Prof. Marcus Feldman's congratulatory remarks at the Dan David Award ceremony. Prof. Feldman won the award in the past tense, and he emphasized the importance of the award at a time when the fact of evolution is not taught in schools
"I would first like to express my gratitude to the Do David Foundation for the recognition of my work. I have the honor to be a partner in the award which has so far been won by scientists from 14 countries and in particular I am honored to join my Israeli colleagues here today.
Recognition of the science of evolution in this period is especially important, when so many countries, including the USA, have educational systems in which the fact of evolution is not authorized for study.
In many ways, evolution is at the heart of biological science. In particular, when we learn more about comparing the genomes of creatures across the entire taxonomic spectrum, and find genes in yeast or fish that survived almost unchanged in mammals, including humans.
Even more important, he discovered in studies that humans all over the world are genetically very similar. In fact, only 10% of the variation in the genome between all humans is between continents, and the rest is within the populations on that continent. In fact, the old concept of evolution of "racial" differences must undergo a change when we see that features such as skin color or hair type, which we see with the eye, constitute only a small fraction of all human biology. Most of the variation is under the skin and is the result of human migration from Africa 60-70 thousand years ago.
Human evolution is unique in the sense that culture has become the leader of the process, and I would like to take this opportunity to honor my colleague Luca Caballi Sprouse with whom I developed the theory of cultural evolution. The effects of culture on evolution have been felt since the invention of agriculture and ten thousand years ago pastoralism left us with the strongest signatures of natural selection that occurred in the human genome, through the exchange of dietary practices and responses to pathogens that multiplied rapidly as the human population grew.
Other effects of cultural evolution are not moderate and are not limited to humans. We have caused major changes to the atmosphere, oceans and land, and we can already see a negative impact in the form of increased pathogens or loss of resilience in many ecosystems.
The study of evolution will continue to provide metrics to examine how strong the changes caused by the footprint of human activity on many species, including our own.
Thanks to Prof. Marcus Feldman who gave me the pages from which he read the speech on stage and allowed me to be accurate in his translation.
72 תגובות
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 may happen. Biologists like Chava Yablonka ("Evolution in four dimensions", an important and not easy to read book) 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.
Michael I don't argue with Camila I don't argue with her and she gives the impression of an intelligent girl and I'm having fun anyway!
I don't think at all that it is possible to convince the religious in a direct way but in an indirect way.
To create an enlightened liberal scientific environment and religion like mold in a sterile environment will disappear as quickly as it comes.
Assaf and Kamila:
I repeat my comment 61.
I think you waste energy arguing with each other.
Save that energy for arguments with those you really disagree with.
When dealing with the babies who were captured by the religious faith - as in any dealing with any other group of people - the arguments should be adapted to the specific situation.
There are people for whom explanations will be useful, and there are people who will wake up following a shake-up of the type Assaf suggested in response 60 (the same type of shake-up is the one that has been suggested here many times when it was suggested to religious people to stop using medicines developed based on scientific understanding and start relying on medicines that originate from the Torah).
Unfortunately, there are also people that nothing will convince them (idiots or fixed - it really doesn't matter - the irreversible fixation made them idiots) but you also have to deal - not to convince them but to reduce their vulnerability.
In my opinion, when there are many people trying to deal with the phenomenon and everyone does it in their own way - there is more chance that something will work. More likely than it would have been if one of you had convinced his friend and both of you had acted in the same way. Those of you who are familiar with the subject of evolution also know that a species' ability to deal with harm is based on the differences between its details. This is also true for ideas (where the basic idea is the same idea but its immune system is different).
If you want to soften the religious, first you will have to call evolution by the name of God, if you mention the word God you will already be able to talk to them about evolution, but if from the beginning you say there is no God but there is evolution then you will never find their attention to the matter.
Then it is also possible to show them from the Jewish sources that the first Adam was not really the first and that there were humans before him (Rambam writes about this), we need to build a curriculum that talks about evolution in the language of the Torah, they will already discover the truth in the first semester...
withering
In my opinion there must be a way/ways that can be used to soften the influence of religion.
I don't think the religious are idiots.
but fixed as you mentioned.
I want to teach evolution to anyone who wants to learn it. Most religious people I have met do not want to learn about evolution and the few who do prefer to learn it from non-professional sources on this subject and in this respect ignorance is better than blind faith in lies because ignorance can be escaped more easily. Anyway, wherever religious people try to spread their errors and lies, especially in the context of evolution, I (and others like me) will be there to teach them something (not necessarily about evolution). I am not afraid of the religious in this context (yet). I am very careful when driving on the road, I avoid smoking cigarettes, I avoid prolonged exposure to the sun without protection and I try to adhere to a healthy diet and sports. Anyone who doesn't have a blood in their head.
The Last Camilla (64)
How do you want to teach people evolution if people are still not able to respect each other? This example shows that people are not yet ready to accept what is different from them and therefore are able to kill him in order to maintain their own way, you want to teach evolution to religious people, just be careful...
contract (63)
And on this it is said: it is waste and it is predation.
This is another example of the superior ultra-Orthodox morality for those who are not yet familiar with what is happening with them. And for those who don't know yet, know that this is only the tip of the iceberg and that, unfortunately, is from personal acquaintance with several cases that happened there. The violence as well as ignorance and fanaticism have long gone beyond the limits of good taste and are already considered a real danger.
But Jose, it seems to me that this is not really related to our issue here... Is there a special reason why you included the link?
http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=804075&pid=54
collected (60)
Do you really think that what you said to that religious person made him think that? Religious people have a fairly clear answer to the huge gap between what science has achieved and what religion achieves in their opinion, there is no contradiction or problem in this regard from their point of view. You have to remember that the religious (in any religion) devote a great deal of effort to building structures of thought that will justify their religion. The main difference between religion and science is that in religion the correctness of the specific religion is presupposed and everything else is designed to protect this belief through arguments that are essentially the same as what lawyers do. From this point of view, I think you are mistaken in underestimating the degree of mental fixation that religious people are trapped in. The more the religious learns these structures of thought, he has more and more circles of thought that only strengthen the fixation. In this sense, I am really amazed by those virtuous individuals who managed to escape from the clutches of religion.
Assaf and Kamila:
I think there is no argument between you and that you also think like me that you just have to adapt the response to the specific idiot you are dealing with at the time.
Camila I think otherwise.
I certainly understand your frustrations and I also share some of these frustrations with you, but I have to say that this way of trying to explain evolution to religious people is completely wrong.
I would try to draw their attention to the inability of religion and mitzvot to build or invent something even though the Torah has everything...
This reminds me.. when I was in the reserves I got to talk to a religious guy.
I was in a workshop where a submarine was added for repairs and upgrades.
Usually I don't argue about faith but if I detect a suitable openness then I start my quantum journey (the secular equivalent of a crusade).
And I told him at the end (after I started to get angry) that "Let's throw away all the manuals and instruction books and study booklets and safety instructions and fix the submarine based on the Torah alone!
I don't think that after my words the guy will become secular but it seems to me that he thinks about this whole world in a slightly different way.
collected (58)
This site (and other sites as well) are full of attempts to convince religious creationists. Usually the discussion ends when it becomes clear that their arguments are based on logical failures, for example: if he does not know how to explain something, then this is proof that an intelligent creator (usually the God of Judaism) is the necessary, certain and complete cause and explanation for that phenomenon. Since there is always a part of science that we don't know how to explain yet - M.S.L. Why? digestion.
Another example of profit fallacy is the low probability argument (eg for the formation of an enzyme). A common creationist clings to an irrelevant probabilistic calculation (because it relies on a wrong model at best or no model at all) and then he clings to this wrong calculation to "prove" it's impossible. He continues to use this argument even when he is shown with simple examples that the "impossible" actually happens all the time around us and through simple natural processes that are all subject to accepted laws discovered by science. So I agree that you should always present the arguments and bring relevant information in case it's simple ignorance or a lack of understanding of the thinking fallacies, but after you've done it once, twice or three times, then there's really no point in trying to convince. A.A. Judaism is not just an ignorant person with excessive (and unjustified) self-confidence as I showed in response 23 for example. In such cases, it may be better to cut them off when they just start to react, just as you should do with baobab sprouts on asteroids.
I would not be in a hurry to cut off the responses of religious creationists.
This is the place to discuss and try to convince.
The truth is already clear and known.
We need to instill understanding and knowledge and eliminate ignorance from our districts.
A.A. Judaism and its ilk are self-confident ignoramuses.
Now we have to make them knowledgeable and understanding without harming their self-confidence.
Evolution and its main explanation "natural selection" are the main stream in this particular science and for good reason.
Meticulous, not fussy! And when it comes to people who lack understanding it is very important to be meticulous.
What a troublemaker.
Contract (54):
So now you also think you know better than me how I feel and what my intentions are?
Do you really not see the absurdity in what you write? Following problematic things you wrote, I reacted in a blunt way to convey a point (which may have been understood by others but not by you in light of your continued problematic statements) and at the same time I continued with a "calm" objective response. You misinterpreted my words and even when I say it clearly and explicitly you insist that you know better, with such an attitude what kind of communication can you have with the people around you? I tried to draw your attention to the problematic nature of your words, but I seem to have failed.
You were hurt, you are not honest, yes you tried to insult, I was not wrong in what I said to you, you are still much smarter than me, check your surroundings too, don't wave goodbye to the truth before you have checked it to the end, this is probably the last discussion on this topic as far as I am concerned, it will meet in other discussions...
Oh Jose (51)
What will?
What do you already know about the men I mentioned in my previous response? How can you seriously assume such a ridiculous thing as if you know more about them than I know about them from my in-depth acquaintance with them for months and even years?
Where do you get the sweeping, blanket (and very wrong) statement about women's way of thinking? I can't make sweeping generalizations about men but I can say a thing or two about your statements.
You have nothing to apologize to me for, the absurdity and unhappiness of your statements are your problem and especially your immediate environment, from whom you should ask forgiveness and not from me and I am writing this to you with all the empathy I can muster for your benefit.
In order to hurt me, a simple condition needs to be met, I need to care about who says the things. Honestly, and without the slightest attempt to insult, you are not in such a position yet.
To 51
Since I can read more than 2 or 3 words and not turn into a radish, then I'm probably not a man
Or I'm not stupid and I don't include myself within the same definition of men-women relations.
Hello Camila
I'm sorry if you were hurt by things that were supposed to elevate the female brain compared to the male brain, the things I wrote were said to make the man look like an idiot compared to the woman, in this case I'm the idiot who can't take in too many words, but that's because that's how a man's mind is built compared to the special mind of The woman, and if you are hurt, it is because you are a woman who always thinks that they are trying to hurt her, because throughout history women have always been in an inferior position to men, and this is of course because of the stupidity of the men who controlled women, not because they are all because of their power, we are talking about scientific things here and there is nothing to be hurt about, because that is how we are built .
And as for the men you knew, they use the emotional method to conquer the goal and then they become cold-blooded like me. You can speak a thousand words and they will pick up two or three at best...
Dan Shamir - You're right, I'm an idiot compared to the female mind, but at least I'm aware of it, unlike you. Do you deny this? If I was proud, for example, that I have much more hair on my body than Camila? Would Camila call me sexist? After all, we are talking about scientific things only, that's what evolution did with us.
If I didn't focus and reason my argument, I'm sorry in advance
Kamila, I'm sorry again, I already wrote to you that you are smart, I never imagined that you would be hurt by tested things.
To the last Camilla
I agree with #30
You made the discussion interesting and it was a pleasure to read your comments
And certainly as a tolerant reader I completely reject the ridiculous response of
The idiot who calls himself "the contract in the stars".
to contract (48)
I don't understand why you took so long... You could have just written that you think I'm a keyboard slob and that you're a sexist idiot with generalizing and eclectic thinking and that would have explained much more (in only two lines).
An answer must be adapted not only to the question but also to the questioner. When you answer "OK", it seems that you assume that the questioner is not really interested in knowing how you are doing, and this is a kind of ceremonial/polite answer and does not reflect anything about what you are really going through (unless the full experience of your life is summed up at all times in "OK" and "No OK" and I have a hard time believing it). I've met enough amazing men who know the difference between politeness and genuine interest in them and know how to describe what they're going through in more than two sentences, and on the other hand, I've also met quite a few rascals, who, like you, hide what's going on so well that it seemed to me that they must be afraid that their uterus will jump out if they don't They will maintain themselves with the full control and secrecy of a Shin Bet man (or a typical Israeli man).
In mathematical proofs I will make sure to be as concise as possible, on the other hand, to convey an idea/opinion/explanation in such a discussion, I allow myself to use any form of expression that can help convey the message better, usually while also taking into account what other readers may receive/take from my response. In my response 47 I explained exactly why my responses are even shorter than they should be and I stand behind every sentence I wrote there.
Shabat Shalom to you too.
Lakmila (47) Hello
The reasoning must be very focused on the question being asked. If you do this, your answer will also be shortened.
Now because you are into science unlike me who is only rarely interested...
As we know, a man's mind works in a more general way, so we ask short questions and are only able to hear short answers. This is in contrast to women's minds, whose minds work in a more specific and internal way, and therefore also talk a lot and a lot and lengthen the stories....
If you ask me what it sounds like, I answer "fine", but if you ask a woman what it sounds like, we get the story of her life in great detail.
Now I have gone on too long to give you more reasons for what you wrote..
Thank you and Shabbat Shalom
to contract (38)
I assume that it is clear to you that "to be shorter and to reason more" are contradictory requests...
There are very few things that can be explained briefly with a small number of reasons, and brevity often times actually misses its purpose. I am aware of the fact that in our current world people prefer short, easy and easy to digest answers, but such answers will not usually lead to an understanding of the subject nor will they reveal the errors that often exist on the side of the questioner. This requires long answers (much longer even than my answers). I hope that those who are really interested in understanding will try to find out the rest of the details in the vast amount of information available online (from reliable professional sources and not from beauticians or plumbers) or at least ask questions to sharpen their ignorance/understanding in this forum, after all, that's what the discussion is for...
R. H. 45
Thanks
A contract with 38 stars
NO
To David (37):
You wrote: "What I'm trying to say is that it is permissible to express an opinion out of curiosity only and without a hint of argument."
And also: "It is possible to think and come up with ideas outside the box and outside the consensus without trying to prove that justice and truth must conform to some ideal."
I must have missed something here... what opinions/ideas have you tried to raise in your comments so far? (I ask seriously without trying to argue).
I recommend everyone to go through "Dialogue between an atheist and God" written by the idiot Daniel Blass, the first chapter is published on that website.
A piece of stack of straw man arguments never seen before.
Uncle:
come on??
Professor Markus Feldman lectured on the topic for which he won the prize.
It's not just that he won the award - it's a topic he's been dealing with for many years and he's not dealing with it because of one donor or another.
Therefore also the fact that your words about Dan David Foundation They are defamation - it is not necessary to point out that even if they were true - they would not justify your words in response 20.
from such
Response 20 Oh really???
You don't know the special donor for whom the lecture was prepared???
As far as I have read from the publications about this donor, he is an eccentric type who seeks publicity and attention. He does not just contribute to science, but only to one that fits his views.
Maybe you know otherwise so correct me.
Personally, I don't care at all who is right in this or that debate, I care that there will be interesting ideas that will lead to further thinking. This, in my opinion, is a worthy goal of a scientific website.
If you think otherwise, you are just as right as those who think the opposite of you.
Anyway, thanks for the effort and the links.
Uncle:
Curiosity leads to asking questions and investigating. It does not lead to the expression of an opinion.
Your response 20 was written out of curiosity? After all, she is just slander!
On the topic of evolution - your questions seem defiant and not interested.
Some of them are based on incorrect assumptions about the facts - as if they did not do things that they did, and some of them challenge the commenter to solve problems that are clearly not solvable and whose solvability does not belong to the topic of evolution.
Did you know that today there are algorithmic problems that are solved with the help of evolutionary/genetic programming?
Why solve the problems like this?
Sometimes - because they don't know how to solve them any other way!
This method works and issues solutions and it is clear that no one can predict the development of the solution that will be created because no one knows how to solve the problems in another way!
And this is even in worlds much simpler than "the whole world" of which these programs are only a part, but you are still asking the respondents to predict the action of evolution in this complex world where everything is affected by millions of other things.
In addition to the fact that evolution is required by mathematical considerations (which is why it also works in the context of solving problems using a computer), evolution in nature is confirmed in a way that leaves room only for clearly unreasonable doubts and I highly recommend you to read the following article:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/far-beyond-reasonable-doubt-1912103/
I already hinted at its content in my response to A.A. Judaism but for you I went and looked for him.
the contract
I will try to answer you briefly:
Every body in nature strives to utilize as little energy as possible (its own) in order to function in the most efficient manner.
Hence, theoretically, the creatures that will be more developed than humans will also use less energy but will produce more
benefit (in relation to the investment the person makes in order to derive some benefit).
In other words, there is a significant chance that the creatures that will evolve from man will lose some of the organs that exist in man,
But it is also possible that new organs will be added even if the others are lost.
In any case, theoretically, it can be assumed that the creatures that will be the most efficient in terms of investing energy (for life/survival) to perform a highly effective action - will be in a 'bubble' configuration.
(All the above things are in the nature of futurism and must be taken with limited liability).
In short, will we lose some organs down the road or will we eventually become just a consciousness that is connected to a computer on ??? Does anyone have an answer for this??? If not, say no, but don't flood the site with comments without a definite answer.
By the way, Camilia, you are a very witty and smart person, but try to be shorter and more reasoned in your answers.
Thanks in advance to all the stars "from all my teachers I have been educated"
withering
What I'm trying to say is that it is allowed to express an opinion out of curiosity only and without a hint of argument. I have a feeling that the commenters without exception stand on their hind legs to advance competing claims from the other side.
It doesn't have to be this way, you can think and come up with ideas outside the box and outside the consensus without trying to prove that justice and truth must conform to some ideal.
When everything stands under one test or another of points of view, this approach blocks a deterministic and dogmatic approach. In such a situation everyone must belong to one herd or the other.
Too bad.
David (31)
You wrote: "I did not intend to refute, but to check how the system of the laws of evolution would work in other ways. And not necessarily in the usual way of providing an interpretation of the past."
In addition to explanations of the past, evolution also provides predictions (for example, regarding the expectation of finding fossils of intermediate vertebrates that are requested to exist in certain locations and in certain geological layers) and is also useful in a variety of fields of research and industry, both at the level of software (algorithms based on the principles of evolution) and at the level of organisms (for example, in improving or regarding bacterial resistance to antibiotics). Even your statement that evolution provides an explanation for the past is wrong. Evolution gives a mechanistic explanation for a very wide range of observations, the only explanation right now that meets the criteria of the scientific method.
If you do not know these uses or the predictions that have been tested and found to be correct exactly as predicted through the theory, if you do not know or understand the explanations that evolution gives to the observed phenomena, why do you make claims to evolution or evolutionary scientists instead of making claims to yourself?
You wrote: "Why is it actually not possible to build with their help a system that can provide accurate predictions for the structure of the cell or its components."
In order to answer your question, there must be knowledge of the starting conditions (molecular structure of all the components in the same environment, the environmental conditions in which the relevant components exist, the possible interactions from a physical and chemical point of view, etc.), there must be knowledge of the selection forces that operate at every moment, and even then we can only get Probabilistic predictions. Your specific question is so complicated because it requires prior knowledge, only a small part of which we currently have, and it also requires enormous calculation capabilities that we also do not have at the moment (to create a simulation, for example, of the process under these conditions). So what are you actually complaining about here? That science cannot give a complete answer to every type of question at any time? It's not science's problem, it's your problem that you can't accept this reality. You insist on looking at the empty part of the glass instead of all the things that science (including research based on the principles of evolution) has been able to achieve. In breeding, for example, they use exactly this principle to get a desired result, for example to get cows whose milk yield is greater. This is achieved by applying selection pressure (which in this case is not natural but was decided by the humans who deal with it) over time and in the continuation of the process in which an advantage is given (ie they did not become steak) to those cows that happened to give more milk in that generation, a population of cows with a milk yield is obtained significantly higher than the population of cows from which they started. Similarly, breeds of dogs very different from each other in form and behavior will be produced. In smaller organisms such as bacteria, yeast and even flies it is possible to achieve even more impressive results through this kind of deliberate selection (such as the number of wings/legs/eyes and a preference for movement models). The point is that there is no lack of examples, but you set a very specific and very high bar that I have no problem saying that we probably cannot reach as of this moment. What you repeat and miss here is that the inability to answer all the things at the moment does not take anything away from the attacks and the usefulness of the theory. If we were to adopt your line of thought on other fields of science we would have to reject all theories because none of them is able to fully and accurately answer all the questions that are considered to belong to their field. What makes you suspicious is the fact that you are selective in this matter and claim that it is difficult for you to accept only evolution even though every theory, even the most established, is limited in its ability to make predictions.
You wrote: "Why do you assume in advance that these structures are not predictable at all, why the comparison to the weather and chaotic systems."
I did not assume this in advance, this is an opinion that I expressed based on familiarity with this type of problems and based on the understanding of what needs to be done in order for us to be able to answer questions of this type regarding complex systems which are similar in complexity to the weather system and chaotic systems (hence the comparison). I also did not claim that in principle one cannot accept any that are prophetic, the opposite is true and I even provided some examples that illustrate this, but as mentioned you are only interested in the example that you set the threshold of your persuasion, your right of course, but it only indicates you and nothing else.
You wrote: "I'm trying to check where we can go with the theory of evolution as it is."
here Right here.
You wrote: "The answer that cannot be predicted because that way... is typical of dogmatic thinking."
But that's not what I answered you... why do you write it like that?
http://www.youtube.com/user/NuBemet
David A.
You are ignoring Camila's words: she wrote that given the necessary budget and time, it may be possible to create a system for predicting cell structure, etc. It is quite clear that such a prediction will be constructed probabilistically (ie probability A for option 1, probability B for option 2 and so on) and such a prediction is probably quite good (refer to certain proven physical theories).
Beyond that, the refutation of a scientific theory is not done by declaring that no proofs of its correctness have been found, but by finding proofs of its incorrectness.
Without getting into philosophy, the essential point is actually in the axis of our lives, yes yes it is private
I won't lie and say that I believe in the world that was created in six days, just as it's a little hard for me to believe that unicorns exist, but that's my personal point of view.
The collective and problematic point is - and let's say...
And let's say that the world was created in six days, and let's say that God is seething with rage at me, that I don't follow his faith and according to his way, and let's say that he wants to punish me at any moment, so that I come back and see that his words are true..
So... Pierre, whether I will feel his presence regarding the change he wants to happen in me, or not
My life will remain pretty much as it is...
And even if I decide that I see the light, in my environment, not many things will change. my world will not collapse,
But what happens to a person whose whole life revolves around beliefs, whole communities that strengthen each other so that no one falls and sins into another belief.
That my parents are ultra-Orthodox, that all my surroundings, too, like me in my faith,
And for a moment of open vision,
I understand that my whole life has revolved around something that doesn't exist
Simply, as if it were said that my parents, the ones who raised me all their lives, suddenly disown me, tell me that I don't belong to them, that I'm a total stranger, and turn my world upside down...
For such a person, it will be difficult, much more difficult than I can even imagine, and much more difficult, if I find out one morning that God is sitting in my living room drinking coffee...
For such a person, his whole world will turn upside down...
The only way to save his world
It is to repel any idea that opposes the very existence of his lifestyle
After all, he, like many others, simply follows the clear rules of evolution.
He, too, is part of the changing world
More... Camila
The answer that cannot be predicted because this way... is typical of dogmatic thinking.
withering
I did not intend to refute but to test how the system of the laws of evolution would work in other ways. And not necessarily in the usual way of providing commentary on the past.
Why is it actually not possible to build with their help a system that can provide accurate predictions for the structure of the cell or its components.
Why do you assume in advance that these structures are not predictable at all, why the comparison to the weather and chaotic systems.
I'm trying to see where we can go with the theory of evolution as it is.
Therefore there is no point in claiming that you need me to provide an alternative theory so that you can think about these questions.
The last Camila you are simply wonderful!
I am delighted by your comments
to David (26)
Preliminary note: although there is a good chance that I understand evolution more than most people here, I do not consider myself an expert on the subject. This is certainly not my main area of daily research.
If you are willing to finance a research institute for me for the next ten years, I am willing to drop everything and try to write software as above that will start from the first replicator (which I still don't know what it is). If you want me to discover this too, I will need funding for at least another twenty years, but it is no longer related to evolution... Knowing the main (and quite simple) laws that enable, excuse me, require the existence of the evolutionary process does not tell us anything about what exactly will be created in a system that operates under a regime rules it. Even in systems of laws and in much simpler environments, the ability to predict is technically impossible given the limited computing power available to us today (even much simpler situations are extremely difficult to predict, see for example the three-body problem). I believe that if I succeed in simulating the appropriate environmental conditions and the appropriate selection regime we can get it, but of course this is just a gut feeling that is worth nothing at the moment (just as the gut feeling of someone who thinks otherwise is worth nothing at the moment). The question is appropriate, of course, and as I wrote, I would be happy to accept the challenge if you would be willing to organize the appropriate budget for me, and even then, of course, it is not certain that I will be able to provide what you want, but you can be sure that I will try very hard because it will guarantee me publicity and awards, which in themselves are not that important to me. But they will allow me to explore what really interests me.
Do you think that our inability to accurately predict how a complex system like the weather or even three hazardous bodies under gravity will behave over a long period of time logically implies that the laws of physics are wrong? I find it hard to believe that you think so. The strength of physical theories stems from their ability to describe and explain a wide variety of phenomena and to be a useful tool on which and through which new things are developed. Evolution as a theory provides all of these. The limitations of a scientific theory only weaken it compared to another scientific theory that gives a better answer (in criteria such as a wider variety of phenomena, higher accuracy, simplicity and reduction), unfortunately, evolution, not only is it very successful in all of these but there is no alternative theory that even comes close to tickling her ankles. I hope you understand that even if the "test" you proposed is the bar you set for yourself so that you, David, will be convinced of evolution, this does not mean anything about the existence and / or correctness of evolution, it only means that you close your eyes really, really hard. It's actually very easy to disprove this theory, you don't have to go that far. But don't worry, I won't try to convince you to fulfill some mitzvah, the science is open and clear and even though it is not always easy to understand, there are no scientists standing at intersections and coaxing people to read a page in the origin of species.
Every theory grew out of observing phenomena in the world, therefore every scientific theory (in physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) is in a certain sense laws "in retrospect". If it had only remained at this level then it would really have been less successful, but it's not and that's the whole beauty of it. The separation you make between the various theories on this subject has no justification. Your ignoring of all the successes of the theory of evolution also has no justification as long as you don't present an alternative scientific theory that will be at least as good and preferably even better.
You wrote: "If it were possible to test this system of laws in the situation that initially is a basic starting point and see if the patterns of life develop in the various segments such as the structure of the cell or the structure of different organs. Such an action may give these laws a guspanka of certainty. And in addition predictive abilities with real consequences."
So that's it, they've done it several times already, for example in the famous example of the formation of a compound eye from a very different and simple initial state. Do you really not know any such example? Or do you just ignore it? And just a small correction to your words, no, it does not provide certainty, even if the scenario you asked for takes place and we succeed in developing a living cell from an organic soup, this will not elevate evolution to certainty, but only to the closest thing to it as of this moment.
David A.
Your view is very simplistic. It is not possible with today's tools to predict evolutionary directions due to the great complexity of the systems and due to the chaotic nature of the equations that describe them. Chaotic, meaning huge sensitivity to initial conditions (see "Butterfly effect").
What is possible is to build simple models like the one Camila described above of an isolated system (island) and only three variables foxes birds and seeds. In addition, it is also possible to build isolated experimental systems for example an aquarium with two types of fish and then see if the mathematical models are correct.
See for example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equation
It turns out that even in such a simple system of two types of fish in the aquarium maintaining a predator-prey relationship there are many surprises and it is quite difficult to predict what will happen. So your requirement to show brain development. To believe in a cell or to describe the future evolution of man is clearly improbable.
Can anyone predict which countries will exist in 100 years? Or what will the global economy look like? These problems are orders of magnitude simpler compared to the problems you are seeking a solution for.
In addition... Camila.
My feeling is that the laws of the theory of evolution are laws in retrospect. They describe an existing situation and interpret the dynamics and laws. If it were possible to test this system of laws in a situation that was initially a basic starting point and see if the patterns of life develop in the different segments such as the structure of the cell or the structure of different organs.
Such an action may give these laws a guspanka of certainty. And in addition predictive abilities with real consequences.
withering
I guess you're an evolution expert. So assuming you have the set of contexts and laws needed for evolution. Can you write a program that will plot the evolutionary development of the structure of a living cell. Assuming that the software knows nothing about the structure of the cell and the various components and dynamics that operate within it.
The software is said to start from amino acid bases and work its way up.
Will she be able to reach the structure at least soon (one of the solutions) of a living cell???
Why are religions so stupid??? For years there has been proof of the missing link - the ultra-Orthodox.
For the contract (21):
certainly! Just describe to me please, and as accurately as possible, what the half-breeds are expected to be in the next thousand years so that I can feed them into my computer and provide you with an equally accurate prediction of the changes that are expected of us.
At the same time, for practice, try to predict what will happen in the following scenario when you only have the accepted evolution mechanisms at your disposal:
On an isolated island there is a flock of birds that feed on small seeds and there are foxes that prey on the birds. For the purpose of the experiment, I control the conditions prevailing on the island and performed the following actions: 1) I gradually made the foxes disappear, 2) I started providing seeds on a regular basis as I gradually increase their size and hardness. What do you think will happen to those creatures many generations later?
To 11:
You asked for some Tsomi, so here is a specific response from me to you, taken from your own words from the website you referred to:
"A.A. Judaism: Thanks for the advice. I have already read Dawkins, he explains very well, but he is quite boring. I think I understand the principles of evolution at a relatively good level."
A random surfer on the website: "In other words, you agree that according to evolution there should be certain findings (large amounts of intermediate stages) that do not exist, but you are simply wrong - this is not a prediction of the theory of evolution."
A.A. Judaism: "Assuming that Dawkins' explanation of the "climbing the improbable mountain" is correct, then the lack of vertebrae is a serious problem for evolution.
I assume that the "fragmented equilibrium" theory that is gaining momentum comes to answer this problem (as well as probability problems). I would relate to her, but I don't even know her on a general level."
A random surfer on the website: "I don't know what you're referring to in "climbing the improbable mountain", could you give me a page number?"
A.A. Judaism: "I did not read the book. I relied on a statement by "Lior Halperin" from the Freedom website.
[[In other words, the person is ignorant, aware that he is ignorant, doesn't really bother to check the details himself, yet he rambles on about things he is not familiar with and throughout the discussion there he prefers what the Christian creationists have to offer over science, which in contrast to them he has proven himself Again and again using the same approach - it's the scientific method, all just so as not to examine the facts... Oh my god, those who want to understand science can't be lazy, because popular literature can give you some basic concepts and key principles, but it can't provide An exhaustive answer to the evolution of evolution and why it is so elegant and powerful in explaining such a wide range of findings and phenomena and how useful it is in a variety of fields in science and industry.]]
A.A. Judaism: "Evolutionary scientists give their interpretation, and I have mine."
[[Who said religious people don't believe in democracy?!]]
And another nice example to illustrate the sources of authority from which the amazing knowledge is drawn and the quality of the reference to those sources:
A random surfer on the website: "Just a question for thought if we are already dealing with quantities. Today, one and a half million different species are known. How do so many animals (multiply by 2 for male and female) fit into a box no bigger than a football field?
A.A. Judaism: First of all, there is someone who proved that it is mathematically possible. If I find his calculation then I'll show you (it's somewhere in the "Tafoz" forums)
[[And about this the last Camila thinks to herself: Wow! Someone proved it in one of the orange forums! And more math! Amazing!!!]]
So anyway, and after you've ignored again and again ignored questions presented to you during that discussion there, what alternative explanation do you offer for the diverse and overwhelming collection of facts if evolution is such a failure in your uneducated opinion? Here please, we didn't touch…]]
Yair Razak: "That was not my question. I asked not why there was *only* one of its kind, but why there *was* one of its kind. I am still waiting for an answer. . . . I'm still waiting for an alternate explanation as to why this template is in trial. Why the predictions of the theory of evolution work."
A.A. Judaism: "I think it's simple, but it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. It's because God created only a few of these."
[[Ah! What fools we scientists are, working like donkeys to understand the variety of phenomena here in the world when all we need is a little bit of this filler that can fill any space you want. Why? digestion!]]
I suggest you open a dictionary and read the definition of lie again and then you can go to the mirror and see one. Unlike you, I have not lied in even one thing, not that I expect you to apologize for your slander because I know the morals of the religious (especially towards women) very well.
David A - you asked a difficult question, and the answer - clients in other fields that do not belong to the website field but more in the technology fields, where there is money to pay for writing.
In any case, I would not publish these things if they were not in the scientific consensus and spoken from the heart.
Peace
After many years of research on evolution, are there some scientists who can speculate what we will look like in the next stage of evolution, i.e. will we lose more organs that we will not need in the future or will we remain hairless or will we look like the aliens that people imagine them to be? Are there any hypotheses based on all the data collected on the topic of evolution?
Thanks
Mila the lecturer receives a bounty of money for a lecture that suits the ear of the donor.
But you are the editor of this site, who will pay you?
According to the evolutionary game theory written by Maynard Keynes (not the economist) in order to give a mathematical basis to the theory of evolution, we will not find any missing intermediate links!! but only the stable states in the middle. Information about this can be read in the books "Almost like a whale" (Steve Jones, see the book's entry on Wikipedia and in Hidan) and "Game Theory" (Meshler, Solan, Zamir). Intuitively, it can be understood that there must be stability for change in order to take the next step, the extinction of everything that is less than the most suitable is required, with the help of difficult conditions and competition for resources.
Or empirically to look at us as human beings and what Western man has done to the Indians in America and the Aborigines in Australia. extermination of nations.
Unfortunately most people believe in creationism. A person who has read literature on evolution, and reads serious books that reject evolution, easily finds the flaws in creationist books. For example the book "the atlas of creation Harun Yahya". You can easily find the flaws in it even though it is a leading creation.
Another thing - in recent years genetic evolutionary mapping has been carried out - compared to evolutionary mapping based on (anthropological) skeletons. There you can clearly see the small evolutionary steps. About this in a fascinating article several years old in NATONAL_GEOGRAPHIC.
Creationists ingest antibiotics. It means that they recognize evolution, because after several decades, the bacteria are resistant to antibiotics. Their excuse: a bacterium is a basic creature. Is man the most perfect creature that can be created? It is likely that science can produce the next step, and that there is no limit to the level of consciousness that can be reached. Not as individuals but as machines that are used.
Another thing - missing links are discovered all the time. The Ida coupe - the first with eyes on the front. The whales with legs discovered in an ancient sea in Afghanistan, the genetic match between a horse and a whale, Lucy in Africa.
Another thing - the fact that nature creates outwardly similar creatures from different families: rhinoceros-like dinosaurs. It has an explanation in that similar conditions create similar externalities in separate genetic lineages.
In general - creationism cannot serve as a basis for any research. Evolution and genetics serve as a basis for multidisciplinary research and have not been stuck for 200 years. It's like saying I believe in God, and that's it. Creationists believe in statics.
Nature is all change. "God" or nature turns the carpet every time under the feet of the enlightened and the creationists together and changes the conditions from end to end.
Unfortunately, whatever we don't convince - we grind some water and march towards a new Middle Ages. A more comfortable world for those who find it painful to think, and it turns out that most people don't want to think for themselves.
point.
OK. It is indeed a mutation - but of memes - a mutation that unfortunately is spreading through the population like wildfire.
Michael it was a dirty joke... most of the religious... most of the mutations... damage
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110511162538.htm
point:
Why are the religious right about this?
Is there anyone who says it isn't?
The religious learned the law from those who understand evolution but they use it in a stupid way.
Most religious people are right about most mutations causing damage to the organism rather than improvement.
to A.A. Judaism,
- There are no findings for the claim that "it is possible that there used to be rabbits and hares that once ruminated"
If they find such, it will be conclusive proof of the changes that animals go through
In other words, proof of the existence of evolution,
The writers of the Bible as well as Rashi were well aware of the differences between a rabbit - from Paris Persa,
and a rabbit - a rodent,
In order to rely on scriptures, it is advisable to know the subject,
And no... better shut up
It has already been said that:
Ignorance is not a flag worth waving.
AA Judaism:
Want an example of getting the facts wrong?
please:
For example - the first sentence in the chapter on evolution is a factual error.
Evolution was discovered because of morphological considerations. At that time they didn't know about DNA yet.
Later - see it's a miracle - the DNA findings were found to match the same order.
The same goes for the protein structures.
And note - each protein gives a tree of evolution.
There are tens of thousands of such trees.
What is the chance that they will all match each other "by chance"?
As mentioned - this is just an example.
The writers above you claimed that there are incorrect facts on my site. I didn't mention the subject of the rabbit and the rabbit.
Show me one false fact written about evolution. The user "Kamila the last" knew how to answer the user "David" very well. But she wrote an extremely general (and false) response to me.
Regarding the rabbit and the rabbit - the biblical rabbit and the rabbit are the rabbit and the rabbit - they eat their own dung (Varshi interprets rumination as also eating dung) + their unique digestive system = biblical rumination (which may very well be different from the scientific one).
Another option - it could be that there used to be rabbits and hares that once produced ruminants (according to scientific ruminant production) and became extinct from the world (then it would also be easy to explain why today's rabbit and rabbit look like ruminants).
Now it's your turn, I'm waiting for you to show me incorrect facts on the site.
In the Torah it is written that a rabbit ruminates and this is of course complete nonsense.
What do you think?
Show me just one incorrect fact on the site. Just one. we will see you
To A.A. Judaism and to David
Dear friends, I greatly extend your religious belief, but you are wrong when you
You raise your opposition to the science of evolution as part of your religious belief. This is an error and evidence
The simplest reason for this is the fact that there are many scientists who are religious, wear a kippah and observe mitzvot
the religion Evolution and genetics are sciences based on drawing conclusions from observations and experiments.
The scientific conclusions are objective and therefore bear proven and useful technological and medical results.
For example, preventing genetic diseases and creating genetic medicines.
Perhaps the following sentence will make it easier for you to "digest" the science of evolution to say: "God created...evolution".
to David (5)
A. What is a positive addition to the genetic information for you? One that helps the organism in which it appeared to survive better for example? Have you heard about the emergence of antibiotic resistance in bacteria? Have you heard about the appearance of resistance to new poisons in insects and plants? It may not be so good for us, but it's great for them. Have you heard about improving farm animals by applying the laws of evolution and genetic knowledge to obtain cows that produce more milk or plants that are more resistant to parasites? From this I conclude that "to us" in section A in your response is aimed at all those ignorant people who close their eyes tightly and shout with all their might that it is now night even though the sun is shining in the middle of the sky. So that's it, that "we", in science and also the other people who bother to read a little and observe what is happening around them, actually have a lot of information about what you think does not exist.
B. Right on the edge of the fork:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5
There are already so many examples that contradict this wasteful claim that it is already pathetic to wave at this straw.
This false claim is based on the attempt to separate microevolution and macroevolution (which is simply an accumulation of microevolutionary events and therefore there is no sense in this artificial separation) macroevolution is not fundamentally different from the movement of continents, the formation of stars and other processes that lead to new patterns that did not exist before in the same area And that they are the result of the accumulation of small changes over a long period of time, are you really trying to claim that a river was not formed due to slow weathering processes? Wasn't it created due to the accumulation of small changes, the wrinkling of the ground due to the pressure of the meeting of land plates? Over the course of decades and even hundreds of years, the changes are usually few but still present. In the Chernobyl area for example, due to the high levels of radiation which significantly increased the rate of mutations, there is monitoring of the wild animals in the area and the changes are amazing, of course you can still identify the source of those mutants but if you remember that only a few years have passed, major changes in appearance, in anatomy, In physiology, biochemistry and behavior, they are inevitable.
third. Well... there is a limit to how much time I am willing to waste on an idiot whose only desire is to spread blatant lies. There is no shortage of examples that even a layman like you can find on the net and be impressed by them. One thing we can be sure of, for every new finding that adds a link that was missing, the universe of creation is on duty and will shout, but now instead of the one gap that was there, there are now two gaps! And logically, a film sampled at 500 frames per second is less reliable than a film sampled at 25 frames per second because it has more gaps...
David, when I want my nails done I'll go to a beautician, when I want to understand evolution I'll go see what scientists say about it. For some reason you insist on learning about evolution from the beautician who has already proven time and time again that she does not understand anything in this field and cannot understand anything in it because she does not even bother to look at the findings themselves but draws her knowledge from her neighbor, the Christian beautician. If you didn't know and posed a question to understand, but when you ask and answer yourself with lies you show exactly who you are and what your moral level is.
A.A. Judaism. We are done with the advertiser's word and more for the Mahbatim site. If you want your comments to be published, do not post them under your name either.
For a serious and substantiated review of the perplexities in the theory, see the attached link:
http://www.hidabroot.org/AcademyPage.asp?CategoryID=442&Lang=0
Incidental notes:
A. We have no empirical knowledge about positive additions in the genetic information.
[The unbelievers' response: We have Down syndrome.
The answer of sane people: it is a mutation that causes damage and not improvement].
B. A new species has never been observed - neither in the wild, nor under controlled breeding conditions.
[The disbelievers' response: speciation is being observed in laboratories around the world.
The answer of the sane people: yes, but a salamander remains a salamander, and a bacterium remains a bacterium. We are asking about macroevolution, not about a bacterium's ability to digest nylon].
third. The fossil findings do not support the theory of evolution, as intermediate vertebrae have never been found.
[The infidels' response: whales and hominids were found. And besides, you yourself are a midshipman.
The answer of the sane people: Well, really? A little self-respect…]
Best regards,
After carefully reading several pages on the website recommended by the first commenter, I can save you the time you will waste on (yet another) Jewish website that is based on creationist arguments (from a Christian source of course, I.E. Where have the times gone when religious Jews would produce their own original thoughts? Well there is There are few such even today, such as Haim Sompolinsky, but he is considered the exception that proves the rule) and of course the things presented there are well seasoned with simple ignorance, logical incoherence and all the usual characteristics. Go there if you want to have some fun, you won't learn anything about evolution there any more than you can learn about it if you go to the nearest mechanic or the neighborhood beautician and ask them about the subject.
AA Judaism:
It is indeed recommended to read there to see why sane people laugh at the fanatical believers
It's a shame there isn't an app for the site, or at least display compatibility for smartphones! in Massa
It is recommended to read on this website - jewishsoul.co.il
A bit about evolution.