Only 515 students were tested in the last year on the evolution in matriculation in biology

137 תגובות

1. As a veteran biology teacher, it is clear to me that evolution is taught - certainly in high school. Every major student must understand evolution as a basis for the matriculation exam in core subjects.
   Regarding "special" populations, I know for sure that many religious schools do teach evolution with the understanding that the relationship between the Torah and evolution must be clarified. This relationship is not contradictory at all. If a contradiction appears, it is because our scientific understanding is still not sufficiently developed, and at the same time the challenge posed by science requires further development of the Torah understanding. But on the face of it, the story of creation parallels the stages of evolution, and the concept that the world evolves is one of the cornerstones of the Jewish faith. And that is why schools where Judaism is taught at a high level are happy to expand and deepen evolution studies.
   Numerically, the numbers do not indicate "weak populations" but rather the fact that the majority of the public in Israel is not interested in delving into the subject, certainly when it comes at the expense of teaching genetics or microbiology, etc. The subject of evolution may be very important as a philosophical foundation, but it is impossible for a student who has graduated from a biology major today not to know in depth, for example, genetics. There are other subjects that are hardly taught such as neuroscience (regulation and coordination) because many teachers do not have an appropriate knowledge infrastructure.
   As someone who has been involved in teacher training for many years, I can say that today teachers do not have the infrastructure in the subjects of ecology, botany and zoology necessary for the subject of evolution, but also lack many in physiology and the like.
   That's why I suggest not to be drawn into populist headlines.

2. The inclusion of evolution in the compulsory curriculum in schools is much more important than the inclusion of other topics mentioned by Eric:
   The theory of relativity is indeed an important strand in physics, and it is a theory that is amazing in its beauty, but it is not required by the majority of people in order to understand the processes of nature around them. For most people it is enough to understand Newton's laws which are in the curriculum. If I wanted to find an equivalent in physics for the matter of evolution, I might have chosen Newton's laws.
   Quantum theory - as above.
   The types of living creatures - this is an even less important topic, and like it there are thousands of other topics that are not studied.

   Evolution compared to the above examples is the basic and only theory that explains the presence of many differences in life in nature and how life developed. Not knowing the theory of evolution is like not knowing how babies are born (and this is not Hasida).
   There is one subject of the same importance as evolution that is also not studied at all, which is the Big Bang event and the evolution of the universe that followed it. This too was not studied because of the "sensitivity of certain populations".

   Regarding the number of examinees per year versus the number of evolution students, I didn't understand the numbers either. Since evolution is only taught in the XNUMXth grade, why the comparison to the total number of students in Israel? And I also ask myself, as Eric asked, how there are those who study evolution and are not tested.

   Regarding those who claim that evolution should not be taught or that this Torah is unproven or incorrect - these are probably just religious people who cannot accept that there is a scientific Torah that better explains the development of life than the book of Genesis chapter XNUMX. It doesn't matter if you prove to them with signs and wonders that their belief is incorrect, they will continue to hold their opinion, so it's a shame to try to argue with them.

3. I don't think that evolution should be studied when many of the fields of science are not studied.
   For example, the theory of relativity is only studied in matriculation in physics and even then only a little.
   Quantums are not taught in physics either (at least when I graduated)

   in biology (for those who do not major)
   The structure of the cell is not taught, or only some of the components are taught.
   The types of living things are not studied (for example the division between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is not studied to the best of my memory).
   I guess there are more examples. Is evolution really important? (By the way, it's funny to justify not studying population sensitivity when biblical criticism is studied).

   By the way, what is this saying that biology students study but are not tested, since when do you study something in the university that is known in advance that will not be on the exam (except for what is included in the focus)?

4. Nir

   As far as I know, the consensus today among researchers is that apes and us share a common ancestor
   That is, the monkeys are not our parents but our brothers / cousins
   And for some of us it even seems...

5. I'm interested in evolution, the claim that man descends from ape, but where did the ape come from?
   Couldn't it be that the origin of man comes at the same time as monkeys?! As if there is an evolution of the monkeys that evolved from something
   So why do you think that humans evolved from monkeys? Because they are genetically close to us?
   Perhaps as the apes evolved, the evolution of humans evolved at the same time and not necessarily from the apes
   Can anyone prove otherwise?

6. "If there are entities capable of creating copies of themselves (replicants),
   And if the replication process may, with a certain probability, cause slight differences between the characteristics of the replication source and those of the replicated copy,
   And if there is a struggle for resources in which success increases the chances of reproduction,
   And if the features of the replicator affect his success in the fight…..
   After all, evolution will begin."
   And if evolution took place, then all the above conditions were met. Who took care of them?
   😉

7. Joseph:
   I spoke of incredible ignorance because your words seemed defiant to me.
   It is a fact that others have called you a "star reader".
   I did not read all the comments and this response created the same feeling in me as it did in others.
   By the way, I really find it quite amazing that people don't bring up this link whenever someone talks about evolution experiments.
   I also find it quite amazing that people always demand experiments.
   What is important are predictions and observations. The experiment is not always possible, when it comes to the historical sciences.
   Can you think of an experiment in cosmology?
   Prediction and observation exist in both evolution and cosmology.
   There are experiments only in evolution.
   The reason why many people find it appropriate to try to "crucify" evolution is clear and the question about experiments is part of a fairly regular pattern that recurs here on the site - a pattern that usually characterizes people who are not at all interested in the answer.
   So maybe because your responses followed the pattern you caught a little more fire than you deserved.
   On the other hand, I don't know why the fact that I spoke of incredible ignorance bothered you more than the nickname "star reader" on which you did not respond.

   In the field of observations, of course, we have countless confirmations of evolution - whether it is the adaptation of viruses, bacteria and larger pests to antibiotics and pesticides, whether it is the success of cultivating new varieties of animals and plants by directing natural selection, whether it is stories like this one

   https://www.hayadan.org.il/lizard-fast-evolution-230408/

   Whether this is genetic evidence such as this amazing story:

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMj_45epINM&feature=player_embedded

   Whether these are controlled experiments like the ones described here:

   http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

   And whether it's the massive fossil evidence.

   And yet people ask about experiments in evolution.
   Why is this even important in light of all the above findings?

   Add to that the fact that evolution is just a mathematical theory based on a small number of assumptions that are really simple to test.

   The mathematical theory is - broadly this:
   If there are entities capable of making copies of themselves (replicators),
   And if the replication process may, with a certain probability, cause slight differences between the characteristics of the replication source and those of the replicated copy,
   And if there is a struggle for resources in which success increases the chances of reproduction,
   And if the features of the replicator affect his success in the fight…..

   After all, there will be an evolution.

   that's it.

   The subject was given a very wide mathematical opening.
   Here is one of the representatives of this development:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_equation

   Because of this - it is easy to see evolution working in many situations that have nothing to do with biology.

   It's not just that technologies like evolutionary algorithms were developed:

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

   It is also not a coincidence that technologies of this type have also yielded many fruits, including:

   https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-of-an-efficient-search-algorithm-bgu-2907079
   http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3566594,00.html
   http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000292
   http://www.haaretz.co.il/magazine/1.1625701
   http://ccsl.mae.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/Science09_Schmidt.pdf

   The existence of the conditions under which mathematics guarantees that evolution will occur is very easy to check and they do exist - whether you choose the genome as a replicator or whether you choose a living being as a replicator.

   That is why mathematics also guarantees us the existence of evolution.

   Contrary to the theory of relativity, which by interpretation predicts wrong predictions in certain situations (there are calculations whose result is infinite and therefore we know that an extension of the Torah is required to deal with very small distances) - evolution does not give wrong predictions.

   Even this fact does not prevent people from coming back and attacking evolution non-stop, non-stop, non-stop,
   It's not a business, it's not a business, it's not a business.

   The only reason for this saga is the dishonest agenda of the merchants of religion.

8. Michael

   Thanks for the reference to the article, and even more thanks for the grades you gave me.

   Since I am, as you defined, an amazing guy (albeit "ignorant") I would appreciate it if you could show me where in my comments I denied evolution being the "correct" answer (within the limitations of human language) to the question of the origin of species

   I thought I wrote 2 completely different things
   A- There is a little more ranting here than it deserves
   B - My question was about the internal division of fields of knowledge. What interested me was the question "what is knowledge, what is research, what is science". All are worthy, all are true, but "science" is only part of the world of thinking, education, answers, exploring the world, etc.

   By the way, this is the reason why when the discussion degenerated into a debate about the "correctness" of evolution I withdrew my hand from it

   (hint - an apology does not harm [usually {very few exceptions} the honor of the apologist)

9. Daniel and Yossi (I would also say Hingoe, but he is a hopeless troll, so I don't say that):
   The incredible ignorance you demonstrate can perhaps be cured with this article:
   https://www.hayadan.org.il/far-beyond-reasonable-doubt-1912103/

   I'm quite surprised that in the flood of answers you received, this one didn't appear either.

   Safkan
   If the education system allows itself to pollute the minds of all students through the biblical story of creation - it must also give them a way to return to logic and teach evolution.

   Source:
   You say "the theory of evolution itself has been disproved by most scientists"
   This is a clear lie.
   Are you the source on which this lie is based?
   The truth is that the vast majority of biology people sign the following statement:
   http://www.interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=6150
   And you still allow yourself to say "respect for me belongs only to the truth."

10. A. If it is true that there is no possibility of the formation of everything we see around us without a planner, then the question of why an embryo has a tail is meaningless because even though I do not understand why that planner created a tail for an embryo or degenerated eyes or just a world full of defects from everywhere there is no possibility of getting along without him whatever the questions about him will be . Therefore, this eliminates part of the discussion that took place here.
    B. The question whether "evolution yes or no" is not so much related to the religious issue that has been mentioned here many times, because even if the possibility of the creation of the universe by itself is ruled out, this still does not prove that the Creator has any demands from us (moral or religious), just as it is agreed - even on the believers - that he has no such demands from animals.
    On the other hand, if there is proof that it has any requirements (let's say direct or indirect proof of the giving of the Torah, etc.) then in this case too there is almost no religious significance to the theory of evolution.

11. lion.
    Thanks for the article. I didn't know the site existed for so many years.
    But I believe you also see the problem of evolution: it is too slow. Properties that were useful 20,000 years ago, today only cause harm.

    I believe that it will not be far off today that genetic engineering, combined with the laws of free law, will allow us to choose traits for our offspring as we wish. We will all be beautiful, talented, and healthy. (You are R.H. and I'm already here, I'm talking about ordinary, mortal people).

    Will we stop fighting each other? Will we be happier? Is it possible to isolate and clone the trait of happiness? I believe not. The devil, or in his scientific name "the second law of thermodynamics", sends his long horns to harass us even through millions of years of evolution.

    And so, if we go back to the Beatles, we don't need evolution here - we need a revolution!

12. xianghua

    1. "There are men who breastfeed in emergency situations" either you are crazy or you don't believe in yourself at all.
    Breastfeeding men?! The male body does not have the system needed to produce milk, do you have any evidence that the male body can develop a system that produces milk? This is a crazy idea that I didn't believe I would hear, maybe men can also get pregnant in emergency situations?

    2. The metaphor with the car sticker does not catch on at all, because of course the sticker has a use! Every detail in the product created by intelligent planning has a use, because if it had no use at all, there was probably no reason to put it in from the beginning.
    I didn't read the description of the "source" and I don't know which sticker he specifically means, but the sticker of course has a purpose, the sticker that shows the car company has a purpose - to show which company made the car, the model sticker - to show the name of the model of the car... etc. Of course the stickers have a purpose, the fact that they don't participate directly in driving the car doesn't mean they don't have a purpose... just like you would say that the roof of the car has no purpose or handles.

    3. The puzzling view you presented (it's not so much a view but more of a claim but whatever) is actually the idea: if there is any product, that means an intelligent planner had to intervene, if I'm not mistaken this is actually the idea you presented, but it is a wrong idea.
    Imagine a billion monkeys sitting at a billion typewriters and typing random letters for a billion years. Will one of them get a trial? Is there an episode? Is there a whole book out? Was there intelligent planning here? Of course not, but here is a work.

13. Israel,
    dirty Is life an inefficient mechanism? Do you think that some engineer could have designed such an efficiency like that of enzymes? The cell that replicates itself in 20 minutes for all its millions of components? DNA polymerase that replicates with incredible precision 4 million bases in 40 minutes (1600 per second!)? Creatures that know how to use any source of food anywhere, in the air, at sea, on land, in the Dead Sea, in the geysers of Yellowstone, in the depths of the oceans, under the glaciers of Antarctica, at a depth of hundreds of meters in the ground and at a height of tens of kilometers in the air just name it.
    And I'm not talking about a pump like the heart that sometimes works at full speed for 100 years without rest.
    efficiency ? mess? Look out.

14. Israel Shapira; An answer to some of your questions.
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/on-food-and-cheating-281002

15. R.H. You're right, in the past I wrote that the good guys died in the wars... It just occurred to me now that the profile is an association for dodgers.

16. R.H.

    Why complicate matters unnecessarily? Evolution… agricultural revolution… genes… fertility….
    no no. Things are much simpler. There is God and there is Satan. There is good and there is bad. Choosing well requires effort. In the devil too much satisfaction. Bottom line, this explains why they choose a cake and not a carrot.
    Whereas the engineers of evolution were salaried workers, they would be fired immediately for negligence and slowness. A much more successful mechanism could easily be devised than the small and inefficient mess they created.

17. Israel,
    Humanity has existed for about 3-4 million years, only in the last 10,000 years with the agricultural revolution, most of them began to live in permanent settlements, the product of classes and people who don't work and get fat. Until then, as a society of small hunters, the "hungry" probably had an advantage. Seagulls who indulged and said that they don't like that the banana is a bit black or that they don't eat because the salad touched the meat probably didn't survive.
    The phenomenon of obesity and obesity is a sick evil of the last hundred years with the industrial revolution and the creation of fast food. Apparently, from an evolutionary point of view, there is an advantage today for those who cannot tolerate sugar, fat, etc., but because of medicine that keeps the obese, heart patients, diabetics and others alive until the age of childbearing and beyond, there is no change in the demographic balance of "genes" for the love of food.
    As for drugs, it's a different story. Drugs are substances that bind to natural receptors in the brain in a stronger way than the natural ligand and lead to hallucinatory effects. Drugs in themselves do not cause a decrease in reproduction and I don't think drugged people have fewer offspring than others.
    In addition to all these, not everything is inherited and being a drug addict or fat is mostly a social matter today.
    And one last thing, why do you say they are working against us? Is the happiness of eating steak T a trifle? Never underestimate happiness.
    Research in the Beh has shown that if a strict diet is imposed on them, they live longer. Would you be willing to live 130 years on a loaf of bread and water?

18. R.H.
    Indeed, evolution explains the ultra-orthodox evasion of military service. They are the Derwinian Super Irish. Evidence: They are multiplying, and will soon be the dominant species, won't they?

    But what interests me more is the human tendency (except for you and me of course) for sweet, fatty, salty, alcohol, drugs, and all the things that are absolutely obvious that work against us.
    Expand, expand.

19. point,
    Since when is someone who has 97 pure and righteous and those with less corrupt and parasitic?
    Do you read what you write?

20. As I mentioned before,
    Those with profile 97 are killed in wars

    It is the corrupt and the parasites who survive

21. Israel,
    You are captive to the concept that those who survive in evolution are the strong (profile 97), but as I already wrote to you, those who survive are the fit ones.
    No, the complex ones, not the smart ones, not the fast ones and not the beautiful ones, but the appropriate ones. Sometimes the strong are the fit, but not always.
    I already had a long debate on the subject with Michael in which I showed him that simple and small bacteria are successful and survive much better than the temple of creation with the wonderful gift of reason - man. And this is true at any scale you choose. Both at the cellular level and at the level of the whole organism. And as for humans, it is still difficult to say, the situation is very clear regarding the vice crowns of creation - the great apes, who, despite their incredible complexity and enormous brains, are in serious danger of extinction, while a small bacterium like E. coli survives and flourishes (as well as mice and cockroaches).
    It also follows from this that evolution does not "progress" and does not "develop" anywhere and its depiction as a tree is fundamentally false.
    And as you say "if you want we will expand"

22. To Yuval Shalom .. the external religion provides a space of support for people in the name of pious righteousness in keeping relatively structured and fixed standards .. allowing themselves to enter an incubator of comfort and active inaction .. unfortunately the comfort in the relaxation of the intellectual search causes over the years to establish scientific concepts as small religions that are naturalized in the hearts of those who are supposed to engage In pure science..
    Han, you don't pay attention, but you yourself agree that you took a model and you work with it as a tool for understanding processes...all I asked is that you don't turn this into a religion and draw religious conclusions from the model that concern your dimension of consciousness that is spread over an infinite sea of ​​thoughts and possibilities [superposition] both for and against ..and make a separation between the mind at the limit where you enter under critical laws of logic to the same model set-up in which you are engaged in the field that was assumed and proposed ..between the more abstract dimension in the space of consciousness and cognition .. My desire is to exhaust your and my human abilities at a maximum level and not relegate you to dark corners of religion Clueless and clearly unenlightened ..and already a few comments ago I wrote that I understand the barbs you put out in front of someone like me ..I wish I would still go back and repent ..but no I am not and I do not leave room in my system for this possibility even if you all turn in the direction of the extroverted and non-religious Connected..Religion is not related to Talmudic or essential literary values..Religion is related to the basic character that runs after the imaginary mask of God that lies on the edge of the mental and cognitive path that the individual experiences throughout his life journey, religion is related to the faith space that a person enters when his awareness and his connection weaken. Religion is a tool for survival.. but it is not suitable for those who want to live from the beginning out of conscious alertness.. Every person has one or the other stumbling blocks in this matter, even scientists.. of arousal ..of openness ..attention ..learning ..independent observation ..criticism builds doubt and error, experiment .. raising questions ..and more .. the field of investigation is based on models that were put forward as suggestions, but from an internal connection, and from Vigilance to the infinite set of possibilities at the source level leads to the exhaustion of the investigative capacity from that inner line that breaks the boundaries of thinking outside the box.. when around him are wrapped like garments of the glory of theories the assumptions and models as tools for expression at the actual level.. Have a nice and good day

23. R.H

    "As usual you get caught up in some article from 1988 that in scientific terms in biology is prehistory. Since then it turned out that it probably developed from the Type III secretion system"-

    a) The year of the study is not relevant. The researchers cut from the protein and reached the conclusions they reached. It's not that they didn't have the necessary knowledge or equipment.
    b) The protein used in the type III secretion system is actually homologous to flagellin. So it is the same version of the protein, which itself is as complex as it.

    ד

    First, there are men who breastfeed in emergency situations. That is, they are definitely functional from time to time. Secondly, as the "source" pointed out, the sticker on the car also has no visible function. Is that why it is claimed that the car did not have a planner?

    "The idea of ​​the intelligent planner does not even deserve to be called a theory, a theory is an idea that has even the most minimal evidence that hints at its correctness." - True. Look again above at the evidence I presented for planning.

24. Source
    I'm sorry but you're just talking nonsense.
    Reporter:
    "Evolution as a tool to describe processes is excellent, but to reduce my thinking ability in the garden? Why ? This is a fundamental mistake in our self-awareness as human beings.'

    I wouldn't get anywhere the way you suggest.
    Think that I see a certain phenomenon, I start making all kinds of hypotheses, and later try to build all kinds of models that will try to describe the phenomenon. Of course, every model is based on certain principles. If out of thousands of models I managed to create one that doesn't contradict me with a single fact, and I manage to use it to predict things that are going to happen, and thanks to it I manage to develop all kinds of important and central things.
    I must be on the right track!
    So what is better to continue to expand the model, and study its principles more deeply,
    Or keep looking at all those thousands of models, or try to develop a new one from scratch, despite the huge success of my model?
    And what's more, several scientists from slightly different fields report that my successful model fit them like a glove.
    So again it could be that my model is something smaller than something much bigger, and our perception may change in a big way, but it definitely feels the right way!

    It's easy to criticize from the sidelines.

    I don't completely deny what you wrote, it's just ridiculous about the theory of evolution.
    And in my opinion it is simply due to ignorance on the subject.

25. There is no point in looking for culprits. This is a general trend not only in Israel but in the entire world. The sectors that prefer religion multiply more than those that prefer science.

26. Xingua..I am personally talking about a planner about my intelligence, or all divine and human intelligence in flesh and blood the understanding is definitely limited..and by the way there are many wisdoms besides what you think to explain what the human body is and its details..this narrow view that if I don't understand something then it is too much or An evolutionary remnant .. once again shows ignorance regarding the understanding of the infrastructure of the human form .. and blinds the eyes from really trying to understand new things .. the development of all creation comes from somewhere other than an accidental and perhaps violent evolutionary process .. which represents a reflection for man who instead of confronting an intelligent system throws the direction of his life in the hands of chance..and instead of understanding that things have form and content, he has a forceful and rather violent view that everyone who is strong survives..the correct proportions for evolution will be able to be complemented with other fields of science such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc..have a nice day

27. Questions about evolution.

    1. Doesn't she work too slowly? How is it that tens of thousands of years after we had to hunt down mammoths to feed ourselves, we still have a penchant for high energy foods that only make us fat. Isn't it better to develop an appetite for lettuce and spinach than for steaks and cakes?

    2. In our world, who is more of a remnant: those with profile 97 who will immediately be taken to combat units, or those with profile 24?

    3. Who is more of a survivor: Yehuda Ken Dror, who volunteered to draw the fire in the Sinai operation, Janusz Korczak, who chose to go to his death with the orphans he cared for, or Capo in the ghetto, the Deravian super survivor?

28. Xinghua
    If there was an intelligent designer, I mean he wouldn't create things that are not useful at all, I guess you agree with me on this point.
    Look at the male sex - he has nipples! And why? The nipples are of no use to him. The nipples are common remnants that prove that the species have a common origin.

    The idea of ​​the intelligent planner does not even deserve to be called a theory, a theory is an idea that has even the most minimal evidence that hints at its correctness. The idea of ​​the intelligent designer has no evidence, even the most minimal, so please do not call this idea a theory.
    Thanks.

29. The skeptic,

    What is artificial selection and what is natural?
    When I grow my bacteria and raise the temperature to 45C and thus make a selection for sensitive ones, is it natural or artificial? Isn't this what happens in Eilat in the summer?
    When a bee pollinates a certain type of flower and not another and thereby brings it to dominate the field, is it natural or artificial? And when a person does this?

    If you are a bit familiar with the methods of genetic engineering, you know that we did not invent anything, the restriction enzymes, the ligase, the polymerase were all taken from nature. So is it artificial or natural?
    People have used methods for improving plants and herbs, yeast in bread, wine industry, cheese, beer, pickles since the beginning of time. Today we know that these are all evolutionary based methods. And you are thinking of preventing this from the students because it is unnecessary?

    xianghua,
    As mentioned, I have no interest in chewing again, after all we have already discussed the article at length, you did not understand it and its connection to evolution. As usual you are taken to some article from 1988 which in scientific terms in biology is prehistory. Since then it turned out that it probably developed from the Type III secretion system
    If you want to read about the evolution of flagellin, you can take a look at some more recent things here:
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567134806001432
    or in Wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella

30. R.H

    Maybe you missed the research I already brought before:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC211289/

    In the study, the flagellin protein was taken (not to be confused with the flagellum, it is only part of the tail) which is 497 ha long. The researchers came to the conclusion that the smallest version of it requires about 310 kha. That means all 310 had to appear in their entirety. without functional intermediates. These are the small steps on which evolution builds?

    Note that according to the evolutionary claim, the protein evolved from a simpler protein, which was used for something else (the antifreeze proteins you mentioned below). However, this claim is hidden in this study - the researchers received a completely invalid protein after cutting more and more of it. No other function or anything.

    Regarding the phylogenetic tree you propose. I've already explained before why it also exists in designed things like cars, I won't go into that again. What's more, I brought contradictions to the same tree, like the article published in "Newscientist" in 2009.

31. to R.H.

    a quote:
    ======

    skeptic,

    Go out and learn how genetic engineering works and what molecular biology is and you will see that the biotechnological tools and methods used in genetics, medicine, agriculture and many other fields are all based on evolution and there was no way to develop them without understanding what evolution is.

    There is no difference between a physicist who insists on not teaching the theory of relativity and a biologist who insists on not teaching evolution.

    The problem in my opinion is that you and others think that evolution only concerns history and how species developed, but in fact it concerns the present and how things are changing at this very moment. There is no way you can make a sheep like Dolly, an artificial bacteria, a cure for cancer or a new antibiotic without understanding evolution and its principles.

    End quote
    ======

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

    Sorry, once again you are talking in thin air, in slogans, without bringing an actual argument. You have not shown any concrete example where without using the theory of evolution it is impossible to achieve the same results in biology.

    Regarding a physicist, you probably don't know the field. A physicist can take several courses in the theory of relativity (to complete degrees) and then have no use in the field, because his specialization does not need the theory of relativity.

    Regarding the uses of evolution in agriculture: you are probably confusing natural selection (evolution) with artificial selection. I have a feeling that your fundamental mistake is that you do not distinguish between artificial selection and evolution. Agriculture by artificial selection is an ancient subject, it has been improved in our time by techniques of genetics. On the other hand, genetics is a field that stands on its own and does not need the theory of evolution at all.

    Genetic engineering uses genetics, this is also a form of artificial selection (again don't confuse artificial selection with evolution).

    Dolly the sheep, as far as I know, was developed by genetic engineering and artificial insemination techniques. It also does not use any technique of evolution.

    And so on and so forth.

    As I told you, in respectable universities in the biology track, evolution is not a compulsory course or the course is taught very narrowly. It is not an operative course (doesn't teach any technique that works), maybe works in rare cases that you haven't pointed out so far.

    In any case, evolution is a completely unnecessary course for high school students, because they are not able to understand the non-trivial parts of the subject. A course that contains speculations, which they are unable to examine in depth, is a bad course from an educational point of view. In a course dedicated to contemplation, one learns to be philosophers, instead of investigating what is *true* and what is not *true*.

32. the source,

    you are welcome. You talk a lot about openness and determination and morality (what's the connection?). Please suggest a more successful theory than evolution that explains how species of plants and animals were created and are being created on earth. Why are they arranged in phylogenetic trees? Why are the fossils arranged in layers suitable for phylogenetic trees and countless other phenomena that evolution explains simply and successfully. The theory must refer to all existing knowledge regarding replication and mutations. It has to offer refuting and confirming experiments and observations and it cannot include things that have no empirical or mathematical foundation such as "someone from another dimension sends the species news to the mornings".

    Successfully

33. As soon as I take a position regarding the perception of reality and its understanding unequivocally, I reduce my ability to think to the limits of theory and deny myself freedom of thought and a broad mind. Why ? This is a fundamental mistake in our self-awareness as human beings..I am sure that the primitive evolution will think that there is no difference between man and animal..in the end, and the basis for this concept stems from a basic lack of understanding of our existence as human beings, and the difference that distinguishes us from animals..at certain levels there is no difference but on other levels such as thought and reason there is a huge difference... I can use the evolutionary theory and with the help of this tool reach amazing heights in science... and this is because I don't limit myself mentally with regard to this theory I only use it... in my humble opinion those primitive evolutionists that this theory has become to religion...they are no different from the common ultra-Orthodox whose wonderful principles of the spirit have been grasped in a fixed way and become a religion...the wise intellectual understands that his mind is obliged to remain open to endless possibilities...otherwise he enters fixation and degeneration...unfortunately this happens to a lot of academics whose studies are mindless and they are fed a lot information without being connected to themselves and only losing them in an external memory .. and sometimes this has been rooted for decades and they are not aware of it at all .. I will add a comment that the level of morality in a truly rational person is the maximum both in relation to the inanimate world, the living plant life and even the human world .. the pinnacle of man is the ability To connect to the infinite and to be in the view of an unlimited limit..and the things are deep

34. xianghuaw

    I imagined that you would avoid discussing the planner and your theory, because apparently there is none.
    As mentioned, repeatedly discussing the correctness of evolution is a well-worn and boring subject for me, just as I will not enter into an argument with you that the earth is spherical.
    You received answers to all your mistakes from Michael in the past, Avi Blizovsky Yigal and Michael who gave you a beautiful example of the freezing proteins, and many others and of course from me as well. Despite this, on the one hand you insist on going back and digging with your rod/kinazine/eye/far-fetched probabilities and on the other hand you avoid any discussion of the mysterious and incoherent alternative you offer.
    I don't see the point of continuing the discussion unless you come up with some new discovery that we haven't heard of that really contradicts evolution (and no, a fish that resembles people) or with a coherent and clear creationist theory.

    By the way, religious people do offer a coherent and clear creationist theory with details and many possibilities for refutation and with them it is possible to discuss, not even with you.

35. Xinghua,
    From what man is capable of doing?
    Besides, what's the deal?
    You live in a huge confusion, you don't differentiate between living beings and machines and you think that living things just appear on their own as news for the mornings!
    They messed up with you.

36. Hingo

    Long live my brother!
    Did you really exhaust yourself?? Good riddance.

37. Yaffa R.H., accept H.H. After realizing that there is very strong evidence for a planner, all that can be asked are philosophical questions that are not related to the theory itself. Who or what is the planner, his origin, his intention, etc. Since this has nothing to do with theory, and since I have no idea about such questions, I am not the addressee.

    Yigal, as I said, when you manage to create a fraction of what man is capable of doing, call me. For example, try to create a robot that can run up the stairs or serve coffee. Actions that the person performs lightly. Then tell me what technology was required for this. As far as I'm concerned, I've exhausted...

38. Xinghua,
    It's not so clear to me why you mentioned my name in the title of your previous comment, you didn't respond at all to what I wrote, so if you think you passed the ball to me, you're wrong.
    You still compare engineering design to evolution.
    If there is planning here, it is screwed up and created by a shadowy planner.

39. ok xianghua suppose you are right.
    If I find a watch, I can tell that its designer is interested in measuring time, I can estimate the size of his limb by the strap, I can estimate his eyesight by the size of the digits and the wavelengths he sees by the lamp, the technology at his disposal by the type of watch - numeric or digital. His metal/plastic processing ability, his electronic ability. According to the stopwatch, I learn how fast his reaction is.
    According to the fact that the clock shows 12 hours and 12 months, I know a lot about the star it comes from. According to the date, I learned that something important happened there a year before 2012. According to the counting method I can know something about its mathematics, according to the material of the gears I know about the minerals in the aforementioned planet. By the scratches I can tell about the age of the watch and more and more according to the doctrine of Sherlock Holmes.

    And now Watson, you have found the shot that was undoubtedly designed. What can you say about the planner?

40. Let's play with it, R.H.

    First, whether there are biological scientists who oppose evolution is still a controversy. In fact, in science, one scientist with one discovery is enough to turn the tide of the world upside down. A. Dan Shechtman and the particle whose speed is higher than the speed of light. This is because science works on evidence and not on public opinion polls, even if they are scientists. Darwin himself disputed the consensus. Your comparison to the people who believe that the earth is flat is irrelevant. Also because they are not geologists, and also because there is no evidence for their claim.

    "What is this theory based on besides the denial of evolution? Do you have a scrap of evidence for the correctness of the theory?" - Yes. The rod is a rotating organic engine. Just like a clock. And as we all know since the days of the gardener, a shotton or a clock, indicate planning.

41. xianghua,

    The discussion is boring because only the creationists deal with it and the scientists in this field have long since ceased to bother. You will not see debates in the mainstream scientific press about whether evolution is true or not, but only about the details. There is a difference between debating whether there is evolution and when the father of the leviathan split. The defiance of the creationists is as irrelevant to what is happening in science today as there will be websites that will debate endlessly whether the earth is round or not. Just not relevant anymore.

    Are you saying you get 3? Constantly healthy? So again I ask, if new species are constantly being created that are not from other species where are they? Will we ever see a new species out of nowhere? Where is his lab and how do the species get to us?
    What is this theory based on besides the denial of evolution? Do you have any shred of evidence for the correctness of the theory? And no, xianghua, saying there is no chance or anything else about evolution does not at all support your strange theory (which by the way is completely against what the religious believe).

42. R.H., Point Vigal...

    The discussion may be boring for you. But I hope you understood why it is not possible to go from a car to an airplane in small steps. The reason for this is simple - it is impossible. If it is possible for you, you are still welcome to demonstrate how.

    Regarding what is happening today in the scientific literature, I am actually well informed. Every few days a new study comes out that refutes the previous studies (for example, they predated the father of the leviathan by several million years) you are invited to browse the official intelligent design websites on a daily basis. You will discover a wealth of discoveries and scientific debates. Only recently was there correspondence between James Shapiro and the Discovery Institute. Douglas X also offered any evolutionary scientist who wished to refute his new research. What's going on there is a complete mess.

    Regarding the "contradiction" you suggested. I definitely agree with 3. I don't understand what the problem is if there have been mass extinctions in the past. And every time new creatures are created out of nothing. Another possibility is that the dating methods are not reliable (the fact that there are more than 10 methods) and the fact that sometimes you get a completely different dating. What's more, fossils were often found out of place. But even if the dating methods are completely correct, I still hold the belief that different species formed at different times. Just like in today's cars.

    By the way, about probability. The answer is of course one to one, since someone has to be born. Can you give me an evolutionary study that shows the chance of a new active site forming for example?

43. point,
    The design errors I talked about are in the engineering aspect, which the deniers of evolution try to target. For this matter, many examples of planning errors (or stupid planning) have already been mentioned here. If we do not understand why the planner did this, then it is not engineering planning, and if so, let's speak to the planner's body: his actions are not planning and therefore there is no intelligent planning and we are back to the ancient concept of creation. By the way, this is very typical of deniers: always going backwards instead of moving forward.

44. xianghua,

    The truth is that this discussion is already really boring. All the time the same worn mantras "unbreakable complexity", "macro versus micro evolution", "the way bacteria acquire resistance is not evolution but just simple mutations".
    I don't know if you have noticed or if you are aware of what is happening today on the front of biology and medicine, but the question of yes evolution/no evolution seems to everyone involved in the field to be an archaic question similar to the question Galileo was asked about the rotation of the earth around the sun (and yet it moves!, he said) . In short, it's completely boring.

    Regarding your planner, I understand that you insist on not trying to think about its characteristics, and this is clear because you immediately come to irreconcilable contradictions. For example:
    When did the designer create the creatures?
    Option 1: He created all creatures big and small many years ago and since then there have been no changes.
    If so, how do you explain the fossils in the ground? How come you don't find human bones with
    Trilobites? How is it that creatures called fossils live like crocodiles that can be found alive and
    Fossils are indeed mistaken as ancient creatures also according to their DNA? In short, option 1 worked.
    Option 2: He created the first cell and since then things develop in evolution. Then we have no argument. None at the moment
    No proof of abiogenesis and this could be healthy panspermia or a creation from an ancient soup. That's not what Dana was talking about
    The evolution. So if you got this option you got the correctness of evolution. Rule 2.
    Option 3: He constantly creates creatures, each time sending new ones. If so do you think we will ever see a creature
    New that appeared out of nowhere? Also where is his lab? Why don't we see her? If we say "dimension
    Otherwise" we will introduce more complications and additional assumptions without any substantiation. That is, option 3 also worked

    And it is only a tiny question about the Creator that leads to a contradiction. Can you settle her?

45. Yes, you, the deniers. it's you guys Are you put off by having partitions?

46. To the source, a nice answer.
    And it is possible without too much effort to throw it on the evolution process, given a closed process of reproduction, mutations, development, reproduction, competition for resources... then there is no doubt that complex life will be created.

47. To the point...the creation of a baby from a sperm and an egg does not directly belong to the realm of probability, because..> If I have the ability to create in a closed circuit, there is no doubt that their pairing in the womb in an active process will lead to the creation of a child.
    I really regret the point that you used the word "you" the big deniers ..you and everyone else in the same boat why create partitions? Are you reluctant?? ..Good night

48. xianghua7

    You repeat and avoid answering the question: what are the chances of creating a whole baby, from one cell?
    I ask you because you are the biggest deniers, after all, you are experts in probability.

49. xianghua,

    You go around in circles.

    1. "The example you gave is very similar to the way bacteria achieve resistance to antibiotics. These are simple mutations that do not create new systems of the "inextricable complexity" type - exactly! This example indicates that there is no such thing as inextricable complexity, because your "isolated" concept simply does not work. A new gallate enzyme was created with a completely different fitness than the original. This is not a 2-3 HA change as you would like to believe.

    2. You didn't even read about the tail. This is about a significant part of your body around week 6 of pregnancy. Better not read the examples.

50. R.H

    Let's try small steps.

    It is very possible that a car can be changed into another car gradually (and it is definitely not possible because in many cases you will need to precisely adjust the length/volume/width of certain components in order for them to fit well in the new car. But we will go towards you and assume that it is possible. What's next? After all, I clearly said that the destination is a plane, That is, a completely different system with completely different parts.

    You said: "Of course, small changes turn into big changes over time. Isn't there a barrier that stops them, or is there and only you and your brains know about it?" - Of course there is. After all, at some point you will have to add a completely new engine, which includes completely different components, with a completely different adjustment. How will you do it in small steps?

    "Is the documented change that took place before our eyes from a wolf to a chihuahua dog on the one hand and a great dane on the other not big enough for you? And it happened in a few thousand years." - Absolutely not. As far as I know, these are the same alleles and the same animal. (Unless the wolf has other genes, but that would be a problem specifically for evolution)

    Yigal, when you plan a millionth of what exists in nature, then we will talk (for example, try to create a robot that will serve you coffee, see how difficult it will be for you). For now, science does not know how to produce even a hair of the cat's tail. Recently, scientist Craig Venter created an artificial genome. It took him (and a whole team of planners) "only" about 15 years in high-budget laboratories. And it's all about a replica of the real thing, of a poor bacterium.

    Michael, the example you gave is very similar to the way bacteria acquire resistance to antibiotics. These are simple mutations that do not create new systems of the "unbreakable complexity" type. I gave you an example with a car and a plane to understand the problem. In the example you gave, a new active site was not even created. which is the minimum of the minimum.

    As for a tail, it's not really a tail. It is a fact that it disappears after the stages of differentiation. Sometimes there is a mutation that causes something that looks like, but it is a developmental problem and in fact it is fatty tissue that lacks muscles and movement mechanisms like a real tail. And so are all the other samples that don't hold water.

51. Of course, that's what I'm talking about, you have an idea of ​​what is "ideal" and then you say that something is not ideal.
    But we both know that we determine for ourselves what is ideal and what is not.

    I'm not saying to assume, I'm just saying that there is no evidence that there is or isn't.

52. How do you determine that the "planning" is not good?

53. Determines what?

54. to the point,
    You're right. As I mentioned, maybe he's an Israeli khepanik 🙂 or he has some interesting motive for us to have a tail in the early embryonic stage.
    What's more, if I have no idea what he is (except that his works are far from ideal) then... why assume he exists?

55. Of course, regarding a "planner", your claims in section 2 are based on the assumption that you know what the planner wants to achieve, and based on that you check whether it exists or not...

    But what if you don't know?

56. Michael, regarding "planner", your claims in section 2 are based on the assumption that you know what the planner wants to achieve, and based on that you check whether it exists or not...

    But what if you don't know?

57. After I'm done with the postmodernist historians, it's time to move on to the evolution deniers 🙂 .

    I will focus on two key aspects: 1. dealing with the claims about macroevolution and 2. the contradiction of the planner.

    1. Evolution deniers today claim that of course there is microevolution, but they emphasize that the basic biological units, for example, biological species or proteins, are "solitary" and between them there is a gulf that no microevolution can bridge. No process, they claim, can turn a dog into a leviathan in small steps or a protein from one family into a protein from another family. As part of the same concept, they see the biological systems as "schematic" - each part has a clear role - steering wheel, wheels, engine, and it is clear that such a system (for example a car) cannot become another system.
    The point is that their fundamental understanding of biology is wrong. The best example, which drops the ground in one under all the anti-evolution arguments, is the example of the anti-freeze proteins in ice fish. It is a family of proteins with a very special structure that break down ice crystallization nuclei and allow the fish to survive. In an amazing way in their genome they found all the "intermediate stages" of the proteins! The first step is an unrelated protein of the digestive system in which a single doubling of 3 ha was created not in the active site area, and this gave the new protein a very limited ability to protect against stagnation. A few more duplications and deletions eliminated most of the original enzyme and repeatedly duplicated this segment, and you have the de novo formation of a protein family from another family through very few small steps with each step contributing to competence. And for that they said (but not originally about the deniers of evolution): "Woe to the vanquished".
    The miracle that we found the intermediate stages is due to the fact that the freezing of the poles began only 15 million years ago, and they have not yet been erased from the genome. In 200 million years, the opponents of evolution will be able to say: How could such a special family of proteins have formed randomly? This is statistically impossible!
    In addition, ice fish were found in other parts of the world where anti-freeze proteins were also formed... but from a different protein origin!
    This is a great example of the dynamism of biological systems and the ability of the components to switch roles.

    My father - if you want I can write an article about it. This will help to drop the ground from under the feet of the "statisticians in the shekel".

    2. Regarding the planner - oh really. Already Darwin claimed that the best evidence against him is our multitude of incompatibilities (rather than adaptations). 2 short examples - a. Why do I need a tail as a fetus? After all, it is clear that those who plan a production line for cars will design so that they start producing a boat and after a few stages they will disassemble half and move to a car 🙂 . Bye bye planning.
    B. Why does the thinning hair in many places on the body become cold? It's suspiciously similar to what animals with fur do except... we don't have fur. Does it make sense to plan us like this too? And there are many more examples already mentioned above.
    In short, if there is a planner, he is surely Israeli! On the one hand - the piece as a whole looks great, but in the small details there are many, many mistakes and inaccuracies.

    In a more significant way, it means that there is an amazing similarity between evolution and the human brain - the dynamism of the synapses and the constant noise in the neuron systems is what enables the creation of new things. And so is evolution - dynamism and inaccuracy allow creation!

58. Yigal, how do you determine this?

59. Xinghua,
    The basic error in your claim is that you are comparing engineered systems with living systems. The basic difference between them lies in the fact that the former are the result of planning and the latter are the result of evolution (and it is clear to me that you think that living systems were also created by design).
    Are you a machine designed on the drawing board (screen)?
    Systems designed in an engineering manner are designed with a purpose and their purpose guides the way they are designed and manufactured. Living systems that are created in evolution develop without purpose and therefore can develop as we know them and can be infinitely complex.
    If an engineer were to design a system like what life on earth looks like, he would be fired immediately! Such poor planning does not pass the scrutiny of the most liberal consumer. If your perfect rational planner has planned life this way, then he is a perfect slouch and not a perfect planner!
    There is no reason to invent something that is much more complex to explain its existence, than the explanation it provides for the existence of life on Earth.

60. xianghua

    I am glad that except for a small change in point C, you agree with the other points. Greetings xianghua You didn't know but you do agree with evolution and I see that my father also noticed it.

    As for what you still disagree with, if you take a Honda car and replace its engine with a Nissan engine, what car would it be? Now you will change the chassis and then the paint and then the dashboard and so on. At some point (according to our definition) your car will stop being a Honda and become a Nissan, so you understand that what you said:
    ” Are small changes enough to create new biological systems with dependencies between their parts. The answer to that is negative, unequivocally."
    Completely absurd. Of course, small changes turn into big changes over time. Isn't there a barrier that stops them, or is there one that only you and your brains know about?
    Is the documented change that took place before our eyes from a wolf to a chihuahua on the one hand and a Great Dane on the other not big enough for you? And it happened in a few thousand years.

    In short, to summarize the discussion, you get more and more complicated and fortified like a little child with the same stubborn and untenable arguments "there is no development of new species", "there is no evolutionary tree", "there is no need for evolution", "there is no chance for proteins".

    And on the other hand, a thin silence regarding the intelligent creator.

61. Take a sperm cell and an egg, do you think it can be turned into a human being? Hence it is not possible for a human being to be born from a sperm and an egg.

62. Take a child, and see that he learns little by little. He cannot be taught everything in a day, it takes several years to learn. And there are those who don't have enough sense then there are things they will never be able to understand.

63. Igal,

    "And yes, small and cumulative changes can lead to all the enormous diversity of life on Earth"

    Please prove your claim. A possible way: Do you think it is possible to take a car, and gradually change it into an airplane, while maintaining functionality, and more by intelligent design?

    If not, it is also not possible in evolution, which includes much more complex systems.

64. And you still haven't answered the question, what are the chances that a person will be created from DNA molecules inside a cell. The chance is zero. And this is proof that you don't exist.

65. xianghua answer yes. There is no mind.

66. Please replace in the appropriate places...

    'the fact that you wrote'
    And yes, small changes.

    Sorry

67. Xinghua,
    The common origin of all creatures on earth is only one conclusion from the theory of evolution, and it is the simplest of all conclusions. As for all the studies, Dolly cloning and all the issues you mention in your answer are the other conclusions.
    The good news is that 'the answer is negative' does not make the answer correct, and yes, small and cumulative changes can indeed lead to the entire vast variety of life on Earth, including also leading to the formation of the same hundreds of mechanisms that you claim must exist in order for Wald to form. Your 'how' question is answered precisely in the small changes of evolution. 'Why' is already a philosophical question that the exact sciences do not address, and the answer is an irritating 'like this'. All the other things you wrote are irrelevant to us.

68. Xingua, you oppose evolution but at the same time claim that it exists, only that it does not belong to evolution (natural selection). Call it what you will, evolution is the change of species through natural selection.
    What fuels natural selection are mutations, genetic drift, gene transfer and more, and this does not change the fact that it is the factor that selects the survivors.
    The full name of Darwin's book - The Origin of Species through Natural Selection.

69. to them

70. R.H

    I understand very well what evolution claims: all organisms on earth have a common origin. How does this relate to any research? How does this help me replicate Dolly the Sheep? It gives me nothing. What you are talking about is natural selection, which is true regardless of the theory of evolution.

    Regarding the points you raised, I partially disagree with C. You should have phrased it differently and asked: are small changes enough to create new biological systems with dependencies between their parts. The answer to this is negative, unequivocally.

    point,

    Do you think that's just how the human body organizes itself? This requires hundreds of sophisticated systems: replication systems, control systems, control control systems, translation systems, error correction systems, and much more. Only given all the above, a new weld was created for him. And the question is how all of the above were created, and there is no answer.

    Grace,

    One can also ask why the apricot is orange and the watermelon red. This has nothing to do with the question of whether they are required of the planner or not. The theory of evolution also lacks many answers regarding the "why". So?

    And specifically regarding the claims, since they have an answer in my opinion:

    The appendix has a role. Browse the archive of the knowledge site.

    Regarding remains of eyes. First, who determined that these are relics? Maybe they see perfectly like this? Second, even if the eyes are degenerated, this is evidence of degeneration due to mutation, not due to poor design. Cars also break down over time.

    Regarding ape-like fossils: as far as I know, there were hundreds of extinct ape species in the past. It is quite possible that there were also monkeys walking on two. Even today, by the way, there are species that do this from time to time.

    As for the bacteria, bacteria have many patents to overcome antibiotics. Some use enzymes such as beta-lactamase, which breaks down the antibiotic, some carry plasmids, and some simply have a simple mutation on the target site of the antibiotic.

71. Han, you don't answer my claims in a matter-of-fact way.. it is possible that you are looking for reassurance in a scientific article or by clinging to what is familiar to you.. that they will spoil you.. Regarding the example.. If I have to give an example, it is possible that all my words in advance were not understood correctly by you.. Try to read them from the beginning in sequence..
    An investigation comes to verify the matter with reason, or to give it rationality, the scientific test is true to its field only.
    The difficulty of accepting my reasons or your decision on my poor attempts... are not a barrier except in the eyes of your observer... Good day

72. Source
    Just to clarify, as of now I'm not a scientist, and I haven't researched anything.
    Unlike you, I am not arrogant, and aware of my position.
    What angered me was that you started to explain why evolution is not possible, and used all kinds of reasoning from the world of probabilities and statistics that really are already out of your hand.
    Think it's really impossible? Maybe publish a scientific paper that shows this? And I promise you that if you really manage to show yes, no one will underestimate you, and you will contribute significantly to his understanding of the world, since everything we thought was happening is actually impossible to happen, and then we will have to go in other directions.
    It is difficult for me to accept your contradictory reasoning, due to your limited experience in the field.
    If a scientist who has studied the subject in depth uses your argument, of course it will not be enough and he will have to put his opinion to a scientific test. But I will definitely take his words a little more seriously.

    By the way, I did not receive the sample I requested from you.

     

73. Hello ..
    A- Chan.. I will quote your response "After you have been in this profession for 30 years, I will be ready to hear why there is no necessity and what probability and statistics and everything else say.
    The irony in all of this, that it simply already happened" .. You know how many people for decades are involved in all kinds of fields and it is difficult for them to accept or understand anything else, the need to base things on the amount of time of occupation is not a measure as well as a scientific concept of hundreds of years that has been disproved. In other words, a small, brilliant boy can come and illuminate innovations precisely because he is outside the perceptual fixation that is familiar to you. Years that happen in one moment and in science..
    B-Lehan..Regarding your quotation of the words, I would like you to quote the sentence in its entirety. Every word of my words requires deep thought and thus:
    "Evolutionary processes are excellent at understanding intermediates like a digestive system and the gradual processing of things over space and time". Coming out with a statement that nullifies things without putting forward any argument or reference to the essence of things, you in advance mislead with disdain and pride, unfortunately, which are the ones that blind the eyes of reason and the purity of recognition, when your very statement has no reference to the essence of things.. This approach is condescending in the eyes of many, but to me it is similar For the child who sat during the game on the king's throne and doesn't want to get up after the game is over...and holds the power of the throne...the depth of awareness and the decisive opinion in matters of reality precedes all environmental variables, whether it's your 30 years of occupation or the trait of your pride, the mind carries them and they don't, and I know many And there are good ones who are wrong about it and turn it into a cause and effect.
    G-Labi, let's leave all the rabbis aside for a moment...also all the enthusiasm from the scientists...and look at the field with personal eyes, as a person to a person, you don't need to study for years about the legs of a winged lizard or any other part in order to discuss the infrastructure of the concept that exists in the Torah Evolution for many, and I emphasize again> "The perception of intermediate processes by using the wonderful tool of evolutionary glasses to give order and hierarchy to things is excellent, this part of the field of evolution is amazing...and beautiful"...but as soon as I go beyond this field to statements about the very infrastructure of existence and the very process and puts it under the statement> This is how it happens, or it has already happened, I am blind to my cognitive ability to investigate and trace the roots of things and their cause, even if they are not in the routine tangible realm but in the abstract, or quantum realm... I don't want you to believe me, I don't Seeking recognition, I agree that not everyone who claims the title of rabbi or doctor, even if he has undergone many training courses, deserves to be placed on the throne in the kingdom of "idea", I only object to the use of science from any biological, physical or chemical field, etc. Any exact science to the fields that belong to a dimension and layer that does not rise to the same scale as the dimension of scientific thought which I call "thought at an actual limit" .. I call for freedom of thought and courage from a place of inquiry even against accepted scientific concepts in science .. I am not trying to play the cards in order to return any person to what Rav! God forbid .. be your own rabbis out of criticism and honesty .. and don't let anyone make you drag yourself in an independent way. good day

74. xianghua

    I'm completely the opposite of you, because I attach the "why" to almost everything:
    Why are the planets and stars spherical?
    Why is the universe expanding rapidly?
    Why do we have an appendix?
    Why are there sea animals that are kilometers below the surface of the sea in dark caves and have remains of eyes?
    How/why did the dinosaurs become extinct?
    Why do species become extinct?
    What are all the fossils of monkey-like animals that have been found and among them monkeys walk on two.
    How did the bacteria manage to overcome the effect of antibiotics?
    and so'…..
    The beautiful part here, that in most cases I get answers to my questions.
    I wish to myself that one day I can answer my questions myself.
    This is essential.

    Your answer leads you to ignorance, because you won't really know where to thread the answer "because that's how the planner wanted it".
    For example 400 years ago I would come to you and ask, why are the stars and planets spherical? You could answer that "that's how the planner wanted it", and thus you would miss one of the building blocks of the mathematics and physics that Newton developed to answer this question.

    So when do certain phenomena have a scientific explanation, and when not?

     

75. Joseph,
    You want to deliberately (experimentally) create a situation from which at least one of the possible outcomes can disprove the theory of evolution. One of the cornerstones of the theory of evolution is the lack of intention, its entire mechanism of action is unintentional. Apparently, there is a contradiction here, but all around us are the products of such experiments that man has been conducting for thousands of years: all the domesticated animals and plants are the product of a deliberate selection process that man activated (although there will be those who will say that the animals and plants activated it on us...), a process that uses the same Mechanisms that work in nature by themselves in natural selection which is the basis of evolution. By the way, Darwin was also based on this artificial selection to understand the process of natural selection that is the basis of his theory of evolution. Hence the experiment you are requesting to disprove the theory of evolution has already been carried out millions of times and for thousands of years, and apparently has never disproved the theory of evolution.

76. I want to return to my original question about an experiment that theoretically makes it possible to disprove the theory of evolution

    Perhaps a possible answer is "the invention of a time machine that will allow one to observe the past in a range of billions of years (of course in fast forward mode) will allow a contradiction of the theory of evolution (note, not a proof, a contradiction - if you like: I will explain why) in the light of this we will see how life was created and developed in our world" .

    But this is an extreme answer to very far. I would like to find something closer

77. xianghua
    What bothers you that man came from the monkey.
    After all, semen is much worse and disgusting than a monkey, isn't it? And it is also much more unlikely, what is the chance that a person will be created from a collection of particles (DNA). Surely someone is sitting inside the woman's womb and is building the fetus in Lego.

78. Israel,
    The fit, not the strong.

    Regarding the Beatles, see here:
    http://s301.photobucket.com/albums/nn50/TheFulMetalAlchemist/?action=view&current=EvolutionOfTheBeatles.jpg&newest=1

79. It should also be added that it is not only "survival of the fittest" but who will be able to transfer the genes, so there is no evolutionary advantage for a girl who "rolls" over a delicate and fragile beauty. on the contrary.
    The Beatles also claim that if when you say "evolution" you are talking about destruction - they are not interested.

80. xianghua,

    Do you really think genetics can be separated from evolution?
    Forgive me, you and the skeptic, but I feel that you do not at all understand what evolution claims.
    The claim of evolution in a universal generality that is not limited to the living world is that given systems that reproduce imperfectly and compete with each other for shared resources, the fittest will survive. This is a proven mathematical claim and can be easily demonstrated in computer models.

    If we examine the assumptions of this claim regarding the flora and fauna on Earth, we see that:
    A. All creatures reproduce - do you have an argument with that?
    B. Replication is not 100% perfect and relatively rare errors apply to it (mutations, recombinations, lateral transfer) - this is a proven fact, can any of you argue with it?
    third. As a result of the errors in replication, new variants are created all the time (after a considerable accumulation of changes, mainly those that harm the ability to culture together, we will define the variants as different species) - can you argue about the existence of the mutations?
    d. There is a constant competition for resources between the different variants or creatures - do you dispute this point?

    If you agreed with A-D then you agreed on evolution. If not you will have to work very hard to refute points a-d because they are established beyond any reasonable doubt.
    Note that no one has talked about the creation of life here, this is not evolution but a much less established story.

81. Father, you understand correctly. The intelligent design does not have a specific prediction regarding shared systems. Because a designer can create systems with overlapping parts, and he can also not. This does not mean that theory in general is not scientific. And the truth is that evolution has no predictability in this area either. In fact, it is possible to find common systems that developed at the same time, also according to evolution

    RH, we would have replicated Dolly the Sheep even without a shred of knowledge about the theory of evolution. All that is required is knowledge of genetics. The claim of common origin actually has nothing to do with any research field. She is just a footnote.

82. skeptic,

    Go out and learn how genetic engineering works and what molecular biology is and you will see that the biotechnological tools and methods used in genetics, medicine, agriculture and many other fields are all based on evolution and there was no way to develop them without understanding what evolution is.
    There is no difference between a physicist who insists on not teaching the theory of relativity and a biologist who insists on not teaching evolution.

    The problem in my opinion is that you and others think that evolution only concerns history and how species developed, but in fact it concerns the present and how things are changing at this very moment. There is no way you can make a sheep like Dolly, an artificial bacteria, a cure for cancer or a new antibiotic without understanding evolution and its principles.

83. live:

    Your quote:
    skeptic,
    Your response, in my opinion, is the most absurd in the entire discussion above. "You can study biology well without any need for the theory of evolution."
    Would you also suggest to chemists to study chemistry without the periodic table? For physicists without relativity? For scholars of the Second Temple to ignore Yosef ben Matityahu? For geologists to ignore plate tectonics?

    ----------------------

    The complements you brought are not relevant to Nimshal. In all the complements you brought, a very concrete use was made of what you mentioned:
    (1) Chemistry uses concrete properties of atoms and molecules to explain or predict chemical processes.
    (2) Physicists use the theory of relativity in processes where the theory of relativity has weight (for example, in the theory of the flow of non-solid materials, flow at "normal" speed, there is no need to use the theory of relativity).
    (3) The words of Josephus Flavius ​​are apparent evidence, or a weighty explanation for the processes in the days of the Second Temple (without such evidence and his explanations it is very difficult to understand what happened then).
    (4) tectonic changes are necessary to explain why the shape of the land is one way and not another.

    On the other hand, the theory of evolution has not been concretely used to explain contemporary biological processes, perhaps except in a few and negligible cases. I explained above what are the important elements used in biology for drawing conclusions. There is no necessity (perhaps except in few and negligible cases) to use the process of evolution to explain contemporary processes or structures in biology. Surely such knowledge will not be useful to high school students (since they will not come across these negligible cases, or they will not understand a complicated evolutionary argument in one of the negligible cases).

    As far as I know, in some respectable universities, the study of evolution is not mandatory at all in the biological courses (or it will be taught very little). This shows that it is not an essential subject to understand biological processes.

    In any case, crying about high school biology students not learning evolution is unnecessary crying, there are more important things to learn.

84. The 5 toes are unnecessary as far as humans are concerned, they are in total remnants of those toes of monkeys which are very useful on the trees.

85. Xingua, they are not just teasing you, because the answer that the Creator created different creatures with systems shared by other creatures is not scientific, because it is also irrefutable.

86. R.H

    Maybe I didn't educate myself enough. I meant that this thing was never predicted *in real time*, thus adding to the collection of other fairy tales. The above research raises the hypothesis of certain transposons, which were found to be shared between such and such rodent genomes, several tens of millions of years ago. without any empirical evidence for this.

    Come on, you explain to me, how creatures from different families got common genes?

    In addition, how would you explain the fact that about 100 pterv1 type retroviruses have been found in gorillas and chimpanzees but not a single one in humans?

    Grace

    I'm sorry, but questions of why are none of my business. I didn't understand what the problem is with accepting that the Creator created different creatures with systems shared by other creatures.

87. xianghua

    You jump again
    I asked a question, instead of jumping ahead and reaching conclusions, just answer it.
    I didn't get an answer to - why?
    I'm already anticipating that you're going to answer me with a question, I'd be happy if you just answer.

88. xianghua,

    As far as you know, probably not much. See here for example:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/105/44/17023

    Will you now finally admit your mistakes after each and every one of your assertions has been disproved so far? It's no shame you know.

89. Some answers in general:

    I do not need to know anything about the planner, since the theory does not deal with his identity but with his products. The snake's limbs are not degenerate legs but are related to the reproductive system. In fact, even if we had no idea what they were used for, it was still an argument based on lack of knowledge. And this argument has been refuted nearly 100 times in the scientific literature.

    I did not understand how the fact that whales and dolphins breathe oxygen is supposed to be proof (or even evidence) of their common origin with the ancestor of the banana.

    Regarding the phylogeny, I am not wrong. The researchers found inconsistencies in the expected phylogenetic tree. which caused them to abandon the old tree. In other words, this is a prediction that turned out to be wrong. The theory predicted x and in practice we got y. Since it is difficult for science to abandon the theory, they jump in now with a new theory of horizontal transfer. Something that, as far as I know, has never been predicted in developed fortifications. Or in other words: if the theory does not fit the facts, to hell with the facts.

90. Source

    You wrote
    "And for this from the beginning I object to the use of practical science as a tool to influence what is above science"

    Allow example please?

91. The source, you do not show honesty, on the one hand you claim that you are not a follower of any rabbi, on the other hand you bring the worn and false argument as if the chances for evolution are slim, which is from the house of the madrasah of the rabbis and false rabbis.
    How do you want us to believe you?

92. "Evolutionary are excellent at understanding intermediates like a digestive system and gradual processing of things over space and time"

    It's such an amusingly delusional sentence 🙂

    I mentioned this to highlight that you are just throwing things into the air without really substantiating it.
    Don't pretend to pay attention to things you don't understand, there's nothing to do in life, you have to work hard.

93. Source
    This is my problem with your response, this paragraph:
    "The theory of development in the way that things happen naturally, and I emphasize "naturally", there is a problem here because from a mathematical, statistical point of view, as well as in terms of understanding the universe as a whole with direction, is there any necessity for this, and moreover, the mind tends to the opposite, the disorganization in nature increases and things do not naturally differentiate themselves in a purposeful way of development , what's more, the probability and statistics that an evolutionary process will happen by itself without an intentional factor and that it will repeat itself is one to several billions out of countless variables.

    After you have been in this profession for 30 years, I will be ready to hear why there is no necessity and what probability and statistics and everything else say.
    The irony in all of this is that it just happened already.

94. By the way, the bang theory is accepted today among many in the scientific community.. and all the processes and calculations stem from the same main point.. and as a renewed creation from that point, evolutionary processes are excellent in understanding intermediates like a digestive system and the gradual processing of things over space and time, but the main one must be anchored in place Other.. What is behind the bang, who is behind it, and whether at all, these are questions that belong to the field of philosophy because it is about a dimension of consciousness above consciousness within the walls of the borderline mind.. Any use of any scientific agenda will not be useful because its power does not belong in that.. and on that From the beginning, I object to the use of practical science as a tool to influence what is above science, not above the narrow concept of who is more and who is less in the form of an ego, but above the intention of a more abstract and extensive field that belongs to the philosophical school and the world of thought and ideas..

95. I saw the responses... and I understand the responses... standing on guard lest another follower of this or that rabbi comes here disguised with hidden or missionary motives... then no! You can be calm.. I am not a follower of any flesh-and-blood person, neither a doctor nor a rabbi, nor a martyr, nor a ruler and a teacher.. respect for me belongs only to the truth.. and God in my lexicon has nothing to do with religion, but the essence.. to the self-perception of God.. you are not talking here with a warm convert.. or a convert.. but with a calm and rational person who knows God and is not a blind believer.. Evolution is an idea that is barren at its core when you take the theory of development in such a way that things happen naturally and I emphasize "naturally" There is a problem here because from a mathematical and statistical point of view, as well as from the point of view of understanding the universe as a whole with direction, is there no necessity for this, and moreover the mind tends to the opposite, that the disorganization in nature increases and things do not differentiate by themselves in a deliberate way of development, what is more, the probability and statistics that an evolutionary process will happen spontaneously without a deliberate factor And that it will come back and change again is one to several billions out of countless variables.. Darwin himself is very satisfied with his theory and that is how his opinion remained.. Anyone who has not read Darwin carefully and chews only what is fed to him will investigate more and find out.. In any case, both Darwin and all kinds of scientists who will hunt For or against or rabbis of course..will not surrender independent thinking and pure logic, my opinion is that evolution studies are excellent as a tool for education and understanding processes and that is why they exist, the evolution of our day does not contradict the existence of a deliberate factor, if it is put into the right proportions, and the last word in the matter of God Requires a common understanding of the basics of cognition and awareness and all the roots of logical and mathematical mental perception in a pure and clear way, remember divinity is essence! Not a religion! I'm sorry that such topics come up on a site that should shine with pure and fine scientific knowledge

96. xianghua,

    Again you are wrong and misleading. You read the sensational headlines in the Guardian but as usual not the article itself. Did you see anywhere that someone in the above article claims that evolution is wrong? Note the first sentence after the title:
    Evolutionary biologists say crossbreeding between species is far more common than previously thought
    And in Hebrew the first two words are evolutionary biologists, meaning people who study evolution.
    All the article claims is that the same tree drawn by Darwin is outdated and in light of the new discoveries regarding the different genomes it must be redrawn. Why come and say that there is a plan?

    Avi,
    What are you wondering? This is a regular technique of Mr. Xianghua who will never discuss his intelligent creator and will only try to prove, so to speak, findings about evolution. It's just a shame that he doesn't delve deeper into the articles beyond the headlines or tries to catch up on new things, but brings articles from 1997 or stories about fish that are closer to humans than other fish.

    skeptic,
    Your response, in my opinion, is the most absurd in the entire discussion above. "You can study biology well without any need for the theory of evolution."
    Would you also suggest to chemists to study chemistry without the periodic table? For physicists without relativity? For scholars of the Second Temple to ignore Yosef ben Matityahu? For geologists to ignore plate tectonics?

97. Want to talk about planning?
    recommended:
    http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=IL#/watch?v=4238NN8HMgQ

    http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=IL#/watch?v=hs3GjdUjlwA

98. xianghua
    You jumped too fast. I asked a question, and you didn't answer me.
    I asked why?
    So what is your answer? (Regarding breathing, I won't go into anatomy).

    And when you answer me "the rational planner" it's as if you kept quiet and didn't say anything, because I don't understand what the rational planner is, it really doesn't mean anything to me.
    It's like you answering me: "A placebo, that's the answer. What is a placebo? This is a question unrelated to the topic of evolution and suitable for another discussion, but I answered you."
    I personally don't accept it, if you get an answer like that, then you have to
    Stop the discussion here, because for me this is not a satisfactory explanation if at all. 

99. In the case of the snake, these are also the remains of limbs.
    And besides, the awl is out of the bag. You demand a discussion of the correctness of evolution but refuse to talk about your designer ie want us to be bound and you to be free.

100. Grace

     First, who decided that legs? A snake also has a similar structure. Apparently it has to do with the reproductive system. It certainly does not prove that the father of the Leviathan walked on land. The same goes for the dolphin and their respiratory systems. If we go by this logic, airplanes evolved from cars, since they have common systems like wheels, fuel, axles, etc. Now it can be argued that cars and airplanes do not fight each other. But what would we argue if they were?

     Regarding the intelligent planner, I don't need to explain anything, since the discussion here is about planning or not, and not about the planner himself.

101. I will ask one question
     Why were remains of legs found in the whale + why is his and the dolphin's respiratory system built in such a way that they have to inhale oxygen from the sea, and do not breathe like most sea animals?

     Regarding your answer, if you intend to answer with the answer "style" the intelligent planner, I ask you to explain to me what the intelligent planner is, how it was created, if there are others like it, etc...

102. R. h,

     I'm not the one at fault here. Take a look at this instructive article, and you will see that this is a wide phenomenon, which sometimes causes it to be impossible to tell who evolved from whom:

     http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/21/charles-darwin-evolution-species-tree-life

     And not only in bacteria and bacteria but also in developed organisms. Of course, all the explanations for why this is so and so are retrospective, contrary to what the theory predicted.

     Grace,

     You are welcome to ask any question you want. Try to give an example that only evolution can explain but not the designer theory. And on the other hand, is a replicating organic robot made of DNA proof of a designer?

103. It is so painful and infuriating to see the reactions here against evolution, one of the most central processes designed to explain the development of life (not its beginning) and the diversity of species on Earth in particular, and in the universe in general.
     What is more important than that? What is more important than giving children basic knowledge of how the world works, what is happening around them, there is no doubt that almost everything is dwarfed in comparison.
     It's a shame that people choose to stay in their bubble, and ignore all the tremendous knowledge that humanity has accumulated to date.
     And the delusional part that they think they have the answers, and they have an explanation.

     To all the opponents of evolution, let me bombard here with a series of questions, and I want to see how you deal with it, and please without a supernatural, or belief-driven explanation.
     Overall, I believe that everyone thinks that a rainbow is created as a result of the refraction of light with particles of water drops, rather than a covenant between G-d and Noah.
      

104. The great physicist Amnon Yitzchak (a candidate for the Nobel Prize in profanity) refuted evolution.

     This is a man who is a good snooker player in the past, who doesn't even know what RNA is, but he refuted evolution.

105. It's very puzzling to me, people like the source, whose obsession with arguing about evolution, and the rejection of all rational thinking - seems to be driving them crazy. I believe that at the end of the day, they must reach a madrasah house, or a lair where their peers pat them on the back and say "Here... you brought them in"...

     Luckily for me, and it seems to be the luck of many others, you don't find the willingness (not to mention the wasted time) to devote to every article discussing how imaginary beings conceived and created the world, Pierre, it really doesn't interest me.

     The principle of - "to prove to you", to enter any portal to "tell the truth" - shows that the truth these people try to introduce into every discourse - even in it, they don't really believe. And for them the collective of believers like them, is what holds them in blind faith, and unrelated - to the issue of the root religion and values.

     As for the subject of studying evolution, indeed, it should be at least one of the subjects studied, and not only for matriculation. There are so many research directions for this topic, it is worth finding one that is interesting.

106. xianghua,

     I'm sorry to disappoint you, but as in the story of the fish that resembles people, you are wrong again. Several years have passed since 1997 and since then the understanding of the evolution of the phage Pi X 174 has been solidified. See here:
     http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/1/294.full

     As for the rest of the things you say that there is no change of species and everything else, we have already ground the subject to a fine point and I am tired of repeating things.

     the source,
     You say "the theory of evolution itself has been disproved by most scientists". Can you name some leading scientists who are not on the sleepy fringes who disproved evolution? You know what? one will do.

107. "The origin, evolution has been disproved a long time ago, it's only a matter of time until we all know it." Who told whom and in what context? Amnon Yitzhak's friends from the Discovery Association. Any connection between this statement and reality is strictly coincidental, see any biology book.

108. My father, I don't find time to conduct the whole dialogue..but I have to make one thing clear, the statement that there is a contradiction between chapter XNUMX and XNUMX, in Genesis, stems from a terrible ignorance in understanding and the way of studying the Bible, unfortunately.. It is clear that it is convenient to defy without studying in depth and you know This...as for Darwin, the theory of evolution itself was refuted by most scientists and is only offered as part of scientific history, and as a tool for processing and understanding processes and systems in various fields...but as a theoretical model for looking at the world it has long since ceased to exist...

109. I agree with you, I too have become disillusioned with capitalism.

110. Evolution talks about survival, about competitions between individuals for resources... these matters are of the essence of evolution.
     The trick that animals use to survive, to disguise themselves, to get what they want, etc...

     These are all serious and thought-provoking matters.

     In the education system, they don't want the students to start thinking. The whole purpose of the education system is for the students to be hard working capitalist workers.

111. Point, maybe I didn't understand your words, correct me if I'm wrong, but in my opinion you are confusing a bit, perhaps unintentionally, between evolution in nature and what is mistakenly called social Darwinism. This theory of Social Darwinism, is the result of a completely wrong understanding of the natural process, and was made for political reasons (and unfortunately it also had destructive consequences for about a century).
     Man is not a stupid animal that lets nature manage him, because, just as man controls his environment in terms of construction, cold, clothing, food, etc. and is not subject to his control (unless it is a massive tsunami), so he should not let others control him just because they are stronger . So to learn that one thing happens in nature, and another thing happens in human societies, is really not terrible.
     What's more, the question, as you said, may come up regardless of the answer.

112. Father, you are not supposed to answer every fool who is "against" the theory of evolution, he doesn't even know what the theory of evolution says, but he opposes...

113. In my opinion, the reason is not religious at all.
     There are simply those who do not wish to introduce essential questions into the minds of students regarding the role of man in the world. The weak and the strong, the ruler and the ruled.
     Eventually they will start asking questions.

114. By and large, evolution is data communication, and information systems between bacteria.
     Bacteria are responsible for 99.9% of all evolution in the world.

     Man is an organic machine, where our consciousness consists of a population of germs, which have taken over it.

115. I would say that it is a slightly more consistent Torah than the one in Chapter XNUMX and Chapter XNUMX of Genesis, which contradict each other.

     And one more thing, evolution is science, so it belongs on a scientific site and not on the skeptical part of the site. The skeptical part is specifically intended for discussing theories that try to compete with evolution, but since they fail, their supporters prefer to tie the hands and feet of evolution so that they can defeat it.

116. Evolution does not have to be perceived as a theory or a worldview...evolution is a great mental tool to understand gradual processes...what evolution was to many people, a type of axiomatic theory does not exist...and it is very possible that Darwin himself ultimately did not mean evolution as an unequivocal theory but as a tool for understanding processes satisfactorily..

117. Following on from what I said... I am in favor of a corner on the site that mixes ideology and views in a free and liberal way with the natural inclinations of a scientist and academic, and to raise arguments, theoretical studies and even philosophical associations, but I emphasize that it will be in a corner called science and religion or the science of religion and vice versa... but not mix them with science The purest and most accurate with theories and concepts about faith or evolution... by the way, I'm in favor of helping religious people who have entered into a small and narrow mind to broaden their horizons and ultimately conduct an honest and constructive dialogue with them and not from a place of anti. There is a lot of wisdom in the Torah regardless of religion... Science cannot afford to Religious concepts and not anti-religious either..Science is a layer of thought and not beliefs...!

118. I = you

119. R.H

     I mix natural selection with the common descent claim. You are welcome to multiply a billion squared bacteria for a billion squared years. You will not gradually get an elephant or a tiger from that bacteria. Because there are no gradual steps leading from a bacterium to a tiger, just as there are no small steps leading from a watch to a cell phone. even by an intelligent agent.

     "Evolution claims that species evolved from each other. Show me one species of bee that cannot be sorted on the evolutionary scale." - here is one. The researchers were unable to reconstruct its evolutionary history, even by examining the entire genome:

     http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9409816?ordinalpos=30&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

     Which surprised even the researchers themselves.

120. I'm sorry to say, but when one of my friends, who is an extremely talented history teacher (I can list before you, one of the teachers who would have changed your perception of this subject in high school and in general), and when he also suddenly had to train students in the XNUMXth grade for matriculation in biology (in a school where Some of the leaders of our country studied, not a "Negat Nesat" school.

     Our education system is one of the worst in the world (the western one, let's not try to compete with Rwanda right now), except for the fact that the teachers are "punching bags", this profession has no future, when the attitude towards the teacher, and the attitude of this disintegrating system towards education in general - is plagued by such amateurism, of the worst kind.

     When teachers, who are not qualified for this, teach subjects, which they understand nothing about. When subject coordinators (and I speak from experience) who have been coordinating the subject for over a decade, have no idea about the subject they are teaching, and ask interns to pass on the material that the entire class is supposed to teach (and this is not an individual case, but this is the situation in our schools today, 2012).
     I'm sorry, but with all due respect, before we shout - how come they don't learn evolution, let's try to see how they teach one thing in a normal way.

     As for Yossi, and other readers in the stars, who hear the word evolution, and immediately get chills, and are forced to take their anti-anxiety pills, I wish you all the best, a good and whole life, and especially free of doubts, which are probably gnawing at the cardboard scenery, which you are trying so hard to stabilize On the small stage of your life.
     (I will also add that your very obsession with discussing the issue causes your evolution-phobia to empty the entire concept of "faith" from its content, and turn it into a kindergarten conversation)

     Let's hope we grow up - all of us (and the education system, in particular), hallucinations have medication.

121. There is a great exaggeration of the importance of the theory of evolution relative to other topics in biology. It is possible to study biology well without any need for the theory of evolution.

     Biology (at the level of understanding of biological processes and at the level of the uses of biology) is aided by the similarity between the different species (similarity in terms of the shape of organs, in terms of the shape of the tissues, and in terms of genetic proximity.). Biology also uses information about artificial selection, or rapid developmental changes (eg changes in bacteria and viruses).

     Artificial selection does not infer anything from natural selection, artificial selection has been known for tens of thousands of years (the domestication process of animals and plants). Biology makes no significant use of the fact that a species evolved from another species.

     When the time allocated to studying biology is limited, it is better to study topics whose usefulness is clear and immediate (for example, nutrition, or diseases) instead of engaging in a useless theoretical topic such as evolution.

     If there is a lot of free study time, you can engage in evolution. Learning about fork tip evolution (due to lack of time) is not interesting because of the flatness of fork tip studies.

122. Joseph,
     please:
     1) Evolution claims that there is replication, variation with little chance and survival of the fittest. Show me one case where you mix resistant bacteria with antibiotic sensitive bacteria, grow them in the presence of the antibiotic and the ones that survive are the sensitive ones.
     You are welcome to repeat the experiment 10 million times or more if you have the strength. Once you succeed you have contradicted evolution.

     2) Evolution claims that species evolved from each other. Show me one species of bee that cannot be sorted on the evolutionary scale. Is there one created now? Note that the trees built based on morphological differences of the animals match the trees built 100 years later according to the DNA sequences
     3) Show some evidence that man met dinosaurs. For example, it is clear that man has met mammoths because it is not just that you find human and mammoth bones in the same layers, but you see bones that have been eaten, you find their remains in ancient bonfires and you find slaughterhouses where dozens of mammoths were hunted. Can you show something like this with dinosaurs?

123. I agree with Gali Weinstein's words.
     I taught science for a year at a school in Eilat and the situation is not encouraging. The Ministry of Education is not a responsible body (to say the least) and also the worst employer I've ever had.
     Few students are familiar with evolution and the great scientist Charles Darwin. What's more, in the middle school textbook there is one page that describes the theory of evolution and mentions Darwin.

124. Abby, you are enthusiastic here. I can't think of an experiment that would contradict the theory of evolution. Even if, for example, we discover a skeleton of a modern man next to a skeleton of a dinosaur, there will be explanations for this: movement in the soil layers, a different rate of development than we thought, etc.

     Please - propose a thought experiment whose results could be "then, it turns out that the theory of evolution is wrong"

     By the way, Zvi Inbal claimed at the time that the reason for the tremendous popularity of evolution is that there is simply no alternative theory to compete with it.

125. Daniel, have you heard about tens of thousands of fossils that show the gradual development of whales, horses, many other animals, and also of humans?

     Many of them are displayed in museums around the world and you can also go and see them with your own eyes.

     Does the story about an "invisible" and omnipotent God who magically created us and everything around us sound more logical to you than evolution? A God who hides from us but expects us to pray to him 3 times a day?

     And if it exists, how was it created? After all, even such a wonderful God had to be created somehow, didn't he? And if such a wonderful being created itself why not us too, where exactly is the difference?

126. This is actually not true, any experiment in genetics can theoretically contradict evolution, but it is a fact that millions of experiments have not succeeded in doing so. And besides, it is not true that evolution remained as it was 200 years ago, have you heard about EVO-DEVO, lateral transfer of genes and epigenetics? This is another result of willful ignorance, you hear what evolution is from the mouths of idiots who filter the information they don't understand, and then pretend to say what evolution is.

127. This is because evolution is not a science but just a theory whose only advantage is its simplicity
     But this is also the main disadvantage in which although everyone likes simple solutions
     But adapting a beautiful story from about 200 years ago with such great complexity as the development of life is like leaving quantum physics in the state it was in a century ago
     The reason the theory has stuck around besides its simplicity is also due to an inability to disprove it
     It is known what is accepted since Popper about theories that cannot be contradicted

128. The more serious problem in the Ministry of Education is the lack of science teachers.
     Because of this shortage many times teachers who have no training in science at all teach science.
     And the reason for the shortage of science teachers is the bad conditions, the low salaries, the low status of the teacher and the humiliating attitude towards the teachers.
     All this is the fault of the Ministry of Education for not promoting the issue.
     And in this situation, XNUMXth grade students arrive at the university with a low level of knowledge.
     This is the main problem today. Everything else is marginal.

129. For example, I study in the "biomedical" major, which is 15 scientific units. People are exposed to the scientific professions, and those who are actually not exposed in most cases lack an opinion. Majors such as artistic photography, communication and cinema, for example, do not encourage learning a scientific profession at all...

130. The situation is just grim.

     It is really upsetting that so many people do not understand the simple principles of evolution at all and prefer to attack the theory and prefer in its place baseless and senseless legends about invisible entities that control our lives.

     Unbelievable that all this is happening in 2012.

131. The article certainly describes the general attitude to science
     However, it should be emphasized that his data are not from 2011
     But from 1011.

132. I'm sorry, but that's weak

     First, it should be remembered that evolution is part of the curriculum in biology and there are other equally important subjects (say, heredity?)

     Second and most importantly - in order to know what the situation really is, it is appropriate for the article to tell how many people study the various fields in biology, 515 were tested on the subject of evolution out of how many took the matriculation exams in biology? How many electives are there in this field?

     In conclusion - but, you fell victim to a politician who doesn't really care about the issue (her doctorate is in political science) but about advertising herself

133. Hello, I must point out that at my school most of the school year (now in seventh grade) is devoted to evolution studies. There are teachers who expand on evolution even if they are not tested on the material in matriculation. Luckily my teacher is a marine biology doctor. (Rotberg Ramat Hasharon)

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.