"Evolution is a fact," said paleontologist Steven J. Gould, "like apples falling from the tree. Darwin developed his theory of natural selection to explain the fact of evolution, just as Newton developed his theory of gravity to explain the fact that apples fall from trees.
Ehud Amir
Evolution is constantly being observed. It is observed in bacteria, wheat, apples, moths (the well-known observation of a color change due to changing environmental conditions), birds, turtles, lizards, all the dogs that exist today - from the pinscher weighing 3 kilos to the Great Dane weighing 40 kilos - all descend from the wolf, And all of them are the products of hybrids made by man, by artificial selection. Since a dog can reproduce at the age of one, the genetic change that can be created in it is much faster than in humans, who reach sexual maturity - or the stage where their culture allows them to reproduce - only after 16-20 years.
"Evolution is a fact," said paleontologist Steven J. Gould, "like apples falling from the tree. Darwin developed his theory of natural selection to explain the fact of evolution, just as Newton developed his theory of gravity to explain theThe fact that apples fall from trees. The place of Newton's theory of gravity has now been taken by a new and better theory of gravity, the one developed by Einstein, but the apples did not stop falling from the trees when scientists began to debate whether Einstein's theory was superior to Newton's. In the same way, scientists debate whether it is possible to improve Darwin's theory of natural selection, but species do not stop evolving because of this dispute."
Are there disputes in the explanation of evolution? Quite a few. Gold and Niles Eldridge developed the theory of "punctuated equilibrium", according to which evolution is possible in "jumps" - a situation in which a minimal genetic change manifests itself in a noticeable phenotypic change (a change in the features or shape). This theory is still controversial, but it does not undermine the fact of evolution; It is an attempt to give an additional explanation to the facts, to the way evolution occurs.
Another example: phenotypic changes - changes in the visible properties of the organism - happen not only under the influence of the chromosomes but also under the influence of other factors in the cell. Sometimes the same gene can work or not work, under the influence of extra-genetic factors that exist in the cellular environment, or under the influence of various chemicals that stick to the genome, as if there is a switch that turns the gene on and off, and this switch is not part of the genome. When the switch is in the "on" position, the gene will be expressed. When the switch is in the "off" position, the gene will not be expressed. Thus the organism can develop different traits based on the same genes. These switches are affected by many environmental factors: external temperature, humidity and dryness conditions, the degree of availability of energy resources (food, air, sunlight) and more. In some animals, even mental stress changes the effects on the genome. And again, there is no appeal to evolution here. on the contrary. This new and intriguing field of extragenetic influences on gene expression is called "epigenetics", and its development is another layer in the clarification of the incredibly complex way in which evolution works.
Evolution is not planned
Evolution is not planned. It is a random process in which mutations survive that respond better to any random change: change in weather, soil conditions, degree of aridity, food availability or frequency of predators. Sometimes a solution that was good in the past is not good today, but since it is already part of the organism, the organism cannot get rid of it. That is why the whale has vestigial legs and the giraffe has a coiled vocal cord seven meters long; That's why there are squirrels with wings that can't fly but only dawdle, or birds that can't fly, like ostrich, emu or cassowary. A person has over a hundred different anatomical items that have lost their use and some of them even endanger his life, among them a remnant of a third eyelid in the eye, an eye with a blind spot or goosebumps, which curls the hair to scare off a threatening factor or to create a layer of insulation and warmth in the cold. There may still be some homo sapiens that are able to pull up their hair and thus keep warm after getting out of the shower, but for several hundreds of thousands of years most of us need towels and coats. The coccyx (the stinger) is a remnant of the tails of our common ancestor and the great apes, a remnant that has degenerated due to the need for it; In the auricle of the ear there are muscles that most people are unable to relax; Design should have given us a lower, forward-leaning body, to ease the spine, thicker and larger spinal vertebrae, and more ribs, to protect internal organs. The appendix is an excess of the digestive system of the common ancestor of humans and monkeys. The appendix was originally a fermenting cell that secreted enzymes to aid in the digestion of plant matter, but it has degenerated in humans and what remains is a depleted tube that tends to burst and kill its subject. The appendix can be surgically removed and its removal does not impair the quality of life of its subject. A living for surgeons, perhaps, but not exactly the evidence of perfect planning. All these are organs that part or all of their function was lost during the gradual development of our species. Vestigial organs such as the blind eyes of the rat, the degenerate wings of the kiwi, and the redundant limb bones of the whale cannot be understood except as remnants of features or organs that were used by the ancient ancestors of animals that exist today. No creator or designer would have created an unnecessary organ in the first place.
The foot for example
Why do we have 26 bones in the foot? Originally, the complex structure of the foot was intended to allow grasping of branches. Such a structure has no logic for walking on land. Gradually, during five million years of walking on the ground, the thumb grew and lost its opposability - the same feature that allows our palm to grasp with the thumb in a sophisticated way that has no equivalent in the natural world, except for the panda. The arches of the foot were also useful on the tree, but on the ground the need for them was lost. They have not yet adapted to the transition from walking on trees to walking on the ground. The result is fractures and sprains in the ankles, tendinitis and flatfoot (flat foot). These are not modern problems: as far back as three million year old human fossils evidence of ankle fractures has been found. Those mutations that were found to have an advantage on the ground, such as upright walking and large and complex brains, are the result of design changes of a primitive ape that five million years ago still lived in trees. The ostriches' feet are much simpler, and much more adapted to walking on the ground, as they evolved over 230 million years, while our feet have adapted to move to the surface of the ground only in the last five million years. The transition to upright walking required the spine to curve at the bottom into the body, to form a kind of base that would support the front body - which gradually became the upper body. That's how we created that depression at the bottom of our back, which is the source of so many back pains and a feeling of strain on the waist: we had to pay something for the transition to walking upright. If walking on two had been planned in advance, we would not have had chronic back pain due to herniated discs and we would not have torn tendons in our knees and ankles due to sudden exertion. Maybe in another 230 million years the situation will improve. Even the pain in the wisdom teeth is a result of brain growth: the change in the structure of the skull due to the growth of the brain, caused a reduction and change in the structure of the mouth, which resulted in the teeth being pushed into a smaller space and as a result - the need for so many extractions. Not exactly evidence of perfect planning.
detours
For hundreds of millions of years the mammals lived on all fours. Their heads were turned down so that the nasal cavities were above the nose, and all the mucus naturally drained into the nose - downwards. With the transition to walking on two, the nose began to turn forward instead of down. This is how the position of the nasal cavities changed: instead of being above the nose, they are behind it and slightly below it. This is the reason for the piles of tissue that we all have to use to exhale the mucus, which in the previous design would have flowed down, into the nose, and out of it, elegantly. Thus we have a gall bladder that tends to accumulate stones; almonds that are sometimes so swollen that they need to be harvested; sperm tube that makes a U-turn past the urethra on its way to the penis; And between our legs - an entertainment complex built around a sewage system, as Neil deGrasse Tyson said.
The imperfection in the design gives clear clues to our evolutionary past. "If organisms have a history, the initial stages in this history should leave behind remains. Relics from the past that are meaningless in the present - useless, strange, abnormal, maladjusted - are a marker of history. They prove to us that the world was not created in its current form. "No evidence of evolution pleased Darwin more than the discovery of vestigial or vestigial structures found in almost all living things—of 'parts in that strange condition, stamped with the stamp of purposelessness,'" wrote Gould.
The same hashing of unnecessary elements is also found in the genome. Everyone carries with them a whole 'graveyard' of genes: 'dead' genes, which are not expressed at all and yet are with us because they are descendants of genes we received from our ancestors, where they actually had a role. That is why we see "junk DNA", of which it is now known that large parts of it are not "junk" but are important in the production of proteins or in the expression of other genes, which are no longer active. It is possible to see the origin of large parts of DNA, in the common past of organisms of different species.
And where is the evidence for all these differences, between our pre-human version, from millions of years ago, and our current version? Evolution deniers claim that science is tasked with finding evidence for all the missing links between intermediate stages of different species. The problem with this argument is that there is no such thing as a "missing link". The very term is wrong. It is impossible to put your finger on the point where the change from one species to another occurred, because the change is slow and cannot be observed closely. Each individual is very similar to its parents, but by looking at the fossils you can see differences between the ancestors of the dog, horse or man from millions of years ago, and the members of their species living today. The term "missing link" indicates a complete lack of understanding by the general public, but it was fixed because you need to see stages to understand the change. The general public mistakenly perceives the stages not as a partial representation of the process but as the heart of the process. And of course this is a mistake.
Evolution does not "plan". She works with what she has. When there is a change in the habitat, the food, the soil conditions, the availability of resources, shelter or predators, this change creates pressure to choose between the individuals. Those lucky individuals whose random genetic changes occur in them help them cope with the changes, are the ones who survive, and they pass the genetic change on to future generations. Evolution does not strive for perfection; It gives the possibility of functioning, in the dynamics of a patch on top of a patch. Our previous infrastructure cannot be deleted.
Creationism cannot be tested scientifically
Is the probability of human development so low that a supernatural factor is needed for this to happen? First, this is an unscientific question. Creationism, the claim that all species were created in an instant by God and have not changed since their creation, cannot be scientifically tested by reference to empirical data, because the empirical data itself is considered data arbitrarily created by God to appear as they are. It is impossible to scientifically test an argument that does not obey the laws of nature as discovered by science. The contradiction is clear. It is equally impossible to scientifically test intelligent design - the claim that some divine factor planned life and its evolution: science limits its investigation to nature and its known laws, and does not pretend to, and cannot, deal with the question of the existence of supernatural beings, but only with the psychological side of the phenomenon this one
Secondly, whoever asks this question thinks something like this: 'If we think about all the atoms that make up my body at this moment, it is unlikely that they all came to this place at this moment to create me.' If it happened that way, it would of course be improbable and impossible. But nature doesn't work like that but step by step. The atoms join the molecules, the molecules - the bases, and amino acids are formed from these. These assemble into proteins and from these the cells are formed. Simple creatures are created from the cells, and then - complex ones. First of all, stable units are created that make up each stage of this development, and they are the ones that serve as raw material for the random meetings from which structures of a higher level of complexity are created, some of which have a chance of being stable. As long as the possibility of a stable structure is not realized, randomness cannot continue to act to create the structure. It is a development from the simple to the complex, where each stage of this process must reach stability in order to constitute the condition that will allow the accidental development of the next stage. Still, in the United States, many farmers plant genetically modified seeds six days a week, and on the seventh day go to church and deny evolution - the one that made their agriculture possible. "How nice it would be if the opponents of evolution would spare an hour of their time to study the most basic principles of the object of their opposition," wrote Richard Dawkins.
Man is not a flawless creature, and is not the culmination of any evolutionary development. Every dog smells better than him; Every bird of prey sees better than him; Any sparrow can fly higher than him; Any flea can jump higher than him and any tiger can run faster than him. And who coined the criteria according to which man is the pinnacle of some kind of development? the man himself. Not exactly a model of objectivity. If man is unique and unusual, it is in that he has exterminated more life forms than any other species and destroyed his living environment and that of other animal and plant species more than any other animal or plant species has ever done. Man's only advantage is in his consciousness, in his ability to understand how he developed, and in his ability to try to shape his environment in a way that is a little more kind to himself and to the other forms of life on earth.
In the same topic on the science website:
- "If Carl Sagan were alive he would be amazed to see that science still needs to be protected"
- Scientific education won the conflict between the 'scientist' and creation
- "Galileo was wrong, the sun revolves around the earth"
Sources:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution;
- Jonathan Weiner, the source of the Pharisee
- Richard Dawkins, the biggest show in the world, about the Adriatic lizards
- Newsweek, 29.3.82, in Mary and John Gribbin, Being Human, Dvir, 2000, p. 156
- Chava Yablonka, Evolution in four dimensions
- Yanai, Journey to the Consciousness of Nature, 2005: 288, 325.
- Richard Dawkins, The Great Show in the World (Or Yehuda: Dvir, 2010), p. 119. Explanation of the poor design of the eye - p. 340-341.
- Alan Mann, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, United States, Wisdom Can Be Painful: The Evolutionary Origins of Third Molar Impaction in Humans,
- https://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2013/webprogram/Paper8686.html;
- Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show in the World (Or Yehuda: Kinneret, Zamora-Beitan, Dvir, 2010), on the shark - p. 329. On the giraffe - p. 346-347. On the urinary tube - page 350 and illustration on page 351. On the nasal cavities - page 355.
- Steven J. Gould, The Panda's Toe (TA: Dvir, 1990), p. 27.
- Jerry Coyne in an interview with Samdar Reisfeld, Haaretz, March 2013.
- http://www.haaretz.co.il/magazine/the-edge/.premium-1.1971526
220 תגובות
Are you coming to say that everything happened by accident and there is no one who did it? no God? Did everything just develop like that? How can it be that everything was created in bitterness and there is no engineer who made it? No guiding hand?
Wonderful:
http://io9.com/the-mice-in-florida-prove-the-antievolutionists-in-flor-1659961477
Mice in Florida got the color of the ground. On white ground (sands) - white mice. On brown ground - brown mice. why? Every fifth mouse will be eaten by owls. The owls are the "super predator" of the mice. Therefore, there is a survival advantage for camouflaged mice, whose color is the color of the ground. It is the same species of mice, but their color in different areas changed according to the color of the ground. The owls ate the ones that weren't camouflaged, so only those whose color was closer to the ground color survived, a feature that gave them a higher chance of survival. They are the ones who gave birth to the next generation, and this is how their specific trait spread in the population: their color. Another glorious proof of evolution.
Einstein
The ant "knows" nothing. Knowledge is a human concept. The ant's nervous system is programmed for this action.
I will give you a simpler case. for the worm approx. elegans has exactly 302 neurons, out of 959 cells in total. This worm also "knows" how to move towards food. Do you think this worm has free will?
Miracles
You did not understand the question correctly.
You are telling me about other things that are not related to the question.
I didn't ask about "how human consciousness affects evolution".
I asked: "How does evolution consider consciousness as an influential factor in the decision-making process?"
Evolution claims that through random moves what has evolved has evolved.
I ask: how does a calculated decision fit into these random processes. This has no answer in the theory because it does not deal with the question. Hence it is incomplete.
Suppose an ant brings a grain of sand to build its house.
Is this a random process or a conscious process of the ant?
(After all, the ant somehow knows that you need to bring grain and not cement to build its house. It even somehow knows that you need to build a house... so how do the mutations affect the process, in that case?)
Einstein
"How does evolution consider consciousness as an influential factor in the decision-making process?"
What decision making are you talking about? I would be happy if you just read what I write, without giving me marks. If you have questions ask. If you think I'm wrong on a certain point - we'll discuss it.
I only ask you to maintain a culture of discussion and mutual respect.
The word evolution has several meanings. I use this word in the following sense - evolution is the process by which species developed from a common ancestor. For such a process to happen, 4 things are needed:
1) Multiplicity
2) Miscellaneous
3) Competition
4) Heredity
I will not go into the definitions of consciousness, self-awareness and thinking because there is continuity here and it is difficult to draw a line. We see that there is self-awareness in many animals, and we even see that there are animals that are aware of the self-awareness of other animals. Therefore - this is not how humans differ from other animals.
In my opinion, we differ in that we have a language. With his help, we know how to transfer something else to the next generation - knowledge. There are also animals that pass on knowledge, how to build a nest, how to hunt, what to eat and so on. In humans, language allows us to pass on a huge amount of information from generation to generation, and we have probably passed some kind of "critical mass" that allows us to look so different.
This is of enormous importance in the matter of evolution. In humans today (not in all) - genetics does not affect the rate of reproduction. Jacob brought up the subject of evidence. There are many other issues, such as resistance to diseases, other defects and even intelligence.
And here exactly, in my opinion, there is a very serious problem - today there is an inverse relationship between intelligence and the number of offspring. I once read a claim that in the past, in the Jewish community in Europe, the situation was the opposite, and therefore Ashkenazi Jews are more intelligent than other Europeans).
So if you meant how human consciousness affects evolution, that's my answer. The effect is not good….
If you meant something else in the question - then ask again. And please, without ranting.
Miracles
I have no problem giving you discounts if that's what you're asking for..
So just answer the question (which you claim is in your field of business):
"How does evolution consider consciousness as an influential factor in the decision-making process?"
Einstein
I told you - I have no interest in discussing with you. I understand a little in my field of work.
Miracles
Your last comment is simply the comment of a retard.
"Any intelligent person can understand that there is a boundary between a living being, any living being, and its environment. The creature controls this border with the help of metabolism." – You don't know what metabolism is. And this retarded claim does not disprove the claim (which is based on facts) that there is no boundary between a particle and a particle.
What exactly did you refute?
You don't know what evolution is (no matter how much you say you do know. It's simple, you see from your comments that you don't know).
Read (and learn) here:
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%AA%D7%9D_%D7%92%D7%A0%D7%98%D7%99
And here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-of-an-efficient-search-algorithm-bgu-2907079
Almond
where is my mistake And where did I escape? Do you really see any point in me talking to someone who concludes his words by saying I'm an idiot?
Miracles
This is also a way of avoiding without admitting your mistake... 🙂
Here is an explanation for those who do want to understand the world.
1) "There is no such thing as putting a boundary between yourself and the rest of the world.
The whole universe is connected between one particle and another in one way or another. There is no vacuum in the world. And there is already symbiosis between elementary particles."
It's a jumble of words that mean nothing.
Any intelligent person can understand that there is a boundary between a living being, any living being, and its environment. The creature controls this limit with the help of metabolism. When the metabolism stops then we say that the creature is dead (at the principle level). In this situation the limit is breached and the creature disintegrates.
2) "As long as there is no competition, as long as there is no variation, and as long as there is no mechanism of inheritance, there is no evolution. Therefore, we will assume such mechanisms." (my words).
You are talking about natural selection and not evolution. Evolution has been around since the singular point became the universe as we know it today.
Another wrong sentence. Without competition there is no evolution. Natural selection is one type of competition. There are other types.
The genius from Vilna uses the word evolution (when it is convenient for him) to describe the concept of "development". The universe evolved from a singular point, so we think today. This process is not a process of evolution in our context.
Do you see what happens when there are no core studies?!?!?!
3) All the other nonsense he talks about neurons and the brain only shows that the brain of the genius does not understand what a brain is.... He thinks only humans have brains (thinking in patterns...really? Do you even know what that is?).
There are animals that we know at a very high level what their brain structure is. We know exactly how many neurons there are in their brain and the connections between each neuron and neuron.
4) ""We have senses, but we don't make sounds." - Who doesn't have voices, humans? You're such a jerk."
No, my genius, no. I wasn't talking about humans. I was talking about simple creatures.. Are you looking for a sentence that you understand - and you don't understand that either??
Einsteinzo poki poki
Your response is full of lies and slander. You have no idea what you are talking about. I have no interest in talking to you.
Miracles
Absolute clatter.
We haven't heard such an amount of word hashing from you in a long time.
"In the beginning of life there were only replicators who ate - this is according to our definition of life. At this point, all that matters in order to survive is to put a boundary between yourself and the rest of the world."
There is no such thing as putting a boundary between yourself and the rest of the world.
The whole universe is connected between one particle and another in one way or another. There is no vacuum in the world. And symbiosis already exists between elementary particles.
"As long as there is no competition, as long as there is no variation, and as long as there is no mechanism of inheritance, there is no evolution. Therefore, we will assume such mechanisms."
You are talking about natural selection and not evolution.
Evolution has been around since the singular point became the universe as we know it today.
"If we connect neurons, we can make smarter decisions. seeing two sources of food and choosing to move to the one that is closer. Learn that predators move around during the day and not at night. to recognize symmetry (and to know that we are being looked at, and we are probably being seen).
Another small step - memory. If it looks like the prey is coming in after a stone, we can continue to move towards the stone. If we eat something that makes us bad, and doesn't kill us, we won't eat it again. On the other hand - we will learn to eat more types of food."
Bullshit.
"If we connect neurons" Alec...
First of all, the brain 'thinks in patterns'. And the ability to be conscious or to be an animal with consciousness is related to the ability to build and manipulate those patterns.
And of course, memory is the first thing built in the mind/brain.
After the memory has been filled to a certain degree, there is an ability to remember and build patterns that will make it easier for the brain to calculate. That is, to shorten the time of the thinking process. This is also how the patterns are built within which the brain thinks/computes.
Children develop conscious ability, self-awareness, and consciousness from the age of 4-5 (and not before that).
Only after their memory is built.
"We have senses, but we don't make sounds. In certain situations, creatures of the same species will find an advantage in being together. At this stage, a way to signal to the group about a threat or food is an advantage. A beautiful repeated voice can mean that we are good partners, and so on.
Here - we have communication. "
-Yes…. "Here we have communication".. Truly an exemplary proof.
"We have senses, but we don't make sounds." - Who doesn't have voices, humans? You're such a jerk.
How do jellyfish communicate with each other?
"Like this - someone who competed with him within the group was devoured. The first maniac was born……” – WTF? you are crazy
Finally:
"The more quietly we speak - the less they will hear. It is enough just to move the tongue a little... and we "hear" it.
And here - we have creators who think"
Ahhhhh…. So this is how consciousness evolved….hmmm
Is this your proof that evolution considers consciousness as an influential factor in the decision-making process?
in brief:
I don't know what you answered..
But, you didn't answer my question.
My question was: How does evolution consider consciousness as an influential factor in the decision-making process?
(And it means that she does not take this into account - this is evidence that the theory is incomplete and full of holes).
Nissim, go back to the study table. 🙂
Robin
And one more thing I want you to understand.
All the information to build a human being is in a fertilized egg cell. All that is there is DNA and proteins that know how to decipher the DNA. Almost every living thing in our world starts from a single cell, and the fundamental difference between all animals is only in the same DNA.
Evolution does not need to explain how the brain developed - it needs to show that it is possible to get from a creature with very, very primitive DNA to the DNA of a person, when at all stages along the way we get DNA that is suitable for a creature that can reproduce. The transition from stage to stage should be by one of the methods we know to create a change in DNA. One of the methods is mutation - a change in a small area of the genetic code. Another method is connecting DNA fragments from different creatures. And there are other methods, including ones we haven't discovered yet.
In any case, there is no reason to think that the explanation of evolution is not true (by and large). And we have no other explanation that can explain what we see in the world.
Robin
I will start with the second part. You are not correctly describing how to "program" a neural network to recognize handwriting, for example. Build the system and it learns to recognize letters on its own. If you like expressions in English then I'm talking about unsupervised learning. But - there is something much nicer - evolution of neural networks. This is an amazing method, where an evolutionary algorithm is used to let a neural network evolve. In unsupervised learning that we mentioned earlier, the network is set and then it is left alone to learn the strength of the connections (using Hebb's law for example). With this method, mutations are made in the number of neurons and their connections, which gives the system much more flexibility.
And now for brain development. First of all, there is a great deal that we still do not know and no one knows everything that happened hundreds of millions of years ago. By and large, all multicellular organisms have a nervous system, except for sponges. Recently, they discovered that a certain sponge that lives on the coast of Australia produces almost all the proteins needed for the passage of signals between cells (the basis for the same switch I described). Therefore, we already have something that links animals without a nervous system to those that do.
That is - we do not know how the first nerve developed, but we are already finding intermediate stages.
Nissim Shalom: "Each neuron is simple. But - it is not a "wire", it is a switch. Even a supercomputer consists of a connection of many, many simple switches." - Yes, but you are talking here about systems to which humans have given properties in order to transmit information (the switch of the computer) in order to imitate nature...here we are talking about a neuron that was developed by natural processes randomly by merging cells over the course of millions of years. My question was how the neuron Did the natural (not programmed by man) act the way it did and get its properties and also contribute to the survival of that creature? -And you just talked about systems called "artificial neural networks" - for example a neural network for handwriting recognition is defined by a group of input neurons that may be activated by pixels of an input image. After being weighted and transformed by a function (determined by the designer of the network), the activations of these neurons are then transferred to other neurons - you forgot one thing, my friend Nissim - please take the designer of the network out of the picture, please, because nature has no designer, no computer engineer, etc. - Please answer and answer me to the point and not get personal
thanks, have a good day .
Shalom Yaakov - I think you are right, modern man and technological developments allow those with "defects" who are considered by natural selection to be "inferior" to continue to bring offspring into the world and hence I do not see any difference in their population.....ever....probably they will be born with Defects and we will simply fix them with medicine - which means in other words that the human race "interferes" in its own evolutionary process...if you ask me it is a bit of a challenge to nature and it is good that this way everyone deserves a chance to live and survive and not fall into the cruel selection of this world.
Robin
In computer science there are calculation systems where many simple "neurons" are connected and produce amazing programs. I once worked on such a system that knew how to recognize objects in images in real time.
Each neuron is simple. But - it is not a "wire", it is a switch. A supercomputer also consists of a connection of many, many simple switches.
Robin
In computer science there are calculation systems where many simple "neurons" are connected and produce amazing programs. I once worked on such a system that knew how to recognize objects in images in real time.
Each neuron is simple. But - it is not a "wire", it is a switch. A supercomputer also consists of a connection of many, many simple switches.
Jacob
In the past, it was true to say that the percentage of people with poor eyesight should have decreased. Today, as I wrote, there is no reason for the division to change over the generations.
Note - in the past, the number of your glasses determined how many children you would have. Today it is not like that.
Hello Nissim:
I will try to refine.
Since for many years sharp vision has developed as an evolutionary advantage and now there is no need for it, so I don't see how the existing situation (the distribution in the population) is preserved.
After all, those babies who in the past did not survive because of poor vision (and must be so, otherwise the vision was not an advantage) will now survive, therefore the distribution must change.
From generation to generation, through a mutation of the ability to see, babies with poor vision are born, but there is nothing that will return the distribution to one that favors those with good vision.
Therefore the incidence of bad evidence must increase.
The same goes for other defects that today are less of a hindrance to survival such as congenital defects of the heart (hole in the heart) and the like.
Miracles, your story...it's all well and good, but there are many holes...for example, how was the neuron created and how did it get its "properties" - the meaning of why a large amount of neurons bring consciousness is actually just an "electric cable" - neurotransmitters actually.... It's like I will connect cables and sockets to each other for several billion years and exchange information between them... nothing will happen... right? please answer me
thanks, have a good day
Jacob
Nice question. Assuming that the quality of vision is genetic, then there is a certain division in the population of vision. As long as this division does not affect birth, then there is no reason for the division to change.
I have a question related to the evolution of vision.
Nowadays, eyeglasses are suitable for everyone who needs them, including from a young age.
Also, from the fact that many people need eyeglasses, it can be concluded that the gene that determines visual acuity is quite "dispersed", meaning that one can find very different visual qualities in the population from person to person.
Since today's eyesight is corrected, there is no evolutionary advantage for those with sharp eyesight, it is possible that in the past they had an advantage such as being able to hunt better, but today everyone buys the meat in the supermarket and does not hunt it.
If so, then within a certain time (I don't know what it is - hundreds of years?) the phenomenon of a person who sees well without glasses will disappear from the world, since this state of good vision across the scale of all vision levels is unique and has no advantage.
Little by little the genetics of the evidence will "break down" and will never be fixed again.
is it true?
Can it be seen that the incidence of good eyesight from birth is decreasing?
Poke
I don't want to disappoint you, but Hasidah did not bring you….. You too, like most people, started from one cell. And here - at a certain point - you had consciousness. In other words, we have shown that it is possible to reach the consciousness of a person from a single cell.
But - you already knew that. Let's look at the historical development of consciousness. Obviously, it will be a story, because neither you nor I were there. Since I understand that you are uneducated in the field (according to your questions) I assume that you have not read "The Origin of Species" or "The Origin of Man". Not important….
At the beginning of life there were only replicators who ate - this is according to our definition of life. At this point, all that matters to survive is to put a boundary between yourself and the rest of the world. You need a membrane, which will transport food and remove toxic digestion products.
As long as there is no competition, as long as there is no variation, and as long as there is no mechanism of inheritance, there is no evolution. Therefore, we will assume such mechanisms. As for the competition, it is clear that the first creatures will multiply until there is a shortage of something they need. Regarding the inheritance mechanism - there are several theories as to how it started, and I won't expand on it here.
Now that there is competition and variation, there are a number of mechanisms that can improve the rate of reproduction. One mechanism is to be efficient in the diet - instead of eating minerals (plants) you should eat other cells, which contain prepared organic substances. Here we got a separation between plants and animals. If you're going to eat cells - then it's better to eat other animals, which will provide even more energy. Here - they got predators and prey. Now, there is a huge advantage to sensing creatures in your environment - finding prey, or running away from a madman. He who felt further, will be more successful in life.
At this stage something interesting happens - creatures start asking themselves: so what do we do now? eat? escape? to hide? That is, decisions have to be made. A simple way to do this is a cell that has inputs and an output, and it outputs a "signal" from the output when there is a signal at each input (I skip the transition from unicellular to multicellular, that alone took 3 billion years....). Here - we have a simple neuron. Such a neuron can make a creature approach a light source or run away from a noise or move towards a certain chemical.
If we connect neurons, we can make smarter decisions. seeing two sources of food and choosing to move to the one that is closer. Learn that predators move around during the day and not at night. to recognize symmetry (and to know that we are being looked at, and we are probably being seen).
Another small step - memory. If it looks like the prey is coming in after a stone, we can continue to move towards the stone. If we eat something that makes us bad, and doesn't kill us, we won't eat it again. On the other hand - we will learn to eat more types of food.
We have senses, but we don't make sounds. In certain situations, creatures of the same species will find an advantage in being together. At this stage, a way to signal to the group about a threat or food is an advantage. A beautiful repeated voice can mean that we are good partners, and so on.
Here - we have communication. Pay attention - we also hear ourselves. We see a threat, raise a cry, and the same mechanism that causes our friends to run away, will also work with us. And now something interesting is happening - there are some who are a little evil. Someone sees a predator, and he makes a quiet, quiet cry. That's how - someone who competed with him within the group was devoured. The first maniac was born……
The more quietly we speak - the less they will hear. It is enough just to move the tongue a little... and we "hear" it.
And here - we have thinking creators 🙂
That's it, in a nutshell. I said earlier - this is just my story - something that may have happened. The point is that today we know creatures in all the stages of development I described, and in addition we know that every living creature (almost) develops from a single cell.
parable
Miracles
I know that too. But just out of curiosity I'm interested in what you wanted to present.
So submit and we'll see how we progress from there.
Of course, so savvy that he doesn't know that evolution does not refer to the origin of life at all
I'm not pretending, there's an explanation related to information security that I won't go into, but thanks for the comment, I fixed it.
Poke
Good to know that:
A) You understand sarcasm
b) You know what you are talking about to such an extent, that it is so difficult for you, you are afraid to answer, and run away from questions at a basic level, and your way of "answering" them is to say that they are not at a high enough level for you.
All of us here are really impressed with your extensive understanding of evolution.
Poke
No no... I said from the simplest form of life....
Miracles
Religion does not answer everything just as science does not answer everything.
To be able to answer unanswerable things you have to be able to deal with all the claims from all the worlds.
Regarding consciousness - I would be happy if you presented all the moves and all the stages that passed from the inert matter to the conscious and thinking person.
walkie talkie
A leftist agenda is not equal to an education agenda.
It's only in your left eye that way.
Sorry to be the one to break the news to you.
And if you still don't understand:
You are not at a level where you can debate the issues - because you are not familiar with them.
I wish you a speedy recovery.
Poke-pook without fuss
And just, if I may ask you a question. Does religion answer everything?
Poke-pook without fuss
I disagree with you about consciousness.
For the theory of evolution to deal with consciousness - it has to show the possibility of a continuous path from the simplest form of life to man.
If I show you such a possible continuous route - will you agree that there is no problem here?
Poke
"A website with a leftist agenda"
Good to know that an education agenda equals a leftist agenda
"The theory is incomplete because it does not deal with factors that affect animals. such as consciousness. The theory does not refer to consciousness as a factor influencing the animal's decision-making processes"
Why and where do you think the theory does not deal with factors that affect animals? Why do you think she does not refer to consciousness as an influencing factor in the animal's decision-making processes? Why do you think this is even relevant? How is it more than one factor (in a sea of factors) that affects the survival of the individual and his chance of producing offspring? How do you see this point becoming something that will significantly expand our understanding in the field of the development of life on Earth?
Spring.
Thanks. But don't you think something should be done about it? It sterilizes the whole process of the discussion..
Miracles
I understand that you have nothing to answer… 🙂
Simply, you choked... you don't answer.
Did you suddenly realize something and repent?
It's OK. This is exactly the time to ask for forgiveness 🙂
Spring. What happened that you changed your nickname? You usually write here under the name "Avi Blizovsky", are you diverse?
(Is it you or an impostor?)
Poke
"Look Who's talking" ?
What are you trying to claim here?
This is your version of: I know you are but what am I? because it's already first grade
Some comments are blocked based on misused words in their content. When I see a legitimate comment that has been blocked I release.
Robin
Competition calls every time there are creatures that multiply. The reason is that the rate of reproduction is geometric - the number of creatures in each generation is a multiple of the number in the previous generation. In any case, the creatures consume a limited resource, so a competition will really arise in the end.
This is what Maltus understood 200 years ago.
If there is hereditary variation - there will be evolution.
This is what Darwin realized 150 years ago
Morgan, 100 years ago, understood what the mechanism of heredity is.
Crick and Watson, 60 years ago, discovered how the mechanism of heredity works.
Indeed a wonderful idea, without which we would not be alive today. And everything is based on physics and chemistry.
Wookie
Look Who's talking…
Poke
I am sorry that presenting your argument as it is hurts and insults you so much that you are only able to respond with a personal attack at the level of a child in the third grade, and I am sorry that the education system failed in its ability to give you the ability to create a proper basic logical argument and the ability to relate to the claims themselves, but only the ability to attack people Like a small child who is offended because he thinks something bad has been said about him.
my father
I understand you keep my comments to yourself.
Because you want to be seen as righteous? 🙂
I think that all living things are in a constant war (competition) since the dawn of the first amino acid - this is a battle for energy and space (reproduction) .... In general, the whole universe, as stupid as it sounds, is built like a huge computer game - files and folders and seals (101010) ... I don't know ... Nissim, say maybe this (this theory) has a precedent in science?... Just a question.
Spring.
What about releasing a comment? Otherwise we'll think you're behaving like those who keep their mouths shut instead of like the enlightened person you pretend to be.
Miracles
It is not surprising that on a website with a leftist agenda there will be those who do not believe in God. You just won't admit it.
Besides, you're asking me to present an argument against evolution when you have no idea (or haven't read my previous comments) what I think about evolution.
Let's say:
The theory is incomplete because it does not deal with factors that affect animals. such as consciousness. The theory does not refer to consciousness as an influencing factor on the animal's decision-making processes.
Poke Poke
You start stressing and talking nonsense. As soon as you say there are studies and there are facts - then you are saying nonsense.
If you don't like hearing something, that doesn't make it wrong.
deal with it.
Shall we move on? Let's make an argument against evolution?
Poke Poke
The studies are reliable and Eyal did do his homework. Another reinforcement for the studies are the level of reactions here from the evolutionists.
But let's leave it at that. It does not contribute to the discussion. Let's say one argument against evolution, and we'll go from there. Ok?
Spring.
Today even the scientists who win the Nobel Prize (and not those who only study what others have discovered) still believe in God. So where does enlightenment come in? Apparently, belief does not detract from an individual's knowledge. And maybe even adds. Which cannot be said about the atheist Enlightenment.
Yes, miracles.
Eyal's studies are indeed embarrassing 🙂
In his place I would do my homework before I would think of presenting such "research".
Pokey pokey, in the past the great scientists believed in God because that was what was customary until the Enlightenment came and proved that it was possible without him. Today most scientists are atheists.
Wookie
Your response entitles you to enter the category - stupid atheists. Mazel Tov.
Eyal and miracles
You can rely on an atheist's research. I prefer to rely on facts. And the facts state that the greatest scientists believed in God.
And people of their kind are the ones who established facts on the ground, and not stupid and atheist people of your kind, unfortunately.
In addition: you put a stick between your legs.
Earlier you claimed that the religious are stupid and now your opinion has changed based on a fact I presented.
Your argument seems to have brought you down.. 🙂
"There are also believers in God who received a Nobel Prize...it turns out that the religious are no less intelligent than the atheists - if not more so."
It turns out that people who believe in God are able to win a popularity contest, so it turns out that religious people are no less intelligent than atheists, and maybe even more so.
Yes. This is exactly your "logical" argument, Fox
And we have a contest winner who manages to write something stupid enough to make me respond. Well done, the competition was indeed tough but you did it. Please contact the office regarding your winning details.
Yes of course.
These are only statistical trends and not an absolute thing, but they clearly show that there is a correlation between lack of faith and a high IQ level, but it is clear that there are also smart and believing people in the world (usually these are people who grew up in a religious home), and vice versa.
Eyal
Two things should be remembered. The first is that there are religious geniuses and atheist fools. The second is that the studies do not only talk about religious belief - it is about all kinds of other beliefs without an evidentiary basis, such as conspiracies of various kinds, superstitions, mysticism and homeopathy.
Dawkins defined it nicely (although I don't think he's the nitpicker): "Belief is a process of not thinking". Of course it's a question that you don't think, you think it's not like that... (I had to 🙂 )
Here is an easy article in Hebrew on the subject that talks about the connection between IQ and faith in God:
http://secularisrael.blogspot.co.il/2010/09/blog-post_06.html
(In Wikipedia in English they talk about large studies from 2012-2014 that strengthen this claim)
Poke Poke
Beware of the studies that Eyal mentions.... They are a bit awkward 🙂
In any case - it is clear that it cannot be disproved that God exists - because this is part of the definition of God ("a supernatural being").
But (!) if this entity affects the natural, then there must be (at least) one natural occurrence that cannot be explained without assuming a supernatural entity. That is, if God has any significance on the world, then it can be shown, and if not, then why assume that there is such a thing?
It is similar to the issue of a soul - if there was such a thing, then there would have to be a phenomenon in the body that cannot be explained in a natural way. I don't know one. I also don't know anyone who knows anyone who knows anyone... who knows such a phenomenon.
Fuki, go argue with all the statistical studies that show that the more educated a person is (he has more advanced degrees, especially in the fields of life sciences) the less and less he believes in God 🙂
Eyal
exactly like that.
It turns out that the religious are just as intelligent as the atheists - if not more so.
Besides, the "concept" of God cannot be refuted or confirmed.
So, if you claim to have disproved its existence, you probably don't understand what you're talking about.
Hi Pokey, I don't believe in God because he simply doesn't exist.
The believers in God who received the Nobel Prize received the prize for scientific research work they performed and not for their belief in God, long live the difference.
Eyal
Not only that, there are also believers in God who received a Nobel Prize..
What about you will not happen in the next incarnation either -
And you don't even believe in God!
He is not the only one... there are also quite a few rabbis who accept the theory of evolution:
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3966273,00.html
http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/science/.premium-1.2448687
It might interest you, related to the debate you are having:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/random-aspect-of-evolution-2809147#comments
By the way, Erez Lebanon is a brilliant religious researcher from Bar Ilan and apparently has no problem with, mercifully, evolution.
Eyal
Exactly 🙂 That's why I asked the question. What I suggested is more likely than God...
Miracles, what always makes me laugh in arguments with them is that the alternative they offer ("God") is much more complicated and much more nonsensical than the theory they attack... it's just amusing 🙂
א
Allow me to ask a question. Let's assume that our biology does have situations of inexhaustible complexity, and let's assume that indeed this proves that the evolution of our form of life is not possible - what do you think that another form of life, since it developed through evolution, is the one that seeded the form of life that we know on Earth?
could it be Two letter answer please.
א
I referred you to the reference. In any case, the claim is wrong.
Good luck with your studies...if you believe all the nonsense you read...then let's not waste time here, okay?
Albanzo and Nisim, not only is the argument not wrong, it has even gotten stronger since the Dover trial (and Bihi continues to bring it up in conferences as well). I happen to have some knowledge of biochemistry so it's hard to work me on these things. Bihi admitted that the argument is wrong and that he falsified studies? I find it very hard to believe. Can you provide a reference for this claim?
As mentioned, many proteins are required for a number of components. If we assume that we want to design a protein that will connect two substrates, then at least 2 binding sites are required. And a minimum binding site can also reach 50 ha. There is no rank.
א
As Albanzo told you, that argument was debunked years ago. Because I'm sure you're a serious guy - I refer you to Behey's testimony in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, and to the judge's conclusion:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm.html
http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/highlights/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf
I would like to know - do you still insist on your argument?
By the way, Michael Behey, the father of the irreducible complexity argument, also openly admitted that he was wrong. When he testified under oath in the American court (where if you are caught in a lie they put you in prison for a long time), he admitted that he had falsified and biased research in general, and privately said that the above argument is just eye catching and does not address the main point.
I'm not claiming that Michael Behey admitting a mistake is a refutation of the argument - in science they don't refer to such things, but only to research. But as I wrote in the previous comment, everyone is welcome to go to Google and see the countless explanations and scientific evidence that this argument is simply a creationist lie that stems from an agenda.
A,
The first half of your response is the argument called "irreducible complexity". He has been refuted so many times in every possible situation, that it already physically hurts me to see that there are other people quoting him. I'm not going to drag you into an idle argument. Go to Google, search for the term and see the arguments. I have no intention of wasting time on you, what's more, there's no way you'll listen to me.
Evidence of this is that the second half of your response was already answered by me in detail in a previous response. But you didn't bother to read, or you read and refused to internalize because no matter what you will continue to shout that evolution is a lie.
Successfully.
Albanzo and Ehud, the problem is that there are no functional steps on the way to the complete protein. For example: there is no use in the site that binds to an amino acid in an aminoacyl.t protein, if there is still no site that binds to ATP and tRNA. All three are required to carry out the reaction (Xa connection to trna).
Think of a car engine. Such an engine requires a lot of components, and hence, even at the minimum level, a number of components are required for its minimal function.
In addition, if all probability is possible or unknown, then as "Emden" hinted, why do we even need the theory of evolution? We could argue that the probability is unknown and hence that man or even entire systems were created in Mecca. But it is a fact that no evolutionary scientist claims this. Probability weights are known and clear.
Joseph,
Your reviews are ridiculous.
1. Most of them are meaningless swans that are not related to the topic. Fermat's theorem? Irrational roots? Topological spaces? Say, are you just name-dropping to sound smart or do you really have no idea what you're talking about? Please, let's start with you explaining to me the topology of the space in which the ant roams. You are talking about topological spaces, so I would love to hear about that. Let me guess - you are using the Gauss-Bone theorem to prove that there is no evolution.
2. Evolution is definitely not based on the idea that there is nothing in the universe except random development. First, evolution is *not at all* random. Hayat Rabak, learn a little about the subject before you speak. Second, she only talks about the variety of different species on the Earth. It does not describe at all why the ant moves and therefore there is nothing more stupid than claiming that there is no evolution because it does not explain the free will of the ant. What is the next step, to say that there is no electric power because it does not explain why I woke up thirsty this morning? Or is there no gravitation, because the theory of gravitation is based on the curvature of spaces only and their interaction with the energy in space, and these things alone cannot explain why apples are red?
3. There is no need for an "evolutionary function". The theory of evolution is not a mathematical theory (by the way, there are also mathematical theories that don't have a description of development in time). You will be surprised, but there is also science that is not exact science and is not formulated in the language of mathematics, but it is still science. And, as I said, within the framework of exact science, your claim is nonsense. Who exactly said that for an idea to be true there must be a function that describes it mathematically? Oh, you? Ok.
Yossi Simon,
Regarding your contact with me, Eyal answered you here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/random-aspect-of-evolution-2809147/comment-page-5/#comment-562475
point
Do you think the decay of a radioactive nucleus is random?
It is not true to say that there is no randomness in nature - we cannot prove today that there is no randomness. If you think otherwise - then say "I think that..."
Only a fool speaks confidently like you.
1. The mutations are not random. Every mutation has a reason. Nothing is random in evolution. The physics we know is governed by laws.
2. To say about the human species that it is not a special evolutionary development compared to the other animals is like saying about the living creatures that they are not a special evolutionary development compared to the inanimate. Suffice it to say that man can destroy all living things on earth.
3. Creationists are cowards and stupid just like most humans.
Poke Poke
I'm really trying to find content in what you say. What calculations are you talking about?
Evolution does not explain everything. It explains the origin of species. It has no holes and no contradictions. There is no evidence in the world that contradicts evolution.
We will really wait for Yossi, maybe he will be able to formulate a claim that is worth discussing.
Miracles
It doesn't have to be an ant, a fish is also possible.
The meaning is that the theory is incomplete if all the factors are not included in its calculations.
In any case, we will wait for Yossi's response.
Einsteinzo Poke Poke
I don't understand why you can't simply say what you want to say. Does the claim that an ant moves mean that there is an external factor directing it? And what does it have to do with evolution?
And please, don't play with words. I didn't ask to decipher something - I first want to hear what the claim is.
Am I asking too much?
Miracles
Read carefully, Yossi wrote: an undeciphered factor.
How do you want to understand something that you don't understand? You want me to understand an undeciphered factor? I can't because it's an undeciphered factor..
Einsteinzo Poke Poke
Where did I claim randomness? The mutations?
What calculations are you talking about?
I didn't understand how we got to Anthem. What do you want me to show about the ant? Her development path?
Yossi makes some kind of claim - so first he will make it, then he will explain why he makes such a claim. Unlike you (and according to your words also different from Yossi), I don't require him to prove anything, after all we don't know everything. I want to understand first what the claim is, and what makes him think that the claim is true.
I'm trying to figure out where I went wrong... Help me?
Miracles
Why is he avoiding? here:
(Note that I am only correcting you and not arguing with you.)
You didn't understand Yossi Simon's entire response.
If you claim randomness - the burden of proof is on you. You need to show all the steps and routes that the ant (or hedgehog if you want) goes through.
Yossi claims that there is a factor that we are not aware of that also affects evolution and this is a factor that is not included in the calculations. It is not included - because it cannot be included in the same framework. The frame is not suitable.
But the cause exists as consciousness exists for humans. Hope the hint is clear enough.
Yossi Simon
You wrote "The laws of evolution are based on the idea that the animal evolved randomly without the involvement of additional authorities". It's not accurate. The environment is a decisive factor in evolution. As I have explained several times - there are 4 necessary and sufficient conditions for evolution: reproduction, variation, competition and heredity. If you do not accept this basis - say, and we will talk about it.
The competition comes from the environment - lack of space, lack of food or lack of partners (sexual reproduction).
The only thing that is random is the variation. We think that there is no external factor that directs the mutations. The mutations are at the genotype level, that is, in the sequence of bases in DNA (or RNA). The difference is in the phenotype - the effect of the genes on the living being. In my personal opinion - the enormous power of evolution is precisely in this randomness. I look at it this way: there is an infinite tree of possible base sequences. Look at it as books. We have 22 books one letter long, 22 in a square two letters long and so on. Let's assume that we are looking for a certain book in this tree. It's a book that gives instructions on how to build a living thing. We start at the base of the tree and start searching along all the branches. The question is how to search? And another fact - our search is not fast and environmental conditions change.
Intelligent planning - assumes that you know in advance how to get to the appropriate branch, which in my opinion does not make sense because the environment is constantly changing.
Evolution says so - I will search simultaneously in all branches. In the first generation - I will check the books with one letter, in the second generation I will check all the books with 2 letters, and so on.
It sounds very, very ineffective - but there is an amazing trick! Let's go back to DNA. In this tree of life there is another condition - each stage must know how to reproduce. Therefore, any mutation that results in infertility will immediately disappear.
This explanation has one weak point - the race must be a genetic sequence that knows how to reproduce (I'm trying to simplify here). The same genetic sequence is probably not the result of genetic evolution. This topic - the beginning of life - is broad and this is not the place to go into it. We're talking about evolution, right?
Regarding the ant - in my opinion this is a bad example, an ant has a quarter of a million brain cells. There are much simpler creatures that move, and there are robotic vacuum cleaners that know how to look for their charging socket by themselves.
I don't understand what you mean by the phrase topological space. It's a complex mathematical concept... did you mean topographical space?
I also don't understand what an evolutionary function is. Evolution is a process, it is not a function and it is not an algorithm. Can you try to say what you mean please?
Amir, Eyal, Nisim, others
Eyal Nissim: Regarding, I declare that I really do not understand and will not be able to understand, the complexity of the universe in any form and of course I have no ability to prove (in mathematical logic) anything. I am satisfied with the fact that I am able to build a magic cube of length 40 in space 2,3,4,5,6,7, and more (so calm down Nissim).
Even if the universe was completely empty I would not be able to understand in terms of infinite time and space. I certainly understand some of the laws of physics but I have no idea why they work and I won't elaborate.
Eyal! Before Fermat's Theorem was proven, scientists rejected proof claims even though they themselves at the time did not know how to prove Fermat's claim, so your claim is really illogical.
emir! Let's go back to the ant, I do not disagree at all about the genetic structure and everything that has been deciphered. What I claim is this:
The laws of physics are well defined and formulate the formation of movement as a result of attraction between two physical factors.
The laws of evolution are based on the idea that the animal evolved randomly without the involvement of additional authorities. And if so, since the ant moves and it can be expected that it moves following decisions related to it, it follows from the fact that the ant contains another factor capable of "pulling". As long as that factor is not deciphered how can the hypothesis of evolution be accepted absolutely. Those who ignore this should present the topological space in the ant's environment and draw a motion graph as is done for every satellite in space.
Amir: The root of the numbers 2.3,5,7,31,103 and another 2 trillion numbers is irrational. Can we conclude from this that all the roots of the whole numbers are irrational?
The phenomenon of mutations indicates that there are indeed mutations, it does not indicate that the entire animal evolved from an infinite sequence of mutations.
Amir: In the end there is not even one evolutionary function that defines a state of transition from state A to state B at the most basic level.
Robin
I agree with you. I don't see a fundamental problem with the production of all the nutrients.
Another problem still remains. Without predators, what will stop the unlimited breeding of all species?
Miracles are interesting, think if we could survive only on minerals, think what an abundance of energy... it would solve at least 80% of the world's problems... if only we could crack a certain genetic code or engineer a certain inorganic material that can be bent like the plants do - that's for sure will be a cornerstone on the way to utopia. By the way, I believe that the "perfect society" can be achieved with the help of science and culture, you just need to loosen the rules of ethics in certain areas a bit and keep an open mind to ideas - by the way, when I say a perfect society, I mean a society that chooses when to end its life, that has no shortages and no competition Evolutionary, perfect harmony, and not limited to the borders of her planet and is free to travel anywhere she wants. This is the true definition of "heaven on earth"
Thank you for your attention to my question. Have a good evening
Robin
Many plants do not eat animals. You can grow generations of plants in test tubes with minerals.
Regarding animals, I don't know how to give a good answer. More developed animals need organic substances, such as vitamins and amino acids. Maybe there are single cells that only consume minerals. If you want, I can check in depth.
Miracles - I just want to prove here on this respected website - that living beings will never be able to live in peace as long as they cannot "absorb" energy from the inanimate - (soil, sand, rocks) Note miracles - everything that lives must live on the basis of someone Live for every organism that breathes, lives at the expense of "absorbing energy" of another creature with DNA, banana, peach, eggs, milk, everything - knows what, I will summarize my question and get you out of the confusion and end it once and for all with one question - is there (and if And is it not possible) to be able to survive only by absorbing inanimate matter, eating non-"living" things for that matter? ….. and regarding the question of the believer - I will not be a hypocrite with you - I am not a complete (strong) atheist, but I do not believe in anything in the Abrahamic religions, be sure of that, but I do (want to) believe in something.... It may be because I have not yet twisted reality Around me, maybe I still have some innocence left in me and a sincere desire to believe that maybe there is something beyond the existence in front of my eyes...but who knows - probably only science will one day be able to redeem us from all our questions..
This is my "I believe" in a big way. good day everybody
Also a way to avoid…
Miracles
You are wrong about several things. There's no point in discussing it if you don't agree to accept the corrections for the mistakes you've made.
Therefore, as I said: the debate on the subject is not between us but between you and Yossi Simon. We'll wait and see what he has to say.
Poke Poke
great. And now, what do I not understand about evolution? Where do you think I am wrong?
Miracles
There is the psychological/philosophical aspect of the term awareness.
And there is the physical aspect - which you and I are discussing.
From the physical side - indeed, what you said is true. And in fact awareness can be defined (in this sense) already from the elementary particles and up.
(This is my definition. It was given only for the purpose of the discussion. This is not a formal definition for the term awareness).
estimate,
There are two points that need to be addressed in your claim.
1. First, there is actually a basis for believing that gradual development is more likely than sudden. If we look at a concentrated organism, it seems to have a lot of information - a lot of cell types, a lot of proteins, a variety of DNA molecule structures, etc. One can ask what is the probability that each of the independent processes will occur separately. If the probability of each independent process (for example, assembly of each different DNA molecule) is any number other than 1, then when we factorize the processes we will get that the probability that all of them will occur simultaneously is the product of the probabilities, that is - necessarily lower than the probability that only one of the processes will occur. Therefore it is enough to assume that the structure of life is not completely deterministic and we already accept that a gradual development is much more likely than a sudden one.
2. But, it doesn't really matter. And this is because science is not just a collection of claims that I have not been able to disprove. After all, the claim that a demon sits inside the sun and transmits malicious thoughts to Steven Spielberg's head has not been disproved, and probably won't be disproved soon. That doesn't make it scientific. Science concentrates on positive evidence - that is, creating predictions of theories and confronting them with reality. All the evidence we have gathered by observing the world around us points to a gradual development and is therefore scientifically superior to any other theory even if it has not been disproved yet.
We can talk about the electromagnetic theory - we believe that there are electric charges, and that there are photons, etc. It is certainly not possible to disprove the claim that there are mouths that carry the electric force and there is no such thing as a charge at all and there are no electromagnetic waves, etc. Are all the experiments we have done in the last two hundred years, all the information we have collected, which completely supports the electromagnetic theory as we understand it today, meaningless?
This is the most basic idea of science: to take a group of hypotheses, see which of them are completely disproved, and among other things to understand which one is closest to reality by confronting it with the measurements of nature (after all, in science there is no such thing as definite "proof").
estimate,
Pseudoscience because scientific tools (probability calculation) are used in combination with non-scientific assumptions (uniform distribution, without apparent reason).
Evolution or actually natural selection is the force of attraction in Albantezo's example. And just as we have the force of gravity to explain why the ball was added just below the hand, so we use the idea of natural selection to explain what we see around us as well as to predict (miracles have already provided enough predictions that evolution correctly predicted, on this site) what spontaneous formation does not do.
In addition, spontaneous formation is not scientific and not only because it does not produce predictions but because it does not allow its refutation.
Poke Poke
The problem with the word "awareness" is that we don't know how to define it. Is a thermostat "aware" of temperature? In my opinion yes - a system that reacts to an external event that it is aware of.
What about self-awareness? My computer turns on the fan when it gets hot - is it aware of itself? Again, in my opinion yes - a system that reacts to its internal state is aware of itself.
The problem is that there is a continuum from that poor thermostat to the person. A thermostat has one simple cell, a jellyfish has 800 cells, an ant has a quarter of a million, a fish has 10 million and a human has 100 billion - so where do you draw the line?
Rene Descartes for example, thought that animals do not feel pain, he thought that only humans are aware.
Therefore - in order to refute or confirm, we need to define what we are talking about.
Hi Elbentzo
I think I understand what you mean. As long as we do not have established knowledge about the physical processes that allow amino acids to form or proteins to assemble, any discussion about the probability of such assembly is mathematically meaningless. I don't understand why the term pseudoscience belongs here but ok, let's say.
My question is this (note, I'm not trying to tease): Since your answer that the formation of protein can be statistically plausible because we don't know everything yet, why then is a theory of evolution required at all. I can claim that the species were created as they are (don't be caught off guard, this is just an example), and claim that I don't know the physical processes that allow such a thing to happen, so it can't be claimed that it doesn't turn out.
After all, evolution acted, in a certain sense, in order to explain the improbability of the sudden formation of so many species without a physical explanation that we know. The idea that all species were created as they are is an intuitively improbable idea, and evolution tries to define the process that caused it in a statistically plausible way (like any scientific theory of this kind, such as the Big Bang or carbon dating which assumes that it is improbable that carbon 14 decays at a non-uniform rate). If so, and here I repeat my point for clarification, why is the intuitive improbability of protein evolution (which is not improbability at all in mathematical terms because the density is unknown) better than the improbability of the spontaneous formation of evolved organisms (which is also not really improbability since the density unknown). I understand that intuitively there is a difference, but mathematically I can't find a good reason - both maintain more or less the same improbability, and even so this improbability has no meaning, as you commented again, probably correct. what are you saying?
Eyal
Can you prove no? Can you refute the claim?
lets see.
Miracles
There are a few things. But because the debate is between you and Yossi Simon, I would like to hear his opinion first. Let's wait and see what he has to say.
Poky Poky, when a bee collects flower nectar and makes honey from it, does it do so consciously?
When an ant collects a grain of bread and brings it to the nest, does it do so consciously?
sentences (sorry)
Robin
Are you trying to say that all the murder in this world has to decide? I really don't see a connection between your shmpets. Trust me I'm trying to understand what you're saying.
You claim that everything that lives is a killer. Ok - what should be concluded from this?
Instead of attacking me all the time - what do you want? What do you believe?
Poke Poke
What do you think I didn't answer correctly? Let's start from one point.
Robin
cool it. Later you will learn. Then respond. Bye.
Eyal
Nothing to do with a conscious decision?
You must not be aware that you are hungry when you buy falafel.
According to your opinion - the ancient man did not know why he was killing a deer and why he was eating it.
Yes.. you are a great scientist..
A',
The answer to your claim is in the article I wrote. For your convenience, it is presented here again: "If we think about all the atoms that make up my body at this moment, it is unlikely that they all came to this place at this moment to create me." If it happened that way, it would of course be improbable and impossible. But nature doesn't work like that but step by step. The atoms join the molecules, the molecules - the bases, and amino acids are formed from these. These assemble into proteins and from these the cells are formed. Simple creatures are created from the cells, and then - complex ones."
And the part you probably skipped: "First of all, stable units are created that make up each stage of this development, and they are the ones that serve as raw material for the accidental meetings from which structures of a higher level of complexity are created, some of which have a chance of being stable. As long as the possibility of a stable structure is not realized, randomness cannot continue to act to create the structure. It is a development from the simple to the complex, where each stage of this process must reach stability in order to constitute the condition that will allow the accidental development of the next stage."
A's claims are exactly the pseudo-math I was talking about. There is *no* basis for the super-dumb claim that if there are X possibilities to connect 200 amino acids, then the probability of getting one of the possibilities at random is 1 divided by X. This is simply nonsense of the first order that stems from an assumption that is not close to reality. Just like in the example I gave some 30 comments ago about how if we do the same treatment for gravity, we will "prove" that the probability that an object falling from a tower will reach the base of the tower is 0.
Miracles
You did not refute, confirm or answer any question Yossi Simon asked.
Total bullshit. Word hashing.
And this is another proof that you don't know evolution beyond what you read on Wikipedia.
Instead of insulting the commenters with your dirty mouth - answer to the point.
Otherwise you just came off as a jerk.
You are a follower of evolution and you have a duty of proof. It has nothing - as much as you would like - to do with God.
Nissim, you are not relevant in this discussion - because you have proven
I have more than once that you have very severe reading comprehension problems - me. No. religious. , now you're trying to make me feel ashamed by turning me into a dark ultra-Orthodox... and make me irrelevant here - if you're here, the atom that can't accept the other's opinion... you're an extremist, and that's fine, that's your right, I don't know and I don't pretend to know what you've been through in life In order to acquire your righteousness....I don't really care - about the matter of the murder, tell me you're kidding me, aren't you....I just argued here a while ago that evil is not universal and its definition varies from creature to creature and you called me mentally ill with no basic morals... ..in short, I was righteous, the universe tends to be cruel towards living beings, then why does it develop feelings for them if it can be an evolutionary burden... such as sadness or false hope and all this because there is no "father of the house" to monitor the level of suffering. ...and you won't call me and my opinions "embarrassing"...you will respect me the way I respect you with your blown-up degrees that I don't know and I don't care where you got them...you will respect me! And yes, a deer kills the grass it eats because plants also have life and it was proven in a recent new study that they also feel that they are being approached... But this is not murder... this is "random absorption of cells which after a few million years became murderous and brutal like no other just to absorb energy in order to to exist …..excuse the expression but you are so pathetic it is unbelievable.
A. What is the probabilistic space from which an omnipotent and super intelligent God was created?
א
And if we assume that only 50 acids are needed? And what if only 10? And maybe 5 is enough, but then the protein does something else, but still useful.
Is it absolutely impossible what I'm saying?
How do you know how many atoms there are in the universe? Maybe the universe is infinite? God could not create an infinite universe? What, is he limited??
Following Yossi's words, a small protein consists of about 200 amino acids. Assuming that only half of that is required for its minimal function, then its probability space is 100^20. Even if the number of possible functional sequences is like the number of atoms in the universe, we still need something like 50^10 mutations for its evolution. Therefore, evolution is probabilistically disproven.
Robin
I explained to you more than once - you don't decide what murder is. Only a court decides that.
It sounds stupid of me to say that. But only you think that a deer kills the grass.... Say - do you brush your teeth? Do you know how many bacteria you kill in cold blood?
Robin - if you want to learn something about the world I believe in, tone it down and stop talking. If you have a logical argument, or if you have a claim that you want to present - then have fun. Unlike your world, in the secular world you are allowed to talk about anything. It is allowed to ask and it is allowed to disagree. You live in a world where the biggest sin is asking.
I have many questions that I do not know how to answer. You only have answers, and you mustn't ask anything beyond that.
Listen to Eyal, he speaks beautifully and to the point. And really, if you don't like reading what I write, don't read. Your comments are embarrassing….
Yossi Simon
1. As usual for a religious man who proves once again how much core studies are needed, you have no understanding of the subject you speak about with such increased confidence. In particular - there is no need to go down to the atomic level to prove that evolution works. You are welcome to read my thesis - it is in the Haifa University library. The proof is there…
2. First thing - not true. And say, why do I need to prove and you don't?
3. This is not my field, but I estimate that we have fossils of thousands of intermediate stages. Remind me - what is the exact number you are looking for?
4. I don't understand what "infinite factors" is. The body does not adapt itself to the environment. You really lack knowledge... Core studies are important!!!!
5. I actually thought you were the one who surely knows how the world was created. Not only do you know - you know it from reading an ancient fairy tale book that has almost no proven connection with reality.
Darwin was smarter than you Yossi, like any budding scientist. He looked around and drew conclusions. You read in a book and fit to tell your narrow world.
Say Yossi - have you ever made a mistake? Have you believed in something and seen that you were wrong? of course not.
This is the difference between you and a scientist...
Robin, no one was there to see it with their own eyes, but the way I imagine it could be some sort of "oily bubbles" that move randomly in a liquid, and when they encounter smaller bubbles they join together into a larger oily bubble ("predation"). , when the bubble becomes already too large the crust fails to hold it whole and then it breaks up into two separate bubbles (the "primitive" culture) perhaps with the active help of waves for example when they crash on the rocks on the beach.
You understand Eyal, here I'm losing you a bit "an organism that simply absorbs will survive better and pass on the traits to its offspring" - I guess you are a violent trait - it's just a random mutation that caused him to do this and then he passed the same random mutation on to his offspring... but - what caused At all for the same feature (mutation) to appear in the first place?
Robin,
"All living things fight for energy... a very interesting concept considering that inanimate matter is 'unloving' and does not have the ability to decide things on its own"
This has nothing to do with a conscious decision, an organism that swallows/absorbs into its body other organisms in its environment that provide it with energy will simply survive better (because it has more food) and therefore it will pass this good trait (=which gives it a survival advantage) to its offspring, who will also be carnivores
Just as an animal that runs fast in the savannah will survive better (because it will be able to avoid predators) so it will pass on this characteristic of fast legs to its offspring who will also run fast. It's not that he consciously decided "now I have to run fast", it's simply a feature that gave him an advantage over other creatures that ran slower than him (and therefore were killed).
Miracles according to your method (which is full of holes) All living things from the single-celled to the complex fight for only one thing - energy....a very interesting concept considering that inanimate matter is a "degenerate" by definition and does not have the ability to decide things on its own except perhaps, as you said, to absorb Thais are "dead".....be healthy...that's all I have left to say
Oh Nissim once again talking nonsense - "absorption of cells" ……in other words murder...call the child by his name....and don't tell me that killing plants is not murder because a plant is a living thing and has DNA, and it also wants to reproduce by its fruits that you kill them Every day when you eat a peach....don't curse me and tell me I have a dirty mouth....insolent you also didn't answer my question....what made another organism want to eat another living organism - you say competition - I say murder and pure evil.
Joseph,
A. We are discussing biology, not mathematics and not physics (although many of the predictions of evolution have been proven mathematically. See Alan Greifen's proof of Amutz Zahavi's "principle of respect". There is a summary about the principle of respect on Wikipedia).
B. I'm not a physicist and I don't know. Maybe there is such an explanation and maybe not. Regarding the collective action of the ants: this is explained by the principle of selection of the remainder. There is also a short entry on this on the Hebrew Wikipedia and a better entry on the English Wikipedia. Gegal kin selection ants.
Between all two sister ants in the nest there is a genetic affinity of 75%, an average between the degree of kinship to her mother (she received 50% of the mother's genes) and the degree of kinship to her father (from whom she received 100% of the genes because the father has only one copy of each chromosome, and this passes in its entirety to the daughter ant ). That's why ants help raise their sisters and don't move to their own nest: because if the ant is a mother, she will transfer 50% of her genes to her daughter (another 50% comes from the father), while her sister already has 75% of her genes. The genetic load of their offspring is less close to them than the genetic load of their sisters. Therefore it is better for them to help their sisters.
http://www.bumblebee.org/Haplodiploidy.htm
third. The changes are random, but the choice between them is not random. The mutations in the genes are random. As we speak (or type) mutations are constantly occurring in the thousands of cell copies in our body. What is not random is the way in which the mutations that will be passed on to the next generation are determined. These are the same mutations that have an advantage for their subject, whether it is resistance to disease, skin color or dopamine levels in the brain.
Evolution is not only a theory, it is also a fact proven both in the laboratory and in observations of nature. For sightings, see the change in Adriatic lizards:
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3535079,00.html
For a laboratory, see Lenski's experiment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
For more errors in the understanding of evolution, see here:
http://cafe.themarker.com/post/1819670/
And here:
http://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/online/maagarmada/life_sci/%D7%A9%D7%92%D7%99%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A0%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%94%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%AA-%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%91%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%94
Correction - "according to your same skeptical attitude".
Yossi Simon, your arguments are refutable. Let's start with the fact that first you prove the alternative option - God, as long as you haven't done this, you have nothing to talk about (and if you didn't understand the meaning - how was God Almighty created according to that skeptical sister-in-law of yours?)
Another thing, when you see evolution working in front of our eyes, for example in the domestication of dogs, pigeons and many other animals that we changed only through the process of selection and breeding, then there is no need to go down to the level of the atom and molecule to understand that the process simply works.
for miracles
1. Whoever claims that evolution is not a belief but a fact, must prove it as it is proven in mathematics. to define well the set of steps at the level of subatomic behavior. Just like it is done in physics. Start at the point where there is no life and end for the sake of the ant example. Using functions for data and result.
2. Since the laws of physics define the set of conditions for the formation of movement, and since the believers of evolution completely deny any existence of another "there" in the universe, then it is necessary to explain how the movement of an ant arises from the laws of physics alone.
3. If we refer to the development of an elephant, from a "zero" creature, to an elephant today, then the process of its development includes a huge number of stages, where between stages there is a small delta of change, we should have discovered this through the presentation of a large number of skeletons. How many steps can be displayed?
4. A change in a gene/cell in a space containing an infinite number of factors does not constitute proof bordering on change.
Just as it is claimed that the living body "adapts" itself to the environment, it can be said that it is the environment that shapes the living body.
5. I wonder how people who almost all find it difficult to solve problems with one vanishing point (any person can invent a problem of this type) in such a limited world, are so sure and convinced of themselves in understanding the entire universe that is so tangled and complex to say the least?
Robin, regarding the question of evil and selfishness versus the question of human goodness and altruism, sharing is a crucial feature of human consciousness. Altruism - not selfishness - is the prevailing rule among human societies, whether it is formulated in ancient religious rules of conduct, or in modern humanism. Humans preserve social frameworks, economic systems and shared belief patterns, much more than they go to war to destroy these orders. And they manage to do this despite multiplication and an increase in population density to an extent that has no precedent among any other zoological species.
More on that - here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/why-are-we-altruists-1909131
Read a bit about the interaction between genes and the traits and behavior of the genes' products, in Richard Dawkins' book, The Selfish Gene, and in Steven Pinker's book, How the Brain Works.
Poky Your stuff really sounds like one big Poky... (and if you don't know what that is, search Google for "I did Poky").
Poke Poke
If this is your way of thinking then what are you doing on a science website?
I don't think God needs you as an advocate…
Miracles
You're right I don't like hearing that.
In general I don't like to hear scrambled drawings.
In any case, science does not see any need for an intelligent being, because science does not see. Those who see are the creatures with eyes. And even creatures without eyes don't need science to plug some hole. for your information.
Actually God doesn't need science either. He gave it to humans only to see what they are doing in this wonderful world.
Hello Hello.
Increase….
Yossi Simon
I think your understanding of evolution is confused. What exactly is wrong with you? Can you please give one problem that we can discuss?
A question for miracles
If I understood you correctly, then I agree with you. I am full of respect for those who manage to analyze the fossils in an amazing way.
A question for miracles
Today I work for a start-up company in the medical field.
Robin
Is your religious faith so shaky that you are reduced to the level of trash?
Go wash your mouth with soap and come back to apologize.
Robin
Calm down and keep your dirty mouth!
Robin
Let's agree not to use the loaded word "murder". This is a legal concept and only a court decides whether a certain act is murder or not.
Let's look at the beginning of life. In the beginning, God created the single-celled creatures and they were the only ones in the world for about two billion years. In the beginning the creatures absorbed simple substances from the environment. Now, I will describe something that may be true, but is decidedly plausible.
At some point, due to competition, creatures began to absorb dead cells. They contain organic materials and thus save energy to create. After that, creatures began to eat living cells. There is no "evil" here. The cells eaten are plants. That's how the cells grew and got stronger.
And again, more competition, and eating plants doesn't provide enough energy. So you should eat creatures that eat plants.
Remember, it's all unicellular still. Does this seem reasonable to you?
Nisim, you are a hypocrite and also a liar. There is not a single atheist in the world who would not donate his kidney in order to live in a world of fantasy and violence.
Don't regret... "He will never have children" - why does nature ask you at all? Your hormones will push you to have children...and what is your alternative - this world? The same cruel and random world without any meaning and without any beauty except for the boring and rather disappointing material and atomic beauty if you ask me... for such a world you do want to make children for a world in which there is no continuation after death... which has no meaning (except for the meaning you created only in the mind of yourself) the opposite If already in such a world don't make poor children live without any meaning in this absurd prison.
That they will have no reward for the good they have contributed to society, and will only die in the end without any meaning from the universe (as far as this universe is concerned - Hitler and Einstein are the same, there is no bad or good)...at least don't lie at least this....
Many thanks to "someone" who proved my point - the universe is a fundamentally cruel place... And anyone who says "respect nature" suffers from stupidity and blind gullibility, in my opinion the universe should be RESTART... He got out of control... and the biggest mistake in the infinite history of reality - it's emotions + intelligence = indescribable suffering of poor creatures who don't know what they are guilty of who are doomed to live in a desperate war of survival forever and ever...
Poke
You started well... why spoil it? 🙂
I know of no evidence that is a problem with evolution. We certainly don't know a lot of events that have taken place throughout the history of life, it is after all three and a half billion years...
And I know you won't like to hear this, but science sees no need for an intelligent being to plug some hole.
On the contrary, the assumption of an intelligent being creates many problems.
And in my opinion, this creates huge moral problems. If I believed for a moment that I was a tool in the hands of another being, I would never have children. Never.
Robin, it really has nothing to do with character, evil or morality... very simply, an organism that swallowed other organisms (weaker than it) and received energy from them had a better chance of survival... and so it passed this trait on to its offspring who also "preyed" on other bacteria/organisms to survive.
Nissim, I see that you are well versed in biology, so could you please tell me why the organism (sorry for the mistake) "how" the first organism developed a violent nature towards another organism in order to survive? - Or in short, what is the source of all the evil that is inherent in animals and in us - my meaning is why did animals from an evolutionary point of view develop a violent character and eat (murder) other animals in order to survive? How does an inanimate organism over time learn that it needs to kill and survive all the time, what brought it this character (we'll call it this instinct).? Did it develop over time....were there initially "peace-seeking" mutts but they didn't manage to survive...? And only the killers survived (I mean of course the first bacteria)?
Evolution is not (just) natural selection. absolutely not. Evolution is a process. Development while changing. And yet it is still not possible to confirm or refute that the greatest force of all drove the process.
Evolution is of course a very good explanation for today's understanding of life and the universe. But looking at life a little more soberly - this is a rather amateurish explanation with more holes in it than Swiss cheese.
Answer to - A, I think it's just a matter of statistics... if you think about the fact that only a tiny percentage of the giraffes that evolved became fossils, and about the tiny percentage of the area of land that paleontologists have excavated... you'll get the answer.
That is, what is the chance that a paleontologist who digs on a tiny piece of land (relative to the area of all the continents on Earth) will be able to find one of the hundreds (if we trust the number you threw out) of the giraffes that have become hungry, precisely in the small excavation area he is digging in?
In my opinion it's about the same as the chance of winning the lottery (miracles correct me if I'm wrong)
emir!
1. Newton provided a mathematical formula in which an attractive relationship is expressed between any two masses that are at a variable distance from each other.
Is there any formula in the theory of evolution that describes a given topological space that should contain the mapping and movement of all the elementary particles and present the evolutionary result that will be obtained?
In fact, there is an endless need for formulas as if to claim that evolution is proven and is a fact.
2. The laws of physics ultimately define the movements of isolated opaque particles and large masses, is there an explanation of how an ant's movement occurs subject to the laws of physics.
3. If all the changes are random then it is expected to meet a very large and dense distribution of creatures according to each animal or plant he chose. And there really isn't.
4. If a cell/gene has changed due to environmental conditions, it is necessary to investigate and find a rational explanation that complies with the known laws of physics
And the only thing that can be said about it that there has indeed been a change (it is not possible to make a generalization about all natural numbers based on the properties of sophisticated numbers like 28.
For me, the world is a charming puzzle that contains endless data and endless conditions that make life possible. Explanation according to theory
Evolution is really amateurish.
Nissim What is this website that your name is linked to?
Do you deal with patent matters?
If we develop a little the claim of "Emden". So let's say that the giraffe's neck developed in about 10 different stages. Let's say we find a lot of fossils from stage 1 and a lot from stage 10. This means that on average we need to find at least some fossils from each stage. Which in practice we do not find. Even if we suppose we find a fossil or two from some phase in the middle, that still means that hundreds more fossils should be found that are not found. problem.
Robin
Science actually started with "why". The Greeks did not ask how, they only asked why. This is a mistake, and this mistake brought us the religions.
There is a reason for this mistake. Our brain is looking for "agents". If there is a noise in the forest, it can be a predator, or prey. Animals have a similar mechanism, a dog listens to every noise. And when someone close is hurt, we look for a reason...
It is worth being precise here - "why" is used "for what purpose". This very question presupposes a being that has goals. Once science has discovered that there is no need to postulate an external entity, it makes no sense to ask for what purpose.
Today we ask "why" - what makes things happen, or what created the existing.
But, and this is an important but, we as humans feel that we are in control of our lives. Therefore, we can set goals for ourselves. I, as a non-religious person, have my goals. I understand that religious people say what their goals are in life.
Robin, don't hurt. You chose religion. You have to respect other people's choices.
Science never pretended to know "why"...it always stayed on the path of "how"...a day will come and the question of how will end and our descendants will be stuck with such a big backlog of the "why?"...I think it will drive them crazy...because science is always thirsty for more and more knowledge...but he has no purpose in his heart to know the great reason for the existence of reality and what is around it - no matter how much you try to fight among yourselves, at the end of the day there was nothing until there was something so after me there is no end you were born into this reality in which only you could exist .
estimate
Why do you call sex change? can you define a gender for me I'm not just asking, there are different definitions of sex
estimate
You're probably not stupid, so I can only attribute your method of discussion to a lack of integrity. You say something that sounds sophisticated, when it's clearly bullshit. All you are trying to do is undermine the minds of those who are not sure what is right and what is wrong.
I know all the creationist arguments and you are not reinventing anything.
Evolution puts man in his place, among other animals. We are unique because only we have a language. Other animals have consciousness and morals. Indeed a victorious blow to religion.
The fossils confirm evolution. You claimed that there are no fossils. It sounds like a serious argument, but it's nonsense. After all, you will always claim that between every two fossils another fossil is missing.
I am indeed extreme in my opinion. The reasons are simple:
The conditions for evolution exist on Earth
Evolution explains what we see and not just fossils.
We know the mechanisms of evolution.
We have no other theory to explain the observations.
We have no other predictive theory.
Anyone who says otherwise - without exception - is trying to sell you something.
I'm sorry that I'm not as gentle as Ehud and others, I'm just tired of repeating the lies that I encounter over and over again.
And for you estimate, I wrote a thesis that mathematically shows that evolution has an advantage over any possible design process. Today, I am continuing the thesis for a PhD. Not everyone thinks my opinion is stupid….
estimate,
And that's why I suggested you use a different name since there is historical documentation for the way in which the concept of creationism was created and it equates to God or (for Christianity, as you suggested, I have no problem with the correction)
Importance of using another name: if you want to promote a version of creationism, which is not related to God, speculative creationism, you are not married to creation 6000 years ago, for example.
Suggestion for the name: Onceism,
sympathetic
I understood now. You meant that the missing vertebra is the fossil found. The fact that there are different species at different levels of development is the story of evolution. It's beautiful. I did not think about it. Still the number of species among each such find should be astronomical, and we have only a few of them. That's a weak excuse. Regarding the living fossils: this is a beautiful example. At least the lungfish. This shows that given the appropriate conditions the species does not change at all because it has no reason to change. (Contrary to the claim that he refutes evolution, he actually agrees with it by providing information about the stability of the environment) But this neither supports evolution nor refutes it. We don't have enough information about the lungfish's environment and whether it has changed.
Shmulik
You sound, unlike the miracles, like a thinking person. So I will try to explain again. I separate the conceptual plane from a plane that I call the sociological plane. what do I mean? The creationists are surely religious people. They invented creationism to justify their religion. But the creationist description of reality has a conceptual theoretical existence beyond the intention of its inventors. They do this division themselves. The logical process they claim is this: evolution is nonsense, therefore can only be explained by creationism (which is a complete theory about how everything appeared at once and why it is true), and only after that in terms of the logical stage they claim God created. That is to say, that according to them, creationism is true even if there is no so-called God just because evolution is false. Of course, in reality, the number of people who actually think so is zero (this is what I mean when I say sociological level). But on the conceptual level, creationism is a so-called scientific theory, the content of which is the denial of evolution (the automatic conclusion regarding the existence of God is not necessary at all anyway). So it is clear that in the discussion level between people in society today, the word creationism necessarily goes with religion, especially Christianity, simply because the whole idea was created to prove the Christian doctrine. But on the theoretical level there is a difference between the concepts. When I say creationism, I don't mean a speculative new theory, but the same theory, only without the conclusion. When you asked what is the difference between God and creation, this is what I meant when I answered you. So if it sounds better to you: the answer is that the difference between God and creationism is like the difference between God and Christianity.
why is it important? Because I claim that there will be an opinion that will believe that evolution is simply a bad theory and that another theory should be sought, and to the same extent be empirical and devoid of religious "orientation". As strange as it sounds.
Miracles: size change is not gender change. The matter with the horses is not evidence of anything. After all, there are also extreme size differences between dogs. We've already been in this movie.
An unscientific claim is not a straw man claim. Obviously, it can be argued that the world was created two weeks ago, or a second, in this context. This is exactly the point I was trying to explain: the discussion about the age of the universe in the context of creation is ridiculous. Not only are you an evolutionary fundamentalist, you're also just not very smart about understanding what other people are saying.
Dear Nissim
I do not address your claims because you are not conducting a discussion. You believe in evolution like the ultra-Orthodox believe in the Talmud.
You are a fundamentalist, in a sense. I prefer not to argue with fundamentalists. For evidence, your claim that I am dishonest. What does integrity have to do with a legitimate question? You can explain to me that it is not a problem for evolution because 1,2,3, but claiming a lack of integrity in such a context only strengthens my understanding of being a man of faith, not science.
For example, your answer to the hybrid species - after all, the lizard Lata evolved from the ancestor. Right? Over the millions of years the ancestor grew legs, scales, a tongue and the like. Of course, this is not about a linear line, but about a chain of family development in the power of the number of descendants of each such creature. In the end a lizard came out. Where is everyone else? Where is the lizard's great-great-great-grandfather, the tongueless or the short-legged? Why is it extinct? Why are they all completely extinct? The idea of evolution is based on the extinction of the less successful genes depending on the environment. There are different lizards all over the globe. Did they all evolve from the final lizard? Is it reasonable to claim that the entire lizard lineage tree from the ancestor to the first lizards did not survive? And so in all species? Why is this problem a scam?
A discussion with you is like talking about the Tanakh with a puppy dog. You don't have the ability to raise doubts about your theory or admit flaws in it. A person who claims a theory and he says that it has never been hidden, that it explains everything best, and that it is the most this and the most that and is not willing to admit difficulties always raises doubts in me about the degree of his objectivity regarding the given subject.
And again, I'm really not their creator. Just a little more objective than you about the theory of evolution. (Another problem of yours, anyone who does not unquestioningly agree to accept evolution as a scientific truth is defined by you as a religious charlatan necessarily. Fundamentalist did I say?).
estimate,
I didn't call you Berathan, sorry if that's the impression created.
I said that in light of everything I know, and in light of the fact that you use a private definition for creationism, which is not the usual definition, probably all creationists define themselves differently since the concept of creationism is not properly defined because it is attached to religion and God.
To your question, it is obviously possible, but historically, as a fact, the concept of creationism began exactly as it is described in Wiki
And he has an inseparable connection with God. That is why I expressed surprise at your claim that there is a philosophical concept called creationism that is not related to God. That's why I asked for a reference to this concept and I didn't get one.
Therefore, advice: if you are going to talk about speculative creationism that is not related to publicly known creationism, state that you are not talking about creationism but about speculative creationism which is a new concept that you invented (new, at least until the reference is received from you) and at least you can avoid discussions about God and the inability to refute it.
estimate
As we look back in time we see that species change. Horses for example, were once the size of a rabbit.
How could they have been created together?
estimate
And here's another straw man claim of yours. Academically, it can be said that the world was created two weeks ago. This is equally valid….
sympathetic
Thank you very much for the factual answer. I know the archeopteryx. Regarding it there is a dispute as to whether it is even just another type of bird. It is very ambiguous. To the point, one species that is in a very preliminary transition stage (to me it just looks like a normal fish that uses its fishy fins to move on the seabed) and one fossil (I didn't find any more, except for all the monkey fossils of various kinds, on the site you directed me to) it's just not convincing. But I still didn't understand everything you said about the misconception regarding the "missing link". I just don't understand: isn't a link link required? Here, you claim that there is a link between the dinosaurs and the birds (which not even all biologists agree on, at least according to Wiki). If so, you agree that such a link is necessary.
Shmulik:
I am not your creation. I don't know where you got that conclusion from. I'm not an evolutionist either. I do not limit myself to such and such definitions except to find out the truth. I've said this several times already. As a matter of fact, you are missing the point and trapped in the terminology of categories. Answer me the following question: Can a person who does not believe in God believe that the different species were created suddenly without development? Is it possible, optionally, to dismiss that this happened and not believe in one or another god? Is it possible, academically?
estimate
I'm not writing to you because you ignore my words (rightly so for you). I am commenting so that other people will understand that you are not exactly a person of integrity.
You keep making straw man arguments. Here is another one, which is also an invention of other creationists.
"Why are there no vessel creatures"?
According to evolution there should be no vessel creatures today. Any two organisms alive today must have at least one common ancestor. The more different the two creatures are, the more ancient the ancestor. The ancestor of fish and lizard is not half fish and half lizard. This ancient creature had a backbone, two eyes and scales. This is just an example and I'm not sure it's accurate. For example, scales may have evolved separately, in the two wood herons.
A little more help with transitional fossils and animals that live today and are in transitional stages. Google please:
coelacanth
Latimaria
Did you know that there is a "living fossils" category in the Hebrew wiki?
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%98%D7%92%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%94:%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D
Any fossil that had descendants is a transitional fossil. It shows the transition from his ancestors to his descendants. If I fossilize, my fossil will be fossilized beyond my parents and my children. Obviously the fossils of all of us will be similar, but if they find a fossil of one of my ancestors, it will already be different from me, and the difference will increase the earlier the fossil is in time. Actually, what am I talking about? There is such a record for human transitional fossils:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
I was happy, etc.
Estimate, you what-is out of date. You wrote: "Why are there no living creatures today that are in stages of development between fish and reptiles?"
Certainly there are:
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3894487,00.html
And more: search for "Yabshin" on Wikipedia. Enjoy the walking flippers.
You wrote: "How can one explain the fact that not even one [fossil of] an interstellar creature has survived?" Survived also survived. Here is one fossil, in all its glory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
Do "Tiktalik" in the Hebrew Wikipedia. have a nice time.
If I were a biologist, I'd find you some more. You can write here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/search.html
the phrase:
transitional fossils
and read about the hundreds of transitional fossils found so far.
And why are millions of fossils not found? For a fossil to form, so many conditions must be met, that it is a wonder that we have one fossil, let alone so many: the fortification must have a hard skeleton (bones or armor); The creature should be buried in sand or mud; The creature needs (well, it doesn't need it. We need it) that over the years, more and more layers of sand will be piled on top of it, which has become harder and harder; The covering material should be sedimentary rocks. You need water rich in minerals to seep in and leave their minerals in the remains of the body. The minerals harden and strengthen the fossil. Over thousands of years, more and more layers of sediment accumulate above the layer with the fossil. The weight of the upper layers presses on the fossil and finally turns it into stone. And finally, earthquakes, glaciers, landslides, and other natural factors need to expose the sedimentary rock containing the fossil. not simple. That doesn't mean it's rare. It's rare to find, that's all.
http://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/online/maagarmada/earth_sci/%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%95-%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%95%D7%91%D7%9F
Read the "fossil" entry on the Hebrew Wikipedia. Here is some from the English wiki on the subject:
Organisms are only rarely preserved as fossils in the best of circumstances, and only a fraction of such fossils have been discovered. This is illustrated by the fact that the number of species known through the fossil record is less than 5% of the number of known living species, suggesting that the number of species known through fossils must be far less than 1% of all the species that have ever lived. Because of the specialized and rare circumstances required for a biological structure to fossilize, only a small percentage of life-forms can be expected to be represented in discoveries, and each discovery represents only a snapshot of the process of evolution. The transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, which will never demonstrate an exact half-way point
And finally, read this:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/man-originates-from-fish-2903103
I was glad to help.
estimate,
I don't understand your words.
I don't know what "creativity in its sociological sense" is. I also don't know what it means that "Wikipedia brings the idea within its social framework, not as a pure idea".
I asked you for a reference to creationism as a pure idea and I didn't get one. There is no such idea in isolation from Christianity.
On the other hand, I provided you with Wiki as proof of the Gordian connection between God and creationism, as well as a link describing how the US Supreme Court, in at least two cases, banned the teaching of creationism for violating the First Amendment. It is clear to any reasonable person that creationism is a washed-up concept for God.
I agreed with me when it seems that there is no creationist who does not believe in God, but you wrote that creationists do not base creationism on God. There is no such thing. Everything in a religious person's world is based on God. If it is not so, he is not a religious person.
In light of all that, you didn't convince me. Since everything is based on religious belief and its entire purpose is to eliminate science, the concept of creationism does not have a rigorous definition and as evidence, you bring a different definition to creationism than that of Wiki and the Supreme Court, therefore it seems to me that every creationist defines for himself which version of creationism he believes in today.
my father
Clearly there are other indications of changes between species. Like identifying genetic sequences between jellyfish and humans.
A few questions: I didn't know we had a DNA sample from Neanderthal man. I would appreciate a referral.
Also, I still did not understand what Ehud meant in his answer to the missing link claim. Why are there no living creatures today that are in stages of development between fish and reptiles? Or between reptiles and birds? The fossils can be explained by claiming that they are a rare phenomenon. But how can one explain the fact that not even one interstellar creature survived. This is of course possible, but very unlikely. I would appreciate clarification.
About. But in any case, there is evidence for evolution without cold in fossils - firstly, and Darwin knew this from breeding pigeons - that you can give them any trait you want within a few generations through selective breeding (artificial selection). There is no difference between natural selection and artificial selection because the human does not intervene genetically but rather influences the external environment of the creature, which causes it to react as the human wants.
Today, of course, it is also possible to intervene genetically.
Another field that proves evolution is the genetic comparison between different species that live today or lived in the recent past, and this is how we know for sure about the relationship between the Indian elephant and the mammoth and when the common ancestor of us and the Neanderthals lived.
And of course - we watch the evolution in real time in bacteria and viruses.
Avi,
Just to clarify, you claim that if the process of fossil formation was simple and widespread then there would indeed be a claim regarding the lack of fossils in relation to the biological populations that evolution predicts will be found. But since the process is complex and very rare, in inverse proportion to the prevalence and number of different species and living things that have died over the billions of years, then the number of fossils found and the degree of density of their existence in the geological layers is satisfactory and appropriate. Is that what you mean?
Miracles
Along with those who return to repentance, there are those from the religious community who leave the question. It should be hoped that a "secular God" theory will emerge from them. More and more and more until the Berlin Wall falls. Blessed is the believer. By the way, a professor from ZA whose specialty is astronomy was asked years ago about the contradiction between the biblical story of creation and research findings regarding the age of the earth, you could clearly see that he was trying to twist and he had no answer.
Shmulik,
You are talking about creationism in its sociological sense. If you ask, are there creationists today or someone who claims creationism who does not believe in God? The answer is probably no (I didn't check, it's a hypothesis).
I'm talking about the very idea called creationism, and please don't cite Wiki, it's really not related to the discussion (Wikipedia brings the idea within its social framework, not as a pure idea).
The idea is the formation of the species at once. Is there anyone who thinks so and does not believe in God? Again, not that I know of.
Do creationists base creationism on God? No, they claim that they can prove or at least give a good theory for the formation of species at once, thereby explaining their interpretation of the Bible. Note, they make two logical moves: the first, developing a theory about the formation of all life at once. The second, an inference from this regarding the existence of the simplistic God of the Tanach. It is clear that the development of the theory does not stem from scientific motives of finding out the truth but as marking the target around the arrow, but in a purely logical way the theory stands on its own.
Your question was what is the difference between creationism and God. I understood from your question that you are asking what is the conceptual difference between them, and not what is the sociological difference between them. Conceptual difference, I already explained why there is. There is probably no difference between the population who believe in creationism and those who also believe in God.
There is no substantive argument between us, I just like to be precise. Theoretically, one can argue for creationism and even remain an atheist.
estimate
There are many cases where we have two fossils and a bitter debate whether they are of the same species, or different species
I answered the question?
Life
I understand what you are saying. The problem is - what happens when a girl in a religious family begins to doubt. Now all the good in religion becomes a terrible evil. Do you think the father of the family will say "By God, you might be right"?
estimate,
I would appreciate it if you could show me a reference to what you wrote. Here is what is written on the wiki (and this is not the only site I checked):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
Here is the first paragraph:
Creationism is the belief that the Universe and living organisms originate "from specific acts of divine creation."[2][3] For young Earth creationists, this includes a literalistic reading of the Book of Genesis and the rejection of evolution.[4] As science developed during the 18th century and forward, various views aimed at reconciling the Abrahamic and Genesis creation narratives with science developed in Western societies.[5]
Note the place of honor that the God of Abraham receives here and as I said, creationism is nothing but a washed-up name for God and the Christian example and it is not possible to separate creationism from creationists. At all, I don't understand what creationism is without creationists. I don't know of any philosophical concept that discusses the formation of all species at once without referring to God)
It takes a lot of luck for an animal skeleton to be preserved as a fossil, much, much less than XNUMX percent of fossilized creatures. There is a good example of the evolution that has been preserved - of the horses, and it was previously exhibited at the Museum of Natural History in New York, by the way you can see that the development was not linear, there were tall creatures and there were short creatures on the way to today's horse. The term gradual development is also incorrect and is drawn from the tongues of the pantheists.
sympathetic
I always thought that the claims about the missing link refer to the fact that intermediate creatures have never been found in fossils. The million variations that make up the gradual development between two known species that it is acceptable to believe that one evolved from the other were not found, but only the two different species on both sides of the process.
This is similar to the claim I made here, which is claimed by creationists, that the number of fossils should be much higher than what is actually found if the current theory regarding the mechanics of evolution is correct, meaning the random formation of genetic sequences and the survival of the sequences that give the species an advantage. Why only find the two extreme points in the process, the source and the result. Where is the sequence?
In short, I did not fully understand your answer to the matter, I would be happy to clarify.
Shmulik / Chaim
This is exactly my claim 🙂
If you are not willing to give any meaning to God then there is no point in talking about his existence.
The problem is those religious people who do not understand science, but invent all kinds of "scientific" claims to show that science is wrong. Then, in their insolence, they consider it overwhelming proof of God's existence.
equalizer….
Shmulik
You wrote a lot of things, I don't know what you want me to address.
Regarding the difference between creationism (non-creationists) and God, it is very simple. Creationism claims the formation of all species perfectly at once, sort of. They argue with the idea of evolution, and try to support their claims with probability claims, which according to Elbentzo are demagogic claims, or with claims about an incoherent order of fossils. It certainly does not oblige God. Suppose for a moment that I prove, scientifically, empirically, that all species were created at once. The amoebas and the dinosaurs and the primates. Suppose. Will science raise its hands and say: That's it, there is a God and there is no more reason to try to understand how things happened? of course not. Even if science does not have an answer, the answer "God" is not an answer in scientific terms, since science does not try to understand why, but how, and that is good. One could say that life on Earth appeared all at once as a result of a collision with an asteroid that had all the species on it, or radical theories of aliens even. It does not matter. God is a completely separate matter, related to the creation of the universe. Creationists, on the other hand, are just religious people who try to prove the Bible with empirical scientific tools.
I have only one comment about what you wrote regarding the closing of supermarkets: there is no social issue in this, but a matter of a free market and correcting a market failure created as a result of beliefs. Just a comment.
estimate,
I would appreciate your reference to what I wrote and unfortunately, I would appreciate it if you could enlighten us about the difference between creationism and God.
It's amazing how people keep trying to hold on to creativity,
A theory that unites fanatical and right-wing fools -
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/01/05/new-hampshire-legislators-want-to-challenge-the-teaching-of-evolution/
Elbentzo
I repeat the nickname arrogant. You are of course right, the goal is to learn and teach and not to fight. I'm not being defensive, God forbid, just trying to explain my ideas and understand yours.
In any case, regarding the claims about the fossils, I do not know of an organized article. This is a claim I have heard made by creationists. I will look for a chance. If the claim is true, though, it poses a serious problem.
Regarding the subject of space and time, I simply think that you have not reached the end of my mind. I am not at all going into the various theories whose purpose is to define what exists, but I asserted that God existed, which I called a singularity that "invented" from a language to invent the world out of nothing, after all, that same God "created" the world in a complete manner (time from his point of view is a complete dimension defined, for all the theological problems this raises of course). This is a theological claim, regarding the nonsense of the discussion about the time of the universe in relation to its creation by God. Obviously, it is possible to examine and find out within the universe how long it has existed, but any discussion with creation regarding the time of the universe in relation to creation itself is ridiculous. I am not going into the various theories you put forward, which I have never heard of until now and I have no need to. You continue to treat the claim as if it comes from within the existing universe when it deals with God at all. (My intention in using space-time terminologies was only because the theologians' answer to this was that maybe time is a property that God is also subject to or something like that). Hope this is more understandable.
Regarding the mapping of the evolutionary processes - if indeed we do not know how to do this, then the claim about probability is not relevant yet (it can be true if we discover after the mapping that the processes are unlikely, but not at this stage). As far as I know some of the processes are known, and regarding those processes the creationists claim a lack of probability. Of course I may be wrong.
Regarding the experiment: true, that's exactly what it means. The fact that you, in the very limited scientific knowledge you have at a given time, are unable to think of such an experiment does not constitute evidence or even an indication that we will not be able to find such an experiment in the future. This is exactly the problem I was trying to clarify that exists today in the limited empirical science. Empirical science is a science of default, a science of structured reduction. Empirical science as it is today will never be able to answer some of the questions. Before they discovered the equipment that gave man the ability to distinguish alpha radiation, the "empirical science" was the naked eye, for which this radiation did not exist!!! This is the whole purpose of my comments here on the site: the scientists are the problem, not the science. Science is pure, absolute truth, the scientists are the ones who treat it as religious people treat something written thousands of years ago. If tomorrow a scientific possibility is discovered that is unknown to us today, which allows us to map/script the development of evolution (yes, we have no idea, but it is possible today, but that is exactly, but exactly the point), we will be able to disprove creationism (not God, but creationism. God really that I can't think of a way to disprove the Bible maybe, but not God since his whole point is disobedience to any kind of law that we can work with).
Hope that makes more sense, and tell your mathematician friend that I don't want anything from him, I have everything I need.
And anyway, I want to ask a question, my physicist friend. Just a question, unrelated to anything. To what extent is string theory accepted by you physicists?
Shmulik
I agree with your points one by one. What is happening is that as long as the electoral system is not changed or the percentage of blocking is changed. The situation will remain the same. As long as we don't have a prime minister of stature the situation will not change. Years ago, a book appeared called "Messiah's Donkey" by a writer named Rachalevsky. The book caused a great uproar because he said things as they were without considering anything. If you take what's happening in Beit Shemesh, it's no longer a religion, it's a cult of lunatics and such are on the scale. I remember that more than a year ago, religious students at the Technion wanted to prevent female students from entering the Technion's gym when they stayed there. The management of the Technion that day should have stopped their studies that day. They want to set up their own gym under the title "Va Lezion Goel Private Gym". Many, many years ago there was a song in Yiddish called "When the Rebbe dances, all the Hassidim dance". If you speak Yiddish, I guess the song is familiar to you.
Haim,
I have no problem with faith as long as you do it in your home.
When they try to push religion in science classes, I get angry and resentful
When I'm forbidden to marry whoever I want, I get angry and resentful
When women can be denied a divorce for years, I am angry and resentful
When I was forbidden to raise a pig on the land of the State of Israel, I was angry and resentful
When I am forbidden to open explosions on Shabbat (even though there are social considerations here although this is not the reason for Sa'ar's order), I am angry and resentful
When a cliff-edge war is perceived by a brigade (at least one) as a holy war, I am angry and resentful
When I don't have public transportation on Shabbat, I get angry and resentful
I can keep bringing more examples
In general, I don't treat the believers as inferior, but they treat me as inferior and as someone who is allowed to impose any crazy belief, no matter how delusional, just because they think their religion gives them special rights.
I will treat them as inferior if they withhold medical treatment because their rabbi will tell them that prayer will save them and I did treat them as inferior if they deny their children the education relevant to the XNUMXs.
Miracles
Without referring to the existence or non-existence of God, I myself am an agnostic, in all this debate what is missed is what is important and that is that faith is a necessity and many are required for it. This should not be underestimated. This has an important social function, even if the very existence of God is denied, believers should not be treated as inferior people. The problem is with those believers who think that the pure truth is in their hands and try to impose their opinion and lifestyle on the entire public. From a comparative examination it can be seen that the most tolerant religions are those of idolaters. When comparing the definition of God between the monotheistic religions and the theological derivations and life patterns required from each monotheistic religion to the method of these or other believers, the conclusion is called for that each religion essentially has its own God.
Miracles on a fundamental level, most people on the planet believe in him and it's quite strong, it's hard to disprove it, what's more, sometimes he is revealed and then you have to wag your tail, please continue his honor
Miracles,
give me an example please
Just to clarify, I'm on the atheist or rather anti-theist side but it's hard for me to understand how you can assume anything about God. This is because the concept itself is defined in a shaky way.
If you tell me he's supposed to be kind, I'll ask how you know. If you tell me he's supposed to be merciful, I'll ask how you know. If you tell me that he is supposed to be forgiving, I will answer by what right you state that.
In short, I would appreciate a response.
Shmulik
On a principled level, I see no problem disproving the existence of God. One has to assume a certain attribute of that God and see what must follow from that. If this thing does not exist - then God does not have this attribute.
If nothing is required by the existence of God, then for me he does not exist.
In the meantime - nothing is required... That's what the religious people tell me all the time.
Albantezo, Est
Regarding the third (first) point of Albantazo - an experiment to disprove God:
Even if we could watch the last billion years and even if we saw that life was created exactly as evolution predicts, this would not disprove God. This is because we have no ability to prove that God does not intervene in the process, in ways that we have no ability to measure.
I've never liked the floating-around-somewhere teapot argument, since theoretically there is a way to prove it doesn't exist. There is no theoretical way to prove that God does not exist, but it is certainly possible to present my argument as an upgraded teapot argument.
I write God and not creationism because creationism is a washed-up name for God that was created, like its sophisticated brother "intelligent design", because of the need to bypass the First Amendment to the American Constitution, and teach her or her siblings in school instead of or at the same time as evolution in science classes. In the meantime, the crooks are blocked time and time again in the courts:
http://archive.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/create/creationism4.html#.VCi0q37XerU
Robin
Evolution has 4 necessary and sufficient conditions. And they are: culture, diversity, competition and heredity.
Therefore, wherever all 4 conditions are met, there will inevitably be evolution.
Do you agree with that?
Robin
In the Challenger crash, there were bacteria that survived everything that happened there. Isn't that much more amazing?
Or it doesn't match your agenda, and therefore it's bullshit….
Certainly not a biologist
Do I have to refute all your examples, or is it enough that I refute one of them?
and if I will disprove them all, will you come up with a new list, or will you be convinced that maybe you are wrong?
While you're thinking, please explain to me why conjoined twins are born. I have a long list too, but let's start with this question.
How can you say that everything is random... If I understood the theory of evolution correctly - then given the right conditions and time everything is possible in the universe - even life... I think that evolution works like this - and this is a rough explanation but here it is = let's bring certain rules and certain properties to diffuse matter (laws) It doesn't matter how it is on a certain empty space and it will already program itself on its own.....maybe and just maybe there were laws "at the beginning of the universe" and then the software began to run itself according to the laws given to it......if this is not a scientifically acceptable explanation (which may be) I want it One will also explain why. thanks, have a good day
Why the missing link is not really missing:
The very term "missing link" is wrong. Each offspring is a link between its parents and its offspring, each offspring differs from its parents to some extent because it is a genetic exhibition of both. When you look closely at tens of thousands of generations, you cannot put your finger on a point where the change from one species to another occurred, because the change is as slow as a rock that is eroded by water. Slow and unwatchable up close. But if you take a human, dog, horse or hippopotamus today and take their fossils from 2 million years ago, you can see differences. Obviously, the differences depend on the degree of change over time. Dogs, for example, have undergone man-made evolution, through artificial selection and breed improvement, and since a dog, for example, can breed as early as one year old, the degree of possible genetic change is much faster than in humans, who reach sexual maturity (or who reach a stage where their culture allows them reproduce) only after 15-20 years. So the term "missing link" indicates a complete lack of understanding by the general public, but it was fixed because you need to see stages, in order to understand the change, and the public mistakenly perceives the stages not as representing the process but as the heart of the process. And of course this is a mistake.
What complicates all of this is the (reasonable) assumption of biologists like Steven J. Gold who talk about evolution in leaps and bounds - that is, about a situation where a minimal genetic change manifests itself in a noticeable phenotypic change (change in the features or form). This of course happens sometimes. Biologists like Chava Yablonka ("Evolution in four dimensions") also talk about how other factors in the cell, not only the chromosomal nucleus, have a role in the phenotypic changes. More complicated: sometimes the same gene can work or not work, and it depends not on genetics but on the influence of additional factors inside the cell, factors that are still being studied. That is, a gene that is responsible for a certain trait can act or not act - and thus the organism can develop very different traits based on those genes - and this under the influence of extra-genetic factors that exist in the cellular environment. As if there is a switch that turns the particular garden on and off, and that switch is outside the garden. When the switch is in the "on" position, the gene will be expressed. When the switch is in the "off" position, the gene will not be expressed. And what's more complicated is the assumption that environmental factors have an effect on these switches. For example - external temperature, humidity and dryness conditions, the degree of availability of energy resources (food, air, sunlight) and even mental stress (which of course manifests itself physically). There is no contradiction here with Darwin's ideas, but only a clarification of the incredibly complex way in which evolution works, a way that has not yet been sufficiently clarified.
And as for the eye - what does it matter what you call it? "New feature", "upgraded feature" - what does it matter? Read a bit here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
"Man is not a creature without flaw, and is not the culmination of any evolutionary development. Every dog smells better than him; Every bird of prey sees better than him; Any sparrow can fly higher than him; Every flea can jump higher than him and every tiger can run faster than him."
Yes, but we reached the moon... And there is no evidence of any bacteria or other organism capable of leaving the Earth's atmosphere.... So just a little bit of respect for your race won't hurt...just saying...you can't say that intelligent beings are not "special" you wouldn't agree with me?
So the formation of the eye is a new feature and not upgraded? Is something that is not yet an eye, but something that knows how to distinguish whether there is light or the light is being hidden considered an eye? Isn't the eye an upgrade of this eye donation? Is the eye donation a new feature? After all, even certain (and simple) skin cells can distinguish when there is light and when there is not.. so skin cells are a new feature? It is also easy to explain how they were created... everything is upgraded...
"Maybe a biologist - sure not" A basic vision sensor is better than nothing and helps its owner in an environment where everyone is blind to survive better, by the way the eye developed in a separate evolution at least 3 times and maybe even 5. We were already in this pan movie, we updated your arguments, these are already were refuted.
A rebuttal to the theory of evolution at the molecular level is the eye. The simplest eye in nature is actually an eyespot. which is actually a kind of sensor that differentiates between light and dark. The problem is that at the molecular level this sensor consists of about 200 proteins:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyespot_apparatus
Besides photoreceptor proteins, eyespots contain a large number of structural, metabolic and signaling proteins. The eyespot proteome of Chlamydomonas cells consists of roughly 200 different proteins
Even if we assume that a much simpler version existed in the past, let's say 10 different proteins, it is still not gradually possible, and hence the gradual explanation is fallacious.
The claim that evolution is under consideration is not true. Because, it is not possible to perform any experiment in which we get an eyespot from a creature that lacks an eyespot.
The same goes for the "junk dna" (which is no longer junk since the Encode project), and for the coccyx (which is necessary for holding the pelvic muscles) and the appendix (which stores useful bacteria during straining), and of course the "remnants" of Leviathan's legs. Only last week researchers discovered that these are related to the creature's reproductive system.
hello estimate,
1. Regarding the distinction between micro and macro, it wasn't clear to me from your wording that you were only presenting the opinion of the creationist debater, so I stood by the nature of the matter.
2. Contrary to your claims, we really do not know how to map the physical and chemical processes that control the forces that drive evolution. I know physicists, one of whom is even a fairly close friend of mine, whose entire purpose of research is to try to understand the physics of complex protein molecules. You repeat the claim that the probability is low and reject my explanation that it is due to assumptions about the probability density, but do not provide an explanation. Ok, maybe I don't understand what you are trying to say. Can you please provide a reference to an article or study that shows the probability is low without making patently unreasonable assumptions about the structure of the probability function of the most basic processes?
3. What is "retroactively mapping the last billion years in XNUMXD"? What is it to map years? In my understanding, what you wrote is simply a pseudo-scientific formulation of the sentence "If we could know what really happened, we would be able to know whether creationism is true or not". Beautiful. In case it is not clear, the reference is to a scientific experiment - that is, an experiment that tests one or another measurable quantity and one possible result of which shows that creationism cannot possibly be true.
3. Regarding fossils, you simply repeated the claim that fossils are missing. Can you provide a reference to a study or article that supports your claims, that is, that specifically shows that the number of fossils we find is less than what we should have found if the theory of evolution was true? Apart from providing a brief explanation of the role of fossils in the study of evolution, you said nothing. After all, fossils are formed only under very specific conditions - not every animal that falls and dies becomes a fossil. What exactly is the basis for the claim that because evolution claims a continuous transition between ancient and modern species, then we must have a fossil for every link in the chain?
4. Your claim regarding space-time is not only innovative, it is simply incorrect. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but again you chewed some pseudo-scientific terms and said nothing ("singularity that invented the world"? seriously?). Time is indeed a dimension like any spatial dimension, but it is not a property of matter at all. It is an external characteristic of the space and it interacts with the material that contains it. The Big Bang and the singularity from which our universe may or may not have started are certain points in the dynamics of space, and not only does the time that has passed since that point matter, we even measure that time quite accurately. Regarding the theories of emergent spacetime (which I doubt very much if you were referring to because without insulting, it is quite clear that you are not that well versed in the subject) in which the dimensions, including time, are not fundamental characteristics of space but only effective phenomena - also in these theories it is undoubtedly possible to measure time since the big Bang. And this is because only starting from this point was time defined, and before that it was not possible to define time at all (which is a somewhat strange claim, because there was no time before). In short, the people who study what the space-time structure is and what its characteristics are are the same people who have been measuring time since the big bang. Don't you think that if the two things were contradictory we would notice it? Can you explain to me what the contradiction is, or what do you know that we don't?
And for good measure, the singularity is completely subject to dimensions. The singularity is exactly the point where the scaling of all dimensions is 0 (or Planck order of magnitude). This is a geometric singularity for everything - and any attempt to disconnect it from the dimensions (including time which, as mentioned, is a dimension like any other spatial dimension) is simply a basic misunderstanding of cosmology.
5. Please let me correct the impression created (if created) that I look down on mathematicians. I myself am more or less a mathematician (my doctorate is in physics and I belong to a school of physics, but I deal with mathematical physics. Many of the academic institutions in the world actually associate people like me with the field of applied mathematics and I have many colleagues who are mathematicians, both in the theoretical and applied fields). I don't belittle mathematicians at all, I just know that the general opinion of mathematicians (which you claim faithfully represents) has no meaning on the subject of evolution. Bring me a mathematical research paper in relation to the subject and I will read it carefully and with great respect. And by the way, while I'm writing this comment, a friend is sitting next to me who is a doctor of mathematics (in a field completely different from mine, game theory) and his exact response after reading your words was "What does he want from me, this estimate?". So maybe you should talk to him and make it clear to him what his knowledge is about evolution.
Finally, you called me arrogant. In my response I tried to convey two things: First, to find out more information regarding a large part of your claims that I did not understand what the basis for them was. I don't see what is arrogant about trying to understand the basis of your claims. By the way, you did not provide a basis for the claim that evolution is improbable, that the number of fossils found does not support evolution, or an explanation of what is meant in all the (many) times you said you had mathematical considerations without elaborating.
The second thing I tried to say is that you have mistakes in certain subjects, for example in the probabilistic consideration and in the cosmological "arguments" about the nature of space-time. I know it's unpleasant to be told you're wrong, and that it automatically puts you in a defensive position, but I don't see arrogance here either. I have explained exactly why I think you are wrong, and you are welcome to correct me on my mistakes. In this case, these are also subjects in which I understand a thing or two and I don't think there is arrogance or arrogance in speaking confidently about things that you have spent several decades studying intensively.
Good Day,
estimate
Evolution scares the religious because it contradicts the Torah. The scientists are not interested, because for them the Torah is a story.
Therefore, except those who argue are the religious. The problem is that the religious are loud charlatans, and most people are a bit, stupid. That is why wonderful people like Dawkins have arisen who invest their time to refute the nonsense of science deniers, such as creationists and intelligent design.
estimate
There is no debate as to whether evolution is correct as an explanation for the diversity of species because, as I said, there is no doubt about it among those involved in the field. But - in the passage there are debates on a number of issues. For example, what is the structure of the species tree. For example, the importance of various processes such as allopatric selection for sympatric selection, genetic drift and so on.
estimate
If you don't believe that new properties have been developed, feel free to use penicillin from 50 years ago, God forbid you get injured. Here's a trait that didn't exist, penicillin resistance.
In Lansky's experiment, the ability to digest citrate was developed.
On the island of Madeira, different species of mice developed within a few hundred years.
And regarding fossils. Every fossil they have found so far is confirmation of evolution. Not a single fossil is a contradiction.
I don't know any evolutionist who lacks fossils, so I'd love to know the source of your assertion.
If you accept that this is evolution in action, then you accept evolution because there is no difference between short-term and long-term evolution.
The bacteria did not evolve, in a normal population there are always differences, and it is possible that one out of a million bacteria by chance acquired a mutation that made it resistant. The antibiotic will kill all the rest and this one in a million will take over the vacant niche (or rather its descendants from the divisions).
Spring.
This is not something new, it is - as the commenter Udan called it - an "upgrade".
It is not a newly created bacterium but the same bacterium that "upgraded" and became different from the original.
(Of course, this is evolution in action - but it does not answer the question asked by Udan)
Estimate - You wrote: "I would be happy to answer the following matters: Has evolution ever been observed that created a completely new feature, a different and new genetic sequence that did not already exist as a certain feature in the primitive species?
Have you heard of antibiotic resistant bacteria?
The genetic sequences are constantly changing through mutations, natural selection eradicates the harmful mutations among them and leaves a diversity large enough to develop a new and most beautiful trait - which in many cases is done on the basis of old mechanisms that were used for something else (legs that became fins in marine mammals).
Miracles
Evolution is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it is not proven at all. We are not lawyers, we are scientists. Indeed, evolution is the only scientific theory that explains the development of the various living species.
I would appreciate an answer to the following matters: Has evolution ever been observed that created a completely new feature, a different and new genetic sequence that did not already exist as a certain feature in the primitive species?
Has a number of fossils been found that matches the predictions of evolution in this matter?
To the best of my knowledge, the answer to these questions is negative, so this is a missing theory. You can try to continue to stick to it or come up with alternative options. Anyway right now this is the only theory.
Regarding the formation of new species: what is a new species? If it is one that cannot reproduce with the species from which it split, then it is not really a claim because again it is the development of an existing trait, and not the formation of a new trait by a random sequence of mutations.
I detect here some tone of antagonism towards me. I understand its origin, since those who believe in evolution believe that anyone who doubts it is necessarily a creationist or religious. Here is the mistake. I am not religious or creationist, I seek truth. Such and other patterns are not useful for the study of truth, but rather reduce it. The problem as of today with the theory of evolution is that from most of the discussions and confrontations with the established religious people (mainly Christianity) evolution has become a kind of religion of heresy in the Bible. Molecular evolution is a fact. Millions of years old fossils are apparently a fact. But the theory of evolution has problems, the treatment of which and those who raise them are almost always accompanied by angry antagonism and a lot of emotions. It's just a shame, and definitely not scientific. In physics, for example, every two days they try to develop new, different theories that explain reality in a different and radical way. Only evolution remains as it is, with almost no real change, and in my opinion it's all because of the stupid argument with religion that perpetuated it as the flagship theory of the anti-religious currents.
Nice article. Small correction: evolution is not "a random process in which mutations that respond better to random change survive" (first line in the second paragraph). It is more correct to say that evolution eradicates harmful mutations. The mutations that "respond better" are not actually promoted, but their promotion is a result of the extinction of the mutations that did not respond well enough to that change. Features that do not interfere with the survival of the creature do not disappear, even if they are not useful, and the examples of imperfection in man as detailed in the article fit here.
Albanzo
There is a mathematical connection to evolution. It can be shown that an evolutionary process can solve problems that cannot be solved by an algorithm. Algorithm is equivalent to design, so evolution is a more likely explanation than design...
I would also like to expand on this...
estimate
Evolution is proven beyond reasonable doubt. We know what the mechanism is. It explains the past, and no other theory explains the past. There is no evidence to disprove it.
And of course, evolution is observed in experiments as well as observations.
In particular, we saw with our eyes the development of new species.
These are the facts. I would be happy to provide evidence for each point I made.
n.p.
You just happened to give a wrong example. The eye of the octopus is different from the human eye. In the eye of the octopus there is no blind spot because of this different structure.
In general, we know several dozen types of eyes, each type developed in a different way, and eyes but indeed look completely different.
Eyal Shalom
Creationism as it is perceived today is ridiculous in many ways, but specifically your claim does not challenge it. According to the creationists who claim the existence of a singularity that created the universe, the "rules of the game" do not apply to it, not because they claim so to escape the problem but because by definition this singularity is not subject to the laws of physics of the universe (probability is only one of them). This is also the problem with creationism, it is not scientific, because it is not possible to attack the presence of the singularity with physical or even mathematical tools (this also makes all the questions about a stone that he cannot lift, etc. stupid and unnecessary. Such questions mainly indicate a lack of understanding regarding the claim for the existence of and also about the real problematic in such a claim).
Every creationist who asks the stupid question: "What is the probability that a super simple and super primitive living cell will create itself?", must in the same breath also ask the all-important question: "What is the probability that an omnipotent and super intelligent being will create itself?"
It is impossible to avoid this very basic question.
MouthHole
The difference between an upgraded feature and a new feature, for example, is a reproduction speed thousands of percent higher than the initial reproduction speed, or a change in the amount of pigments in the eye. A new feature for example is the development of an organ of vision in an eyeless creature, or at the molecular level the formation of photosynthetic ability.
hi estimate
What you wrote is very interesting, but in order for me to get to the bottom of your mind,
Could you please explain the difference between upgrading features and adding new features?
What is this new feature? Can you give examples of a new feature and an upgraded feature?
Thanks!
Hello Elbentzo
Certainly the division between long-term and short-term evolution is a division of creationists, I mentioned this as an example of the claim that creationism in the debate I was referring to did not refer to it. For the substance of the claim, the creationists claim a difference from the very beginning of their opposition to evolution, since the differences between black and white people could be diagnosed long before they developed scientific tools to examine the evolutionary development of viruses. The findings to date regarding evolution at the molecular level do not provide an answer to the main problem of evolution, which is the formation of properties, chemical or motor, that did not exist in any form in the earlier species. All experiments unequivocally show upgrades of existing traits, but have yet to show formation of a new trait. This is where the issue of probability comes in: the debate is not about the result of the existence of the species as improbable in an evolutionary process, but about the accumulation of the chemical and physical processes that created them. We are familiar with these processes, contrary to what you wrote, and our experience shows with regard to those certain processes that they happen rarely or almost never at all (the formation of amino acids, the formation of radical genetic mutations such as flight organs or even just organs that are sensitive to photons). It's not a matter of time, it's a matter of observations. Therefore, the example with the sphere and the tower is not a successful analogy, because in this example, gravity is a physical property that all observations have shown to always occur. You claim that the chemical and physical processes of evolution are unknown and therefore claims of probability are not valid. But you make two mistakes, one, even if the processes are unknown, since it is still only an unproven theory, the existence of these processes as a fact is problematic if not arbitrary, the second is that biologists claim to know exactly which processes have occurred and are occurring. Not that I take their words as absolute truth, but it is still incoherent. It seems to me that you are confusing the claims about the formation of complexes by physical and chemical properties, which are nonsensical claims, and the claims about the accumulation of rare and implausible physical events into the formation of amino acids, etc. All this, again, does not contradict evolution of course. After all, the species were created in the end as we see them existing today. If this is the only theory, then discussions about its probability are unnecessary. All I'm saying is that the evolution debate is fossilized, and it's time to try to find a more plausible, alternative theory.
Regarding an experiment that would disprove creationism: I can certainly think of such an experiment, if we had the theoretical ability to retroactively map the entire last billion years in XNUMXD, for example, and watch evolution unfold before our eyes as we describe it.
Regarding fossils: simply, according to the theory of evolution there should be between each key point of a species several millions and hundreds of millions of years of unsuccessful variations, or according to the newer theories at least variations of intermediate stages (half a wing, etc.). The theory predicts many more such creatures than the number of fossils found in a given area and depth. I may not be precise in this matter, in any case this is the claim, you are welcome to unpack it happily.
Regarding the dimensions and space-time, the claim is that if there is a singularity that invented the world then the time dimension like the other dimensions, which are a "property" of the material itself, are "external" to it. This singularity is not subject to dimensions and therefore to time, and therefore a discussion about the age of "creation" is retarded. Hope that is more understandable (the truth is that I did not expect that this claim would be a novelty for someone here).
Regarding awareness: Indeed, I made a starting assumption and that is that animals and humans have a radically different range of awareness. It is not about self-awareness but about environmental awareness and the perception of me in relation to this environment. In humans this feature certainly exists, in animals it is not conclusive (even animals that recognize themselves in the mirror apparently do not have self-awareness in the sense of the concept of "I"). It must be noted that this is a purely philosophical issue, but I do not understand where what I said is arbitrary. The diagnosis that distinguishes a person's ability to recognize value frameworks is factual, not arbitrary. As well as the diagnosis that animals lack this ability as far as is known. All I said is that a discussion of the language of values, which tries to conclude that animals are more valuable than humans is absurd because without humans this language would have no meaning. In that matter I pointed to "meaning" in the sense of having a consciousness. I don't think there is any dispute about this, Huy says: It is possible that you believe that animals also have awareness and therefore the universe has existence, but without some entity that has awareness of the universe around it, the world could just as well not exist. But I admit that this is a philosophical subject which is a field that I did not study in an orderly manner except for some course in year XNUMX.
In conclusion, it's nice that you look down on mathematicians, but in my opinion mathematics has something to say in every subject and matter, since everything is ultimately based on mathematics, only the variables change. At the end of the day we don't really have an argument and the only difference is that I'm not arrogant. I can live with that.
estimate
You're right, of course.
Your comment about us not knowing the ultimate truth is also correct. This is how Hawking thinks (great minds think the same way 🙂 ).
(Not surprising, but funny that you wrote to Nissim: "Completely opposite". It happens to him in almost most of the comments 🙂 )
There is not a single experiment that proves that the evolution of species is possible (all experiments returned the desired assumption). Randomness is the refuge of the fool, every reasonable person knows what happens after an explosion creates chaos, destruction and destruction, to claim that an unplanned and uncontrolled explosion caused a chain of processes that led to the decline of countless sophisticated systems that work in coordination with each other is nonsense. To claim that a random process caused a human and an octopus to have an almost identical eye is stupidity and an understatement of intelligence.
Nice article,
Finally there is an internalization that evolution is a work/process and not a "theory",
It is hoped that the other intelligent commenters (and commenters) will also be able to internalize this,
As for creationists and those who advocate intelligent design -
These are also related to religion / faith in thickets that do not allow clear thought
And it is no wonder that since its primary purpose
of religion was the creation of order and logic in human society and in the natural environment,
When religion was replaced by government, law and science,
All that remains for religion is the need to control people and their thinking,
Control whose influence can also be seen in the comments here.
hello estimate,
1. The example with alpha radiation is definitely not equivalent to the claim regarding creationism and completely misses the point. The problem with creationism is not that we don't have tools of one kind or another as of today, but that it is not falsifiable at all, meaning - no one has ever been able to think of an experiment (even with theoretical tools that do not exist today) that could test its correctness. True, an idea that is not refutable is not necessarily wrong, but it is also nothing more than a waste of time. A bit like Russell's teapot. You can believe if you want.
2. Throughout your responses you mention all kinds of "mathematical tools", talk about the "computational significance" of the falsifiability claim and probabilities. So regarding the probabilities we will expand on the next point. Before that I would like to ask you - what mathematical tools are you talking about? What calculations? I'd love to know, and don't hesitate to be technical or get into the thick of it, as I (and many others here on the site) are mathematicians or have advanced degrees in mathematics and will no doubt be able to have a conversation with you on the matter.
3. Regarding the probability, there is nothing to talk about. Literally, nothing to talk about. In order to calculate the probability of one or another process, we must have a probability density that simply does not exist for evolutionary and non-biogenic processes. All pseudo-calculations of probabilities start from an absurd starting point of *assuming* a certain probability density, usually uniform. Of course, this has no meaning or significance. A uniform density leads to a small probability, but if I were to put a density that goes like a delta, I would get a probability of 1. An example I have already given here on the site - suppose we drop a marble from a tall tower and ask what is the probability that the marble will land exactly at the foot of the tower (suppose that in our experiment there is no friction if the air, No winds etc. only gravity). If we assume that the probability density is uniform, the answer is, of course, literally 0. Even if we refer to the final contact area between the sphere and the DHA, we will get a minuscule result (assuming that the contact area is 1 square meter, we will get a probability of two divided by ten to the 12th power). This is obviously a nonsensical result because assuming a uniform distribution completely ignores gravity. Thus, the assumption of uniform distribution in evolutionary processes completely ignores physical and chemical considerations according to which the processes are conducted. These calculations are nothing more than false notions designed to confuse people who do not understand science.
4. We do not have certain knowledge regarding the ads of BeH. As Nissim wrote, in many ba'ach there are testimonies that can indicate awareness at a certain level.
5. I don't see the confusion you claim exists in the article. All I see is that you presented an approach that *decides* a priori that consciousness is some elite and special quality (you even identified it with the word "meaning") and also *decides* that only humans have consciousness. I agree with you that under these arbitrary decisions, man is very special.
6. Could you please expand on the "discussion in general regarding the principle of space-time and the formation of dimensions in relation to matter"? Again, I'm sure I and many others on the site would be very happy to hear. Just because to me it sounds like crazy name dropping that has nothing behind it. I have never heard of the "space-time principle" even though I am a physicist who deals mainly with the structure of space-time. And if by "formation of dimensions" you are talking about emergent space-time, then of course this has nothing to do with the discussion and certainly does not invalidate claims regarding the age of the world, etc. It only talks about the origin of the space.
7. I am glad that you decided to tell us about their opinions regarding the evolution of the faculty members at the School of Mathematics in Jerusalem. This raises two questions - the first, since when is evolution a mathematical field? And the second, is there anything else you would like to say on their behalf? Because I want to say on behalf of all ISIS members that they are sorry and that from now on they have decided to be nice.
8. There is no such thing as macroevolution and microevolution. This division exists only in the arguments of creationists. Biologically this is exactly the same process. Creationists invented the difference because you can't argue with short-term evolution (like the one that allows bacteria to develop a trait that allows them to eat plastic) because we actually see it happening in the lab. Obviously, if they said that all evolution is a lie, they would come off as fools because any child with a microscope can see that it is not. So they decided to separate short-term evolution which is correct, but as soon as you get frustrated with the exact same process and wait a little longer, then it changes its name to "macroevolution" and suddenly it is wrong.
9. Regarding the two "problems" you presented - well, then we have already seen that the "problem" of probability is nothing more than a lie of creationists and has no legs. Until we know how to accurately model the chemical and physical considerations that guide evolution at the level of DNA molecules, we will have no idea how to calculate the probability of the occurrence of this or that evolutionary process. Regarding the fossils - can you expand? Why do you claim fossils are missing? And what fossils exactly are you missing?
Regarding the supporters of creationism (or in fact they should be called science fools, whatever their reasons may be) the (somewhat rhetorical) question arises: What is the probability of the formation of intelligent life on Earth?
Certainly from an absolute point of view the answer to this question is "incredibly low", but in a slightly different version of this question you can get a fundamentally different answer; Asked instead:
What is the probability of the formation of intelligent life on Earth, given the fact that we are asking this question?
(The existence of the question is not in doubt, and therefore does not weaken the question of the original probability)
The answer to this is obviously - 100%, since we are here.
Therefore, there is no significant point in discussing the probability of the existence of an event (or a sequence of events that led to a certain situation) given that it exists; For if he did not exist, this question would not arise at all.
The absolute answer to the original question is a weighted average of these probabilities given all the other possibilities, obviously the answer to this is very small. All these do not negate our existence as a probabilistic product, but if they only present a situation in which our existence is the product of one sequence of events out of countless possibilities.
Ehud Amir
In my opinion, man has a huge advantage over the rest of the living world - language. In the context of your article (which of course I completely agree with) the meaning of language is that we are probably no longer limited by the same genetic problems you mentioned. We can overcome problems that evolution cannot solve. The clear example of this is vaccines. Another example is (hopefully) we could prevent our extinction from an asteroid.
On the other hand, the same advantage can also lead to our extinction. We both know what I'm talking about…
estimate
Animals have no language. They have communication, which is something else. They have signs, but no grammar.
We know that people without language are very limited and even suffer from low intelligence. In fact, they are in a sense like animals. If you don't believe it, read what Helen Keller writes in her memoirs.
Therefore - there is room for agreement between us. An animal cannot think of belonging, or of times. An animal cannot count, beyond a very small number. Animals have consciousness and self-awareness, but animals do not think, because thinking requires language.
Regarding vegetarianism, the problem is unrelated to the topic. There are good reasons to be vegetarian: unnecessary suffering for animals, damage to the environment and damage to health.
Another thing - to say that the world has no meaning without the person is simply absurd. Modern man has existed for a short time, and may disappear like 99% of existing species have already become extinct. The world has no meaning, just as it has no purpose. We don't know any living thing outside the earth, so who does this meaning belong to?
estimate
There are many indications of awareness in animals. Monkeys recognize themselves in the mirror. Dogs dream. Jealousy exists in animals. There is knowledge transfer. There is a solution to complex problems.
If you think otherwise, I would love to understand what you mean by the concept of consciousness.
Miracles.
Quite the opposite. There is no indication for awareness in animals. Your claim itself is also simply incorrect: animals have a language, not particularly complex but present (language as a communication mechanism based on signs, is highly developed in whales for example).
Anyone who tells you otherwise is a vegan trying to sell you that there is no difference between animals and humans.
As a matter of fact, you missed my point. There is a built-in incoherence in a value discussion regarding the extent of a person's nature in relation to animals. This lack of coherence is expressed in the fact that man is the only creature that speaks the "language" of values. There is not a single animal that we know of apart from man that maintains this cognitive quality, so a discussion about the extent of man's nature in relation to animals, in the context of man being the center of being, is nothing short of ridiculous (remember this: man is the creature that criticizes himself, regarding his being a non-human being special and not central. There is a built-in logical contradiction here)
Hi Hatz, his father-in-law.
If you believe that the video you brought constitutes a discussion that exhausts the claims of creation, you are simply wrong, unfortunately. There is no discussion there at all regarding the principle of space-time and the formation of dimensions in relation to matter (a claim that invalidates any discussion about time, dating, the age of the world, etc. of any kind), or a serious discussion about the lack of probability of macro evolution (as opposed to micro) as an indication of a different process. In general, the creationist in the debate video ignores a series of mathematical claims and does a particularly poor debating job, all from the starting points of the Bible. The problem with these discussions, which are discussions between religion and science, instead of being discussions about the correctness of evolution itself, which causes scientists to insist on one explanation or another and not to look for better theories, all in the name of the strange and non-binding principle that holds that what cannot be empirically proven at a given time does not exist (For example, I believe that evolution is the best explanation currently available for the existence of the various biological species, but certainly not a good explanation on its own. A kind of default explanation, like the standard model, and I can say that most of the lecturers here at the Hebrew Mathematics Faculty are like me). Evolution currently faces two main problems for which no solution has yet been found: the very remote probability, and the lack of fossils of a size that agrees with the various theories by a significant difference (there is about one fossil instead of several million according to the most limited theory). Obviously, this does not require creationism. It is very frivolous to claim that. But it certainly shows that the theory is far from explaining the biosphere phenomenon well and has a long way to go if we don't find a better theory, and we may never know, like the Riemann hypothesis in mathematics.
estimate
The only difference between us and other animals is language. Only we have a language.
Animals have consciousness. Animals also have culture. They have emotions like longing, sadness, love and jealousy. They even have superstitions.
They have no language - that's the only difference.
Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell you something.
Response to "Estimation": (By the way - my father, why is it not possible to respond to a response?)
There is not much to argue about creationism, since the claims (most of which are published all over the web in whatever language you choose) are at best ridiculous and at worst an insult to the intelligence of those who have seriously studied evolution, and if you have 3 hours to spare (you can of course skip sections) you are welcome to watch the video here of the last Debate;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_04S0fYU7FI
Skepticism is certainly a welcome thing, but where he should stop and see what the "candidates" are, what are the alternative theories to Darwin's theories of evolution, and so far the alternative theories have been proven to be full of holes like a sieve, while the theory of evolution can be proven even over a short period of years or A few tens of years
Two comments.
The first, regarding the impossibility of "scientifically" proving creationism. I will not go into the topic itself, as there is much to argue in this context with mathematical tools. But one has to wonder about the degree of demand for the pure, ultimate "truth", arguing that the empirical tools have no ability to prove the degree of correctness of one theory or another. It's kind of like claiming that alpha radiation doesn't exist since it can't be observed by human eyes. Hoy says - the limited tools do not constitute evidence of the incorrectness of one or another theory or reality, nor is it even an indication of this. This is a purely computationally meaningless claim.
Secondly, the writer refers to the uniqueness of man over animals in a disparaging way, when he points out qualities that man has that are largely inferior to animals. But this is a nonsense claim. The uniqueness of man is not even in his intelligence, but in his self-awareness and his ability to be interested and discover creativity and understanding of his environment. The world without man is meaningless, in the sense that the concept of meaning as we perceive it is existence in an existing awareness (if the tree falls in the forest). To clarify: it is quite possible to say that the ads have no meaning, and that nothing has any meaning at all. But the author's point of departure is mixed and incoherent, since on the one hand he attributes meaning to species and creatures and the universe as a reality with positive value weight, and on the other hand denies the uniqueness of man in the cosmos when man is the only creature for whom values have existence. (To illustrate the claim: suppose a world in which there is no man, but only plants and animals. This world could just as well not exist, since there is no "one" who would be aware of it. Even when we think of this imaginary world, we are the theoretical "watchers", so that together With the simulation of such a world, the fact that it was driven by us must be reduced in order to neutralize the dimension of awareness that we give to the imaginary world by actually discussing it as conscious beings). I have not heard a more stupid claim than this by the respected writer, and at least we should note that he is still quoting Dawkins' words.
I believe that things should be taken intelligently, with common sense, Hoy says - evolution is a necessary and logical explanation, but as seekers of truth we must take a skeptical approach even regarding things that appear to us to be absolute, since experience and history show that the search for truth has no end and nothing is absolute.