Most of the arguments of the opponents of evolution stem from ignorance and a basic lack of understanding regarding the central principles of the theory. Their arguments actually touch on marginal points that do not in principle negate the foundations of evolution
Most of the arguments of the opponents of evolution stem from ignorance and a basic lack of understanding regarding the central principles of the theory. Their arguments actually touch on marginal points that do not in principle negate the foundations of evolution. I will describe at the beginning what evolution actually means and then I will address the main claims of the opponents.
In general, evolution talks about three processes:
- A. Culture: duplication of details from each other.
- B. Mutation: Replication is not error-free, so there are changes from time to time.
- third. Selection: Changing environmental conditions or competition between individuals for limited resources result in the survival of the fittest.
Regarding life on Earth, these principles have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt and are not up for debate. Let's start with the first point, every cell described so far reproduces by binary replication. That is, from one cell two cells are created that are identical to the parent cell in their genetic material (DNA). However, it turns out that this replication is not 1958% perfect and sometimes errors occur in it that lead to a change between the daughter cells. The chance of mutations is measurable and depends on the conditions. For example, radiation and substances known as mutagens increase the frequency of mutations by hundreds of meters. The question of whether the mutations are completely random or whether there are also specific mutations induced by the environment or dictated by mechanisms in the cell is an age-old question that has been extensively researched and it begins with the controversy with the Lamarckist thesis that claims that the environmental conditions can direct the mutations. The researcher Joshua Lederberg received a Nobel Prize on the subject in XNUMX when he showed that the prevalence of mutations conferring resistance against antibiotics Identify whether or not the cell is exposed to these substances. As of today, despite strenuous research and a number of cases that appeared to be induced mutations, no such mutation has yet been described with certainty. Therefore, it is clear that even if there are induced mutations, they make up a zero percentage of the random ones and their effect is minimal.
Regarding the third point, the selection, it is intuitively clear that the suitable one survives. If the temperatures suddenly drop those who will survive will be the animals with the fur. It is also clear that when biological organisms compete for limited resources the least fit will become extinct, a phenomenon that has been demonstrated in countless observations and laboratory experiments. It should be noted that unlike the random creation of mutations, the selection is not random at all and depends on the environmental conditions and competitors.
Cognitively, one of the best validations for the theory is that the understandings arising from it can be applied for the benefit of technological development. Indeed, molecular biology and genetic engineering includes cloning genes and even whole creatures such as Dolly the sheep, finding drugs and building the tools that allow understanding cellular mechanisms in detail, all of which are based on evolutionary principles. Only recently have we been informed that researchers have shown that there was indeed a connection between Homo sapiens and Neanderthal man, thereby contradicting what was commonly thought. Was this interesting research made possible thanks to developments born from evolutionary principles or intelligent design?
So what are the evolutionists arguing about? There are mainly four "corners" related to the theory of evolution to which deniers tend to refer under the false assumption that by doing so they are tattooing the foundations of the theory:
- The problem of complexity - in their opinion, a random creation of tremendous complexity like you see in the living world is not possible.
- The origin of the first cell.
- The problem of disassembly - some biological systems do not appear to be disassembly in the sense that no constructive steps are found on the way to their creation (these are also known as the "missing links") and it is difficult to understand what were the advantages that preserved these structural steps. For example, the opponents' favorite examples are the bacterial rod and the eye, each part of which is dependent on the other, and it is difficult to imagine constructive situations on the way to their creation.
- The origin of man.
The first claim, the incomprehensible complexity of biological systems is the most common and it comes up in different ways in every discussion of evolution. This claim is expressed in a picturesque way in the famous story of the clock in the sea. A man walks on the beach and finds a watch, will he believe that the watch was made from the sand and the waves? And if not, then how dare you evolutionists claim that a living cell that is at a level of complexity millions of times higher than a clock was created by a natural and unplanned process? Fred Hoyle put it a little differently, was it possible, he asked, that a tornado in a junkyard would lead to the creation of Boeing? What are the chances of such a thing happening? In addition to these, the evolutionists show various types of statistical calculations that demonstrate that the chance of the exact formation of proteins is zero.
All these claims are based on a lack of understanding of the inherent power of combining a random process with non-random selection. For example, can a random algorithm write the Bible in a reasonable amount of time? Apparently not. If we write a program that writes letters randomly we will get the Bible after a huge time. However, if we add to the selection process the picture will change. We will write a program that again writes letters randomly, but this time if the letter received in a certain location is the same as the one written in the Bible, it will be saved and the program will continue to guess the next letter from there. In such a process the Bible will be written in a few minutes. Note that also in the second case the process of creating the letters is completely random.
Regarding the clock story, yes, if there was a process in which the gears were created and they were connected to each other randomly and the structure was duplicated and in addition selection was activated in favor of the shape of the clock, it is indeed possible to assume that a clock would have been obtained.
The second claim attacks the question of the origin of the first cell. Formally speaking, this question has nothing to do with the correctness or incorrectness of evolution because evolution actually begins only after the first cell has already been formed. And even if we include this question under the wings of the theory of evolution, it is clear that the fact that there are open questions to which the exact answer is not known still does not rule out the whole theory. Is it because we don't know how to expect earthquakes that the entire theory of plate tectonics is incorrect?
Indeed, the creation of the first cell is shrouded in fog, but many research works being done today show that the creation of a living cell from non-living matter is apparently possible and reasonable. Many groups investigate conditions similar to those that prevailed on Earth in past times and find that the creation of organic molecules is possible. In addition, organic molecules were found, including amino acids, which are the material from which the proteins in the asteroids are composed, and perhaps this is their origin. Beyond that, in light of recent research, it seems that creating an artificial living cell in the laboratory is a near thing. For example, Nobel laureate researcher Shostak from the MGH hospital in Boston shows membrane bubbles that form spontaneously and replicate on their own. Other works show that an RNA molecule that is hereditary material can be formed under certain conditions without an enzymatic reaction. A combination of these two can form, for example, the first cell. Viruses, which are not living cells and do not maintain an independent metabolism, but are composed of proteins and nucleic acids have already been artificially synthesized and began to multiply after being injected into a storage cell. Craig Venter, one of the greatest biologists today is busy trying to understand what is the minimum necessary for life and trying to produce an artificial cell. Of course, all these experiments do not prove that this is how life was created, but that the possibility of the spontaneous formation of a replicating cell exists.
Regarding the third and fourth claims, the problem of disintegration and the origin of man, it is possible to refer more generally to a point that frequently comes up in the debate with the evolutionists: "Why is it that the missing links are sometimes not found? This is the proof that there was no progress in steps as evolution claims!" This claim again originates from a lack of knowledge about how genetic changes are created in nature. It is based on the thought that the only process that drives evolution is point mutations in DNA bases that in small steps change the cell. Indeed, in this process one should not expect great evolutionary leaps. However, this argument ignores the existence of the recombination mechanism and the lateral inheritance (Horizontal transfer) of genetic segments. These two are probably responsible for those relatively large evolutionary leaps. Recombination is a genetic mixing mechanism that replaces similar segments with each other and is found in every cell described to date. This is why children are different from their parents and siblings are different from each other.
Lateral inheritance involves the transfer and insertion of large DNA segments from organism to organism or the mixing of segments within the cellular genome. Such transfer processes are applied by genetic elements that "jump" from place to place and are called mobile elements. Among them, for those interested in reading more on the subject, transposons, retrotransposons, SINE, LINE sequences, viruses, plasmids and many other sequences that undergo transposition and integration. One instructive example of leader sequences is the Alu sequences. These sequences found in the genome of primates include more than a million copies in humans! One of the theories for the human evolutionary leap holds that the Alu sequences are responsible for it.
Recombination and lateral inheritance are also answers to another claim that is sometimes raised by opponents of evolution and was not mentioned above. According to this claim, it is not possible to create a "new thing" by mutations. Of course this claim is wrong, for example, hundreds of genes are known today that were created as a result of the fusion of two or more genes and the protein encoded by them has a different activity than the original proteins.
It is relatively easy to demonstrate evolutionary jumps in the laboratory. For example, a plasmid (a circular DNA molecule) can be inserted into the E. coli bacterium containing a gene that codes for the luciferase protein and a gene that confers resistance to the antibiotic ampicillin. In addition, the plasmid can also contain a mechanism that causes the bacterium to transfer the plasmid to any bacterium it encounters, including E. coli and many others (conjugation). So that in one fell swoop without any building steps or "missing links" we created a luminous E. coli bacterium, resistant to antibiotics and what's more, it will pass on the above properties to any bacterium it encounters. Such a process and similar ones are routinely carried out in thousands of laboratories in the world dealing with genetic engineering every day. It is so routine that most molecular biologists who perform it as part of their research no longer notice what an incredible evolutionary leap they are making. It can be argued here that such an experiment was created by scientists and it is in fact intelligent planning, but it must be remembered that all the tools and elements participating in the experiment were taken from nature and there is no reason why this should not happen in a natural way as well.
Intelligent design itself has no proof or evidence and all the "evidence" for its existence comes in the negative way through attacks and attempts to refute evolution. That's why I will present here only a small number from a multitude of questions to which evolution has clear and simple answers, while the supporters of intelligent design have to quibble and contort in order to answer them.
Why do penguins have wings? What is the purpose of the hidden degenerated limb bones of cetaceans? What does our tailbone do? Why didn't the planner get rid of it? And our hypotheses? Why did creatures become extinct and are still extinct today? If they were unnecessary why were they created in the first place? How is it that the fossils are arranged in layers according to evolutionary progress and a horse skeleton is never found under a dinosaur skeleton? How come children die of cancer? Is this a terrible mistake of the planner? And what about genetic diseases? Where do they come from? Where do new strains of resistant bacteria come from? AIDS? The H1N1 virus? Does this mean that the designer is still creating new strains around us? And if so, what is the purpose? Why is he not revealed in all his glory?
As mentioned, all these questions have very simple evolutionary answers.
Since time immemorial, science and rational thinking based on experiments, observations and drawing conclusions have been subject to an attack based on faith alone without any research basis. Evolution is at the forefront of this struggle between the scientific and anti-scientific method. Recently, the evolutionists are trying to undermine its legitimacy and compare it to a theory that is clearly not scientific, the theory of intelligent design.
* The author is a postdoctoral fellow in microbiology at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and Harvard University.
More on the subject on the science website
69 תגובות
Haim:
Tired of the nonsense.
Nor can you disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster or the existence of a teacup circling the earth with a plate of cake next to it.
All these, along with the intelligent planner, are cut by Ockham's razor.
There is no need to add to the picture of reality things that cannot be seen and that do not explain anything.
Another way to see how silly the intelligent designer hypothesis is is the following way:
The intelligent designer bursts in to explain what it is like to have life.
The problem is that he himself is alive.
That is - that the rational planners say that there is life because it was created by a living being.
My question to them, of course, would be none other than "How is it that there is life?"
By the way - if you want to create life through life - I know a much more effective and enjoyable way to do it and it does not require any intelligence.
This is how life is made literally.
Max,
Okay with your "God", the only question is who created them?
Only I can explain the concept of "God", it is very simple, God consists of four forces, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force and the force of gravity, all these forces created what exists, therefore they can be called God.
Michael,
Accepting your comments, I just tried to keep the discussion on a relatively simple level.
I am a completely secular person and I try with all my might to disprove the assumption of a primary planner and fail. All the claims heard (written) here fail to logically refute this claim.
As long as it is assumed that the universe had a starting point, there can certainly be a claim that someone/something caused this beginning.
ZA that this someone/something existed before you. The scientists claim that they have no idea about what was before the starting point and this still does not contradict that there was something that we cannot and may not be able to define in the future. Maybe it's the intelligent planner who is sublime beyond our understanding?
Who:
The assumption that the universe did not exist from all time is also an accepted assumption in science, therefore those who oppose science can assume that it is not true.
Apart from that - even in science this conclusion is not absolute and there are different approaches that talk about previous universes or at least about a previous time.
Since the universe did not exist from eternity, then life did not exist from eternity either.
Whether life originated here on Earth or was brought here by a meteor or by aliens, it still originated sometime and somewhere. In any case, it in no way adds to the (fundamentally disproved) theory of an intelligent designer.
R.H. Refai.M
Confirms no. But theoretically there is such a possibility, right?
Since we live in an infinite universe, the possibilities are also infinite and the human mind cannot encompass the infinite, because it (the mind) is finite.
From this it follows that our perception of reality may be very picky and limited and suitable only for the specific structure of our mind. Therefore, it is possible that beyond our understanding of the universe there is a completely different reality within which exists the possibility that life has always existed.
Life
Suppose life was brought to Earth by a meteor or something similar.
Where did they come from or how did they form on the meteor? A smart planner? Or is there another reason? Either way, does this confirm the claim that life has always been there? Think before you answer.
Why can't it be claimed that life has always existed, after all there is a possibility that the origin of life was brought here by a meteor or something similar. The scientists take such a possibility into account. If so, life exists in the universe and may have always existed.
Haim:
Such a planner does not explain the problem for which Fubarak!
After all, it was invented to explain the complexity of life, which supposedly could not have been created just like that, so what is the logic of introducing something with infinite complexity now? If such complexity does not need an explanation, then it is easy that that of life does not need an explanation.
It is just as well possible to claim that life has always been there and end the matter.
This would, of course, be nonsense, but less nonsense than that of the planner.
To Michael:
The way you explain it makes a lot of sense, but the phrasing why I asked - "infinitely complex" just like that, without addition, is misleading and doesn't explain anything. Do you agree with me?
Another thing: suppose that the infinitely complex planner is eternal and permanent. No one planned it and it has existed since time immemorial contrary to the human concept of cause and effect, so what?
Haim:
Because people find it hard to believe that you are seriously asking this.
If the reason for the claim that there is an intelligent planner is that living things are too complex to be created just like that without a planner, then the intelligent planner - which is certainly more complex - cannot just be created either, and a planner is needed for its creation.
Why doesn't anyone answer my question number 53?
Israel -
This is an old hoax on Dawkins' account, which was also well edited afterwards.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102_1.html
Richard Dawkins was asked if he could point to "one" case of a mutation or other evolutionary process that resulted in an increase in genetic information. He could not point to even one case!!! Don't believe me? Here is the source http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&feature=player_embedded .
Clarification question for point (1) regarding conclusions 3-4.
I didn't understand, why can't the designer be infinitely more complex than the work of his hands?
God created Darwin... and Darwin created evolution... and science...
I must point out, I read the entire article as well as all 50 comments!!, yes, I have too much free time at work.
And I must share with you the enlightenment of others that I am only now understanding.
Until now I believed that there was a place for discussion with religious people regarding scientific issues since they are human beings and humans, due to being thinking beings, may still understand things that are said to them if the same issues are explained to them in a simple way.
But "You made me laugh" (which, by the way, made me laugh a lot) proved to me that I was wrong and that there is no point in arguing, all the arguments he brought are not related at all to the issues that were asked about.
The only reason I agree with science is because I am a logical person without sentimentality and science is absolute logic without sentimentality, meaning that if it is proven tomorrow that Einstein's theory of relativity is incorrect, science will abandon the theory without even debating and simply move on..Religion is unable to do this unfortunately.
Anyway, thank you for making me develop more from a "troll" to a person.
I enjoyed.
: )
Avi:
This "laughter" is a troll from the land of trolls.
He even chose a troll name for him.
Who but a troll would choose a name for himself that expresses disdain for others even before he has said anything?
This is a person who from the beginning knows that all his reactions will be reactions of disdain for others and it is not really clear to me why we have to tolerate him here.
The crackpots here always give me a brain bleed.
you made me laugh
I read back your responses and apparently the word fact is unfamiliar to you, all of your words
They are nonsense in clothing and vanity including your faith.
You made me laugh,
Yair's main point is that in your response (44), you said almost nothing except for the fact that you do not agree with me and that I do not understand you in some matter, and in this respect the response does not allow for further discussion - your right.
I don't really understand what hurts you.
The facts I stated are facts, and you are welcome to contradict them (including the fact that Mr. Zvi did not understand my words.)
Lezvi's words were also spoken politely, precisely, and briefly.
You don't have to answer me.
You laughed, like most religious commenters, when you are asked actual, factual, detailed questions, you respond with an inclusive and offensive negative.
"From the point of view of the editor of this site and most of the writers on it, there is a contradiction between observing the commandments of religion and science... any information you receive from them that is inaccurate - at best, misleading, partial, and infantile - in most cases."
Zvi addressed you with detailed claims, with utmost politeness, what did you answer him?
"I do not agree with many of your words.
She just didn't understand the 0 thing."
What sense do you have to respond here, what sense should we have to answer you?
deer
I do not agree with much of what you said.
You just didn't understand the 0 thing.
You made me laugh,
In your first comment, you rightly stated that Judaism's advantage is not in the scientific realm, but in other realms, and therefore Avi and Michael's claims regarding the inability to derive real science from religious writings are irrelevant.
All this is well and good, but it is worth making a few comments about it:
These answers followed the claim that the Zohar allegedly contains scientific information that was not known at the time of its writing - and this, even if it is true (and it is not) is certainly not based on any principled knowledge, since the religious writings also contain many internal contradictions in the scientific field and things that are not scientifically correct at all .
On the same subject, Eratosthenes is the famous example of a Greek who showed that the Earth is round and even measured its radius with a rough estimate - he did this by measuring the length of the shadow at two points on the Earth on the same day.
The Book of Zohar is often attributed to Rabbi Moshe de Leon who lived in the 13th century as my father pointed out.
Please note that these scientific arguments are not presented for nothing in the repentance conferences, they are presented in this way in order to teach about the heavenly sources of the religious writings and thus prove one of the less rational claims of the religion (this irrationality is equally important because it is what binds the person to the religious establishment and does not allow If he were to continue with the religious values but without the establishment - as many secularists did).
I do not think that the social benefits are the great success of the Jewish religion, or at least do not deserve this consideration in the thinking of the 21st century, historically it may be a point of merit, but like many other things it deserves to be taken into account for further development.
important point,
You confuse the readers of your comments by stating that Judaism does not at all deal with Greek culture on the scientific level and its advantages are in other areas (a claim with which I agree), you tend to belittle Greek thinking and thereby sometimes express a way of thinking that is perceived as ignorance - the most prominent example is: "What The difference between mathematics in which 0 exists and mathematics that does not?" - The difference is big.
And finally,
I agree with you that for the most part the pseudo-religious discussions here are at a low level and the separation between belief in a metaphysical entity external to the world, and belief in religion (on its legal precepts which of course all rely on the actual revelation of that metaphysical entity) is not made at all. I think that the intelligent commenters on the site (and I am not referring to one side or the other) are capable of such a discussion and I have no doubt that most of them have well-formed and serious positions in this discussion. In my opinion, the blame for their non-existence falls mainly on the countless commenters who seem to believe that are walking around here, who refuse to accept valid and proven scientific theories, invent endless sophisticated arguments about the fact that science only reveals what our sages knew thousands of years ago, or present dubious internet petitions.
Eran Habibi, you are still young, this site is not the place for proofs - believe me.
God forbid, I don't mean that there is no good, even excellent science, on the contrary, for me, science is necessary,
And I enter this website because much of the material published on it (mainly from foreign sources) is fascinating and broadens horizons.
From the point of view of the editor of this site and most of the writers there is a contradiction between observing the commandments of religion and science, and therefore any information you receive from them on this subject or related subjects will be biased and inaccurate - at best, misleading, partial, and infantile - in most cases.
I don't know if you read my last comment (39), and if so, then you know that I have no interest in the one-dimensional view that characterizes many of those who respond to this comment.
And if you intended to change your lifestyle based on information of one kind or another, and not based on an inner insight into a way of life that adds life or diminishes it, or a recognition that does not depend on any proof that
There is one association for everything in the universe - so come on..., (I'll just tell you a secret that there is more than that.)
Never stop asking. Never stop exploring, and never give up.
good morning to you too.
Mr. You made me laugh. I do think that the website is a place to say everything that is on your mind and to prove to others, especially Jews, new and exciting discoveries. I agree that man is a rational and emotional being who needs a system of moral laws and I do not doubt the wisdom of these laws, but in today's world we need To always ask and learn as much as possible about what is happening in our world and outside it, and this is our greatness like morality because you cannot say that science has not improved the lives of everyone and even saved tens of thousands of people from death and extended their lives thanks to medicines and research that creamed skin and tendons as a result of in-depth scientific studies, And knowledge that has accumulated over years and in your case if I change my life due to contradictory or false or confusing information this is not the way I will choose but I will combine morality with science which are both clear to me and I see the good in them and even if you ask then there is always an answer and not one that is evasive. With all due respect, good morning to everyone
In the video that Ron presented, several admirable people who are not completely crazy appeared, but Ron sounds like a conspiracy chaser who is only looking to be against, even if it is Darwin's theory of evolution.
Great article. keep going like this We need a lot of ammunition of knowledge against all the crazies that surround us.
Protostome
What is the difference between mathematics in which the 0 exists, and mathematics that does not?
I'm not sure that three thousand and eight hundred years ago the instruction to tie plastic strips on the hand and head would have caught on.
And just by the way, the muttering of the sentences is in Hebrew.
Regarding the other customs of the Jewish religion - without the evil eye, unlike the religious priests in the temples of Zeus and Hera, rabbis still exist and if you ask the questions really, and look for answers really, then you will also find really.
Just today we read in the synagogues how the entire nation (as one man with one heart) stood at the foot of Mount Sinai and read - we will do and we will hear, that is, it is true, we have no idea what the meaning of the instructions given to us is, but from doing - we will understand. And really, in every generation we understand a little more, and maybe this is part of the "luck" (???) of the Jewish people.
And regarding the magnificent list of mathematicians that you mentioned (Hippocrates, as far as I remember, was a doctor, I don't know if he was also a mathematician) - if you read my response again, you will see that I don't have
No debate and no interest in a discovery or scientific research of one kind or another. The interest of Judaism is on completely different levels than what this website deals with.
My contention is that most of the writers on the site are wrong and misleading in that they call not to keep the religious mitzvah in the wake of one scientific study or another.
Take for example the well-known verse - "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself", who among the multitude of scholars you mentioned said something similar to this? , isn't this a "scientific" discovery equal to all the mathematical treatises in the world?
And turning the word "king" into a command of conscience like - "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not murder" - my dear, this is a Jewish invention!
And to me it is more significant than the proof that parallel lines cut similar segments in a triangle (thelass, if you're having trouble)
And of course I have not yet touched on "discoveries" such as - the Sabbath, human rights, animal rights, the importance of justice systems, proper legal investigation, prohibition of fraud in measurements and weights, and more, and more..
"Scientific" discoveries that the glorified "researchers" you mentioned saw in front of them the need for correction, but this did not concern them to investigate it.
And neither are all the commenters from entering the first comment to this one.
Machel,
Obviously, while I was writing my words slowly, I couldn't read yours, we were thinking the same thing, I wouldn't have posted my response if I had checked in time.
Year:
I think you didn't read the comment above your comment.
"B. Mutation: replication is not error-free, therefore there are changes from time to time...these principles have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, and the debate is not about them"
It is interesting that no one wants to argue with the claim quoted above. There is a debate, admittedly between a large majority and a small minority, yet there is a debate on the question of whether the mutations that cause evolution are micarial ("errors"), or whether there is a degree of specificity, guidance to the gene, soaking. This debate is partially described by Yablonka-Lamb in the book Evolution in Four Dimensions, especially in the third chapter, including some of the relevant literature.
This argument is also simple evidence to refute the claim made in the comments above about gagging.
Ronan Hazan (and anyone who is interested):
The beauty of an article.
I would like to clarify several points.
The first point It is that of the generality of evolution, its existence even outside of biology and the most probable possibility that it also stands behind the formation of the first living cell.
I have already given examples of evolution's activity in mechanized systems in other threads and there is no point in repeating them.
An example of one of the possible explanations for evolution that led to the formation of life can be seen HERE
The second point It is that of the randomness of the mutations.
It is interesting to read in this context The book "Evolution in four dimensions" of Chava Yablonka and Marion Lamb.
Examples of not completely random formation of mutations in single cells are mentioned there.
do not worry! I'm not talking about intelligent planning or Lamarxism (although Lamarck is mentioned in the book in this context, but this link seems to me to be more of a sales exercise than anything else and the notebooks also emphasize that they are talking about something completely different from what Lamarck talked about).
On the one hand, they remind us of the multitude of mutations in stressful situations.
This multiplication can also be caused by disrupting the DNA copying mechanism but also in other ways, as will be understood later.
Be that as it may, the multiplicity of mutations in stress states increases the variety and with it the chance of the formation of a variation that is better suited to those conditions for which the original version of the creature was one that created a stress state.
More challenging is the presence of stress conditions that cause changes in certain parts of the genome and not in others - as if the animal "knows" which genes are relevant to the problem.
Of course the logical explanation is more mundane and is summarized by me The following paragraph I copy from the Hebrew version of the book:
"Even if we didn't have all the new experimental evidence that proves that the mutations are site-specific and subject to environmental or developmental control, the evolutionary arguments that say we should expect this are very strong. It would be really very strange to believe that everything in the world is a product of evolution except for one thing - the process of creating new mutations! No one doubts that it was natural selection that determined how, where, and when organisms would use sexual reproduction, which reshuffles all existing genetic variations, and therefore it is clear that similar selective pressures should determine how, when, and where variations remain through mutations. In fact, it is not hard to imagine that natural selection would favor a mutating system that intelligently guesses what will be beneficial. According to our best judgment, the idea that there was selection for the ability to make an educated guess is a reasonable idea, predictable and proven in experiments"
Bless you my father
{regardless of the comments above}
to "you made me laugh"
What is the difference between the worship of trees and stones and the worship of an invisible spirit that is supposedly in the sky, demanding that its believers cut off the genitals of their children and wrap themselves in the skin of a cow carcass every morning while muttering a few sentences in Aramaic? Not to mention the ancient custom of slaughtering a helpless animal and burning it as an "offering"...
We are no different from the Greeks, some people keep these stupid customs to this day
Second, you probably don't have half a clue about the scientific culture in ancient Greece.
Have you ever heard of Pythagoras, Euclid, Archimedes, Hippocrates, Ptolemy, Thales... Heron and I'm pretty sure there are many more that I've forgotten.. Each of them wrote a mathematical treatise larger in scope than all the scientific knowledge produced by Jews up to that time.
But hey, don't let the facts get in your way. Continue to believe things that "this site is not the place to mention".
Avi:
It's not fair to be specific.
Maybe they weren't interested in cancer.
Let's see Amnon Yitzchak or any other person renewing for us some scientific innovation based on the Book of Zohar.
For some reason these companies always manage to say only in retrospect that it was in the Zohar book but never manage to use the Zohar book and say "Here! There is such and such a law of nature or such and such a phenomenon that you do not know - try and argue"
Eran:
Don't be a fool. Put the person who sold you the keys to the test I described and see what you find out.
You made me laugh, you really did. What is the relevance of who knew more. Judaism survived because of special circumstances and a lot of luck (and mass conversions - the red ones at the hands of Herod, then in Yemen, Ethiopia, Morocco, today's Russia (the Khazars). Spirituality is something that only exists in the imagination, so it's better to read a good book and enjoy it than spiritual books that confuse you and don't give You have no real information.
A. The fact that the Greeks converted to Christianity did not change the fact that their science and philosophy today constitute the infrastructure of the Western world, just as the fact that there are few Jews today does not change the fact that Judaism formed the infrastructure of Christianity and to a certain extent of Islam. Therefore, both nations influenced the future of humanity far beyond their size or the question of who has a bigger (book).
And again - all this information is irrelevant in the absence of even one mechanism to explain how spirituality - any spirituality - works.
If the editor would like to point out the sources that suggest to him that 2500 years ago, together with the fantasies about sirens and jellyfish
And believing in stones and trees, the pigeons also knew how to conduct scientific studies - I will thank him very much.
It is true that 2300 years ago there was a period of scientific flourishing in Greece and this nation produced thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle and Alexander the Great, and the exchange of views between them and the sages of Israel at that time are well-known and well-known - the meeting between a culture that admired perfect physical beauty and an older culture that admired The abstract beauty and perfection of everything that exists and the human soul, has enriched human culture in a way that no encounter between cultures has ever done.
Perhaps we can learn something from the fact that the ancient Greek culture stopped building, while the culture that was even older then - continues to build and renews and renews itself every day.
And Eran - I have two things for you -
1. If you are looking for the best way to stick to it by comparing the scientific discoveries with the physical "discoveries" of rabbis, huge and huge as they may be, then it seems to me that this is not the right way to compare. Judaism is not concerned with how this world is built from a physical point of view (and not even with how it was created or how long it took to create it), it is about the nature of the relationship between everything in this world and what is happening inside you, and how to bring harmony between the trends that sometimes seem to contradict each other.
2. Even when you have already accepted the "burden" of the Torah and mitzvot, you will always leave room for doubt. Otherwise you will find yourself with spiritual teachers like the editor of this site and his friend.
And da... there are groundbreaking innovations in science that were known in Judaism even before the Greeks learned to read and write. But this site is really not the place to mention them.
A successful summer.
Eran,
Believe me, at that time the Jewish people knew almost nothing more than the other even more ancient nations.
Amnon Yitzhak knows how to present things to people who don't understand and show them that it's impossible that it's not true. There are converts who do it much better.
In the past I was in a seminar for repentance, I came back with some conclusions.
They are really good at pushing things that are true - but don't say anything and make mountains out of them.
Take an example of combining letters, almost any book you pick up you can extract from it the same combinations you will find in the Bible, but you won't do it and they did do it in the Bible and when you see it you will be left with your mouth open.. Even I had a hard time believing that Wait, this is a coincidence...
So no matter what they tell you, don't take anything for granted if they tell you they knew the world is round, check if they did know and if the rest of the world didn't.
Check if they knew there was gravity or if they knew that if they jumped off the roof they wouldn't fly... every cat knows that...
Successfully!
Father, thank you very much, what you say makes perfect sense.
Ain there are exciting innovations and if the pigeons knew these facts 2500 years ago
It certainly makes sense that someone read them and passed them on and regarding the manifestations of a cure for cancer
I, too, am still waiting for such a revelation by clerics to bring everyone back to repentance, but I don't think so
Because if there was a cure for cancer written somewhere, then it would have been discovered a long time ago,
Be strong and brave and thank you for your answers, I have no more doubts.
A. The book was written and printed around the 13th century, so it is more than a thousand years later than the period attributed to it. Even if not, the Greeks knew about the poles and the sphericity of the earth about 2,500 years ago, although the information was less available, but it is possible that people came to Greek libraries and read the books - don't forget that these were the heyday of the Roman Empire, which was a relatively modern country.
In any case, these are anecdotes even in the case (and the chances of this are low) that the date is the earlier according to your claim.
However, ask the Honorable Rabbi Amnon to find you a formula for a medicine or information for example about space that was specifically known in the 15th century and not before - that the Earth is not in the center for example, or that the other planets also orbit the sun. And most importantly - if the aura contains things that science does not yet know, bring me the formula for the cure for cancer.
My father, I researched a bit on wikipedia and y net about the Zohar and Rabbi Shimon and they say there that the writing of the book of Zohar is attributed to Rabbi Shimon but it was published in the 13th century and that everyone disagrees on the date of writing the book and the identity of the author or authors and it also says there that the rabbi lived in the first century CE which is about two thousand years And not a thousand, and the whole dispute is about the time the book was written and the truth of its sources, which to this day are not concretely known and opinions differ on this matter, but you will agree with me that if he really composed the Zohar, then it was really close to 2000 years ago, it changes the picture a bit, doesn't it?
I hope you enjoyed
Eran,
Leave the pans - what do you need them for when you have the source?
Put an exact quote from the Zohar and we will judge together if there is a cover for what you said
in response (13)
I saw the video: ) I understood the message really there is no substitute for scientific knowledge and I agree with you that there are much more important things than the position of the poles, thank you for the answer and have a good week.
The pans do a good job, because the screwed up education system doesn't teach people to think. I explained to you that even a broken clock shows the correct time twice, therefore the fact that here and there there is some scientific discovery (and usually in hindsight) in a book from a thousand years ago that claims to be from two thousand years ago, it is of no importance. You will see things that have not yet been discovered and explicitly and not in hints and implied. As I suggested - there are a lot of suggestions for remedies in our scriptures (as per the case of the leper), you will find something that modern medicine will put its hands on. It's a bit more important than the poles, you'll agree with me.
As for Tilapia, the man is charismatic and thinks he has a sense of humor, but that's no substitute for real, non-invented scientific knowledge.
The reason the media doesn't deal with science is simple, most of the public doesn't understand it, it looks and sounds like Chinese to them, but who is sleeping with Bar Refaeli or Beyoncé, it's clear and understandable, the media based on ratings appeals to the lowest common denominator, let's hope for better days.
Eran, YouTube is not a source, Amnon Yavka is certainly not a source, and a television investigation is not a substitute for scientific research (see an example in the film that Adi referred Ron to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmgswCCTzaw). Please provide written sources.
Dear father, I draw strength from the amazing articles on the site and I do not pretend to take any side,
But when I saw Amnon Yitzhak's article it made me believe, please watch this video it is less than 5 minutes and I will respect what you say because I know you will be able to explain much better than me at least, this is very important to me because I really want to know if what he Says a real name and what do you think, in the rational scientific way because this topic confuses me and I hope you can clarify the topic for me and shed light on things.
Again I will mention that I am not a religious guy in any aspect of my life and I am not asking in the name of this or that group but only in my name and I hope you will help me thanks Eran
After many years of experience debating with blind believers religious or non-religious about their types, wasting my unnecessary time on fruitless arguments with human beings whose brains are biologically differentiated please more in the direction of Sarah Palin than in the direction of Darwin or Einstein I have come to one conclusion, the best argument What I give to a man is a belief - if it feels like shit, looks like shit and tries to control you with his stupidity regardless of reality like shit then it's probably really shit and religion or stupid supernatural beliefs etc. is just shit. As a wise man said - science is interesting and if someone doesn't like it he can go fuck himself.
Check out Rabbi Amnon Yitzchak's discoveries of the Zohar on YouTube and please comment.
I'm not religious, just interested like you and I want to know if the rabbi's article is false,
Thank you
Ok let me check I promise to bring quotes soon
Eran,
It seems to me that they worked on you - are you ready to bring exact quotes?
Very simply, the answer is that just as if I write a book today with the knowledge of the present and say that it is from a thousand years ago, they will wonder how the author knew all these things. Since the Book of Zohar was written less than a thousand years ago and not two thousand years ago, it may contain information that became known later. It was not written by Shimon bar Yochai.
And besides, so what, if there are crumbs of real science in the sea of pseudo-science it means nothing. A standing clock also shows the correct time twice a day. Besides, assuming the authors of the Zohar knew the latest information about the poles, does this book contain a single chemical formula for a cure for cancer?
Happy holiday.
You have too much maybe and can be in your final conclusions dear writer,
And I invite everyone to look at the Book of Zohar, which was written about 2000 years ago
In which Shimon bar Yochai explicitly writes that the world is round and that there is a force called gravity
About the existence of the North Pole and some other clues that I don't know who is lying to you but this is the fact 2000 years ago! A bit strange isn't it?
Science is amazing, but dig into your sources little by little and you'll find out
Everything you thought was recently discovered has long been written in black and white
If anyone has an explanation as to how he knew this 2000 years ago, welcome..
Be healthy and happy holidays 🙂
TV preachers is the last thing that convinces me.
Something for the creatures like Adi:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw2lh7XfOHI
(My father, if he is allowed, I am allowed too - decide)
Interesting article. Thanks!
-----
My blog - 'Another Science' - http://blog.tapuz.co.il/schleimascience
A true accurate description.
Carl Sagan in his book A Haunted World described a conversation he had with a taxi driver who knew very well the latest theories about Atlantis and encounters with aliens, but was convinced that what he knew was science. All because the media betrayed the public and ignored science, while highlighting unfiltered nonsense.
Except that the Kamerian five are really big. Dubela is also clever.
Avi:
There were several spelling errors in the article:
Her name –> Shama
Zera –> Zera
Store –> store
Max:
Inaccurate, there are also creatures like Ron, the "curious minds". Here is an investigative report that describes him faithfully, I think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmgswCCTzaw
The creationists will not give up, the facts do not interest them, the real reason for their opposition to Darwin's theory of evolution is simple, evolution omits the basis for religion and faith, their whole belief is that we were created in the image of God, if this is not true there is no reason for religion and faith.
Come on, why?
Ron, is there one proven scientific consensus that you favor? The response is not to you but to the readers - the creationists' methods of distributing petitions for the right to freedom of speech and then presenting them as petitions for superstition have been known for 150 years. Who is not in favor of academic freedom? But academic freedom should not mean freedom to engage in anti-intellectual nonsense, whose motive is religious.
I am convinced that there are 700 biologists who support free speech, but I am convinced that 99.9999% of them do not support the creationist positions but evolution.
"Actually the dispute is between a constructive research approach and a destructive anti-scientific approach."
Hundreds of scientists disagree with you:
Relevant scientists are forced to express their protest due to the gagging of the mouths in the system
Regarding Darwin's evolution:
There are over 700 signatories with a relevant profession
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/about_isr.php
A quote from one of the seals
"I found it important to sign this statement because I believe intellectual freedom fuels scientific discovery. If we, as scientists are not allowed to question, ponder, explore, and critically evaluate all areas of science but forced to comply with current scientific orthodoxy then we are operating in a mode completely antithetical to the very nature of science.”
Dr. Rebecca Keller, Biophysical Chemistry
By the way, you will get to know the third theory - the intervention theory
She answers very nicely the questions you put to the intelligent design
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqPuSit_ZVo
R.H.:
Is that you?
Sometimes I fantasize that the whole world would have the same absolute logic of a point... but how good could it be...
but no! God had to create these senseless creationists... 🙂 Why 🙂 ?
No need for all this explanation. It is enough to show that the followers of intelligent design are contradicting themselves to prove that they are talking nonsense.
To prove:
1) The followers claim that it is not possible that such complex creatures were created just like that.
2) According to the definition of a planner, the intelligent planner is always more complex than what he plans
3) Therefore it is not possible to have an intelligent planner because it is infinitely complex.
4) But they claim that there is a planner. The fear that they are alone without someone to care for them causes this
3 and 4 are contradictory.
parable