwise.
I have no problem with anyone's faith and I respect my roots as a Jew but Rabak don't try to force your beliefs on me. Respecting each other is fine, but you often cross boundaries and have no respect for my atheistic faith. In fact your mission is to convert my faith and bring back another lost sheep. And here is my problem with you.
Science lovers will continue to enjoy the fruits of the scientists' hard work and those who adhere to ancient beliefs will continue to see justification for their faith everywhere, but man does need spiritual comfort and he does need support for a difficult day. And science cannot provide an answer to that.
A person without faith in God must be mature in his soul and know what to do, we are here in our hands and no one is watching over us and there is no afterlife.
We have to be and be here and now because there is no other way.
think about it.
We used next and the next article.
For Oren, statistically speaking, where is there a greater chance of finding a defect that will later testify to the conclusion that it is not advisable to have marriages between members of the same family, first degree or second degree. Apparently, the reason for the marriage in the second degree was not motivated by a newborn but out of a sectarian consideration, preventing mixed marriages. This is just an example of things that can be learned from other religions, right, not necessarily from the Jewish religion. Despite this and another discussion, in my opinion, our religion is the true religion.
In general, nothing should be hidden in order for it to be discovered and given scientific validity. What is hidden from science, for example, has been visible in religion for thousands of years.
There are plenty of examples other than consanguineous marriages. It's not about the amount of discoveries, but your importance to religion in general and to science.
not understandable at all,
Why don't you try to make an effort and respond at a reasonable level?
You are mostly embarrassing yourself with the substandard of your responses.
Try to cope - I ** believe ** you can (although I have no proof)
Ali=on him*
by not obvious,
I am tempted to ask you to close the site in light of the slander you bring to the science seekers on the site. If a person like you who is so "connected to the ancient scientists" does not find his place here, why are we the commenters who are lovers of "modern" science (there is only one type of science, but we will not argue about it - obviously you are unable to grasp it or do not want to), the writers of the articles On the site and the site editors and site founders should leave? The same articles that are cited are based on "modern science" as you describe and slander.
I ask those who do not feel comfortable in the face of the "enlightened science" that they are forced to view the site and see that there are "other people defending" me, to leave. If you are not comfortable there are many sites that are more than happy to accept people like you.
And again, I ask you to make an effort and not descend to the level of slander. This is not the right site for that.
Stu-edu-kishkishu,
Because of the claim that the "law" forbidding consanguineous marriage came from the Torah, I did a search - yes, also on religious websites. and hence came:
"The Torah forbade marriage of first degree relatives such as mother and son, father and daughter, brother and sister. However, it did not prohibit second-degree relatives such as cousins, nieces or nephews, etc. The sages, not only did not make it worse, but even determined that it is desirable to marry such relatives! "The issue is his sister's daughter to whom the scripture says, "Then you shall call, and the Lord will answer, and he will say, 'Here I am'" (see Yavmot XNUMX:XNUMX). According to Maimonides, this is also a commandment from Durbanan "and a commandment of the sages that a man should marry his sister's daughter, and the same is the case for his brother's daughter, which is said in your flesh, do not ignore it"
"
This only shows that the Torah may have mentioned the imprisonment of married relatives, but to a certain extent, but did not go further than that and did not really learn the consequences.
And in addition, the Hindu religion, which is older than Judaism, is also against consanguineous marriages, so how do you explain it? (I searched for this as well) The prohibition existed in many civilizations besides Judaism, so the origin of the prohibition is not from Judaism. The ban emerged almost universally.
Pine.
Shame on you and all the deniers of God's soul wherever they are.
Today, we are doubly saddened for the devil's advocates, like you, who are not familiar with the precious dynasties recorded and flowing in our country for thousands upon thousands of generations: told by word of mouth and in the records of the ages.
According to your attacks and your responses on this site, it is evident that you and your friend have not the faintest idea of their content and essence. You present yourselves as so-called enlightened scientists. You obscure and humiliate the ancient and current scientists, whose faith was whatever their strength was, even to the proofs that were required then according to their time.
It is not obvious that you are here.
Your breathing is not taken for granted.
And life and death in the hand of the tongue.
There are science sites abroad as well. If you are not identified with your faith with this and your parents and the rest of the spirit we have left from our beacons - which is in our own country.
You are not welcome here either.
go
Stu-edu-kishkishu
I feel like I can't make my position clear.
Are Maimonides' discoveries in medicine originating from information hidden in the Bible?
There is no debate that there are and have been religious scientists!
Regarding close marriages - maybe you're on to something...
But what is this compared to hundreds, thousands, millions of discoveries of science?
by not obvious,
With your permission, a few clarifying questions:
What is this speech in plural language? How many people do you represent?
What evidence are you asking for? Evidence why?
I understand that my comments cause you some distress, because otherwise, you wouldn't have bothered to try to hurt me personally instead of dealing with my incredibly simple arguments.
Such responses strengthen my hand and make me realize that my arguments are indeed not easy to refute.
Additionally,
Why are you afraid of proof?
Even the Holocaust has evidence beyond recorded and written testimonies. And it is good that it is so, because a day will come and there will be no survivors and it is good to have more proofs to pass on to the future deniers.
And there is a difference between evidence of a catastrophe that happened and investigating a scientific theory about the physics according to which our universe works. Proofs in this case are not "evidence", but experimental methods that can be repeated and explained physically, mathematically and with which additional phenomena can be predicted and more.
You shamefully exploit and reject the holocaust, which everyone on the site believes in for your own interests, and they are slandering a person (as if he denies the holocaust - shame on you) and spreading your belief. Because it is clear that if by way of logic, and there are no proofs, people of your type (those who do not believe or do not understand the scientific method) are exactly the people who would descend to this level to achieve their goal.
And again, shame on you, especially these days, for exploiting the memory of Holocaust victims and survivors in such a repulsive way....
"from not self-evident",
The very fact that you don't identify with the name and suddenly decide to enter the discussion and insult one of the oldest and most respected forum members on the site teaches several things.
1. You're a troll
2. You are not advocating science, because you are actually calling one of the people who defend science and contribute more to the discussions on the site to go.
3. He contributes more to the site and education than you probably contribute or will contribute by preventing people like you and other spiritual people from delaying the spread of science and research methods - and teaching themselves to logically and scientifically question their beliefs and how they stand by it.
The very fact that he is able to ask himself, like me and others, questions and come to conclusions about our beliefs and a more complete understanding of science, shows that we are more open-minded than you (but without exaggerating and thinking that inventing nonsense is considered open-minded, see entry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFO6ZhUW38w#
)
4. Unless you got confused and mistakenly addressed Noam, and perhaps you meant one of the trolls with whom he is arguing, I do not understand the request - "bring proof", because that is what he does all the time and it is what he equally demands from others.
5. I ask you to leave the site if you know nothing but to insult and slander people.
Noam.
There are science websites abroad as well. Why did you choose to enter the discussions on this website?
What is your purpose - your desire and why exactly here.
How are you useful to us?
Who and what are you really?
Bring evidence (you don't believe in grandmother's stories, do you? Maybe you also don't believe in the people of the testimony who today are busy with the stories of the Holocaust?)
By the way, regarding your worldview, Noam, I would be happy to elaborate.
Certainly. For example, read a little about Maimonides' medicine and you will see that things that were recommended in the Torah later received a factual scientific basis for them.
Another example: prohibition of marriage between family members. Registered in the Torah, received scientific validation.
Regarding those researchers, I agree that it is an indirect connection, but personally I have not read Mendel's book to tell you for sure what previous religious idea may have influenced him and helped him understand what he understood. What I am here to show is that there is a direct effect and an indirect effect. And in order to contradict another sentence along the lines of "You admit that nothing came of religion itself".
open up, open up people.
Uncle,
I deliberately did not enter into litigation in details. The difference in our world view is not related to this or that detail, it is much broader and general.
Stu-edu-kishkishu
Note, I did not claim that a scientist cannot be religious, I claimed that scientific discoveries never arose from religion
Mendel did not discover laws of heredity ** because he was religious **, and did not find any clue from religion that led him to his discoveries.
Einstein was not religious, but used the coins as language and nothing else, which is convenient for certain people to hold on to as proof of his being a religious person. In any case, the theory of relativity, as well as his other wonderful discoveries, did not arise from religion under any circumstances.
Ditto for Leibovich.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schroeder
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/
To watch his lectures -
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=iw&q=gerald+schroeder&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=R7btSZi_H4eLsAbWjrnxDg&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#
Noam Hello,
You said - "Pay attention to what low level of expression and hatred accompanied by personal attacks, people are willing to descend." . .”
Remember our debates in the article - "Literary Critic or Just a Fan"?
Do you also mean in the sentence above, Michael (formerly Michael R)?
By the way, it's a shame that then you dismissed Gerald Schroeder (I put links there) as a rabbinical rabbi and didn't address the matter at all.
It was also incredibly convenient for you to ignore my reference there to the epigenetic phenomenon (which this article discusses).
It makes me wonder how many are confused about the purity of the debate about you, could it be that you are the one who is arguing and avoiding a real confrontation?
I am not reopening this debate, he is too much of a consumer of energy that is wasted for nothing, each man will live by his faith!
Just one request for me - don't dismiss my faith as rabbinic pepperoni or opium for the masses and other insulting references ("lies" according to Michael's article). Respect me to the extent equal to the great respect and esteem that I feel for you (and I say this in all seriousness, without any cynicism or hypocrisy!).
Best regards,
Uncle
Regarding Albert Einstein's faith, this is a controversial issue. There is a book about it.
For example in biology and genetics - Mendel
In physics - Albert Einstein who was a religious Jew and a believer and claimed that in order to understand God one must study the laws of nature.
Regarding Leibovitz there is a field in biology called specificity, he discovered that the enzyme maltose breaks down alpha maltose and not beta maltose.
Stu-edu-kishkishu
What scientific fields grew out of religion?
Can you give examples?
Leibovitz was indeed a wise Jew, I read a lot of his books, but I don't remember that he promoted science with the help of his religious concept. Here too, bless you for bringing examples
Where did you come to the conclusion that nothing came of religion, just now I told you that most scientific fields grew out of religion, took ideas from it and grew out of it as well. Many fields started with theories that did not have a concrete scientific basis and were only an imaginary hypothesis. Many religious people, not only in Christianity but also in Judaism, used their religious concept to develop complex ideas, for example Isaiah Leibovitz. Pine rope, you fix yourself.
First of all, you admit that nothing came of religion itself. You claim that religion has always asked questions in an attempt to overturn scientific theories and thus actually contributed to the improvement of existing theories, by constantly doubting the scientific theories that contradict their faith.
There is something to it, but not really if at all. Because part of the scientific method, especially in the last hundred years, has been constant doubting of theories and attacking them from different directions. So today nothing comes from religion, and the urge to improve theories also comes from science itself.
Now discussions that are taking place in the established Christian religion are about which parts it is willing to accept from science without this completely crushing the faith, but without remaining too far behind the times, this is a problem of religion. It does not affect the direction and progress of science at all and is only a matter for the bureaucracy of the established religion.
Revised version (what to do late)
Oren will be surprised, but many theories were developed and perfected because of conflicting religious theories that created dilemmas and were a kind of catalyst for their solution and the development of scientific theories. In view of Darwin's theory of evolution and even more so the theory of the neo-Darwinist-Dawkins, not long ago there was a televised confrontation between the ideas of the church and the theory of evolution. And believe me it wasn't just for FUN :).
cheers
Oren will be surprised, but a great many theories developed and were perfected because of conflicting religious theories that brought dilemmas and were a kind of catalyst for their solution and development. And in view of Darwin's theories of evolution and even more the theory of the neo-Darwinist Dawkins, not long ago a televised confrontation was held between the ideas of the church and the theory of evolution. And believe me it wasn't just for FUN :).
cheers
Yes I know that. But sometimes, especially after particularly "challenging" responses (from people who rhyme with "Moggin" for example...), and especially after a sequence of them, it's hard for me to resist the temptation and my patience disappears.
I do appreciate the people on the site who have the strength and patience to face such challenges.
Like you, in my head I believe what you said and really try to deal with websites like this. But sometimes the fuse...
I have to agree with Noam's opinion. A world view does not change in one moment, but from a deep thought. I would like to believe that we are some kind of catalysts. We can make people better understand the arguments of secularism and science. The vast majority who read the site remain silent, but make no mistake - there are many people who read the comments and are impressed by them one way or another.
In the end, the most important thing is not to get upset (as hard as it is), and to answer point-by-point and to the point the claims made against science and scientific theories.
------
my new blog - Another science
Pine,
Your views are just too high.
There is no chance that any of the above will announce an agreement with a committee whose worldview has collapsed in the face of our convincing arguments.
At the same time, don't underestimate our power to influence. I am sure that consistent and logical arguments will slowly increase the confidence of at least some believers.
In addition to this, there are quite a few passive readers, who may not yet have decided what their opinion is, and the discussions on the site help them formulate a world view in a more enlightened direction.
Stu-edu-kishkishu,
"Regarding religion, any perspective that brings a different and refuting point of view (and not only with scientific tools) can only add" - where exactly did you come to this conclusion? If I were to say that, in my opinion, the potential to become a spaghetti waterfall lies in the genes of each of us - how exactly would that contribute to the development of science and humanity?
The only way (yes, the rust) that led to great achievements of mankind in science was done exclusively by scientific method. Spiritual gibberish and other nonsense cannot be a substitute for, nor contribute to, any scientific research. On the contrary, they only hinder and interfere and cause a significant portion of the population to become just as ignorant and uneducated as those who came up with this nonsense. Think about what achievements we would reach if the same amount of investment that people in the world invest today in "spiritual connection" of any kind, or chasing after false charms and conspiracies, prayers and more - if all the time and efforts for this were invested in education and research what would we achieve?
and Noam,
Sometimes a troll is just a troll. He won't learn as much if he doesn't listen.
But you're right, maybe you should persevere and try. For the very few among them who may convince themselves that their belief is rational and indeed start a serious discussion, there is a chance that we will reach a real discussion and a point where they will no longer have anything to say or ask. But even then... they will start dodging and other techniques that we know quite well. After all, they are so convinced that they are "scientists" and the spiritual method is as logical as any other scientific method.
In the entire history of the website, can you testify to a single discussion that developed into an "eye-opener" of this type of people? I did attend quite a few such discussions on the site in my short time here and the most we managed to achieve was to tire them out, but usually my powers run out much earlier... Maybe it's because their powers come from some "superior power" that gives them the ability to argue in complete blindness, the likes of which are only seen in pandemonium .
An important article for genetics!
viva le flying spaghetti monster!
Lanaam,
People do worse things when their worldview is threatened. They are even willing to kill for it. Apropos of Avner's "base" (shaky) from response number 2.
I'm actually interested in the study that examined how puppies that receive loving maternal care develop unique methylation patterns that are passed down through the generations.
It has long been proven that biology is not a single characteristic of behavior, it is not only dependent on heredity but also dependent on the environment.
Regarding religion, any perspective that brings a different and refuting point of view (and not only with scientific tools) can only add
Regarding the base that was discovered, well done, it's just a shame for all the research that has been done so far :)
A sad day for everyone.
Pine,
To be honest, I think that from an anthropological point of view there are quite fascinating phenomena here. Notice to what low level of expression and hatred accompanied by personal attacks, people are willing to descend, when they feel that their worldview is in danger, but fail to deal with it intellectually.
Inferior statements of this kind, show how disturbed these trolls are, and not only them - also fair and honest ones of all kinds - from simple and logical arguments, which cause them to lose their tempers.
I assume and hope that, after an initial loss of temper, my words will cause an examination and rethinking of superstitions and grandmother's stories.
Roy,
The 'discovery and revolution' that you bring up in your article was published in a book on genetic, epigenetic, behavioral and symbolic inheritance in the history of life by two veteran researchers in the field, Chava Yavlonka and Marion Gelamb, published by Oved-Afikim Mada, entitled: "Evolution in Four Dimensions". Have you come across it, have you looked And did you read it by chance?
It seems to me that all the research and extended discussion they conducted and published will interest you as well.
Noam,
do not feed the troll…
Anonymous and cowardly profanity is one of the most disgusting things.
It obviously indicates the lack of intellectual ability to deal with simple and factual arguments.
What kind of zoological creep does this thing you're defending represent.
In the meantime, we have not seen any concrete reference to your articles on his part.
Roy,
Thanks, intend to continue…
This article defames the name of the flying spaghetti monster!
You are all infidels whose religion is that the flying spaghetti monster will turn you into pirates!
It sounds like a serious scientific oversight, one that hasn't been addressed before.
Now curricula need to be fixed 🙂 and a lot of time was spent on finding explanations based on shaky knowledge. alas
So the race has already begun to find the Patna that can be built on the new find?
So far I really enjoy Noam's responses, and the stumbling block he puts in front of anyone who wants to make a claim without giving it a good reason.
I can only hope that he will continue to comment on the science site for a long time.
------
my new blog - Another science
A place full of perception will be reserved for you in one of the abysses, leave the knowledge.
You are a pseudo-scientific hypocrite who hitches a ride on this site with all kinds of lame excuses.
Appears as a lurking prey whenever someone expresses their opinion or belief.
Get off all of us.
One would think that they discovered another letter in the genetic code, but it's just an existing base to which another group is attached. The title is confusing.
The religious debates are not exhausted at all.
They express an abysmal disagreement in the world view, and in my opinion one of the most important roles of the science site is to give expression to the scientific view.
The religious concept (of all religions) receives endless stages and budgets, therefore it is good to have a modest place like this website that even somewhat balances the situation.
Does every discussion here turn into a religion versus science discussion? It's just ridiculous.
And in general, what are so many religious people doing on a scientific website?, let them go to the websites of their rabbinic court.
Thank you very much for revealing to me another detail about the world I live in 🙂
The debates on religion have become very fraught. Please do it elsewhere.
And regarding the interesting article - thank you for the speed of publishing and bringing real news to the Israeli reader. It is great and excellent to bring the newest science available at the same time as bringing principled discussions in the sciences.
A methyl (CH3) on the cytosine will stop translation
Its oxidation to hydroxy (COH2) will change the translation stop
I wonder what the difference is between demethylation and hydroxylation. On the face of it, they supposedly do the same thing. Fascinating field.
Thanks to Mr. Cezana
You have a basic lack of understanding.
Most of the visitors to the site are not trolls at all,
Because science enthusiasts some of whom (mercifully) are people
With an affinity for spirit and religion (on one level or another).
To tell the truth then the constant debate
The site is mostly between science enthusiasts and science enthusiasts,
Or in other words an internal debate in science.
I know it's easier to present this as an argument between
Science and religion - this is always easier to see
the other side as foreign, strange and distant but actually
Both sides usually belong to the same side only
With a different worldview and it's just funny.
The world is beautiful, but I don't need God to appreciate the beauty and complexity of the universe.
Enough with the religious trolls.
Avner, you forgot one exclamation mark, how will you convince with so few exclamation marks?
The base that is being ignored has been known to humanity for several thousand years.
It is not true that everyone ignores him. Ignored only those whose poor areas show the amazing beauty of nature and its tremendous complexity!!!!
The base is called God.
The newer, as yet undiscovered base seems to be still being ignored.