How did evolution ensure the development of the venom mechanism of snakes, and why is this not an inextricable system as claimed by creationists
Out of the sea of examples in the question (which, miraculously, you can find an identical version of it In some Jewish websites) we will deal with the exotic ones:
"If we look at a poisonous snake, we will notice that since there are many snakes without venom, the gradual development of the venom system is impossible, for the following reasons:
A. The venom production system is a complete and sophisticated chemical laboratory that requires accurate biochemical knowledge of the composition of the blood and the nervous system in the snake's enemies.
B. The system of hollow teeth that need to be bitten is a hydraulic system worthy of its name and incredibly accurate
third. The snake's bite reflex requires a suitable structure in its brain and nervous system.
d. A venom storage system (glands) and immediate discharge must be developed.
Each of these components is effective only if they all work together in harmony. Not only that there is no selective value just for some intermediate stage, but there is danger and interference with its functioning."
The argument that the "answer seeker" raises against the theory of evolution is the idea of inextricable complexity
(irreducible complexity) According to the followers of "intelligent design", complex structures in living beings cannot develop through the mechanism of natural selection because small and cumulative changes are worthless for systems that require the twinning and joint action of several components. Thus, for example, it is claimed that there is no value to the optical perfection of the eye without the optic nerve and mechanisms for processing visual information in the brain, which have no reason to develop as long as the eye is not developed.
A search for a source of explanation for the inextricable complexity of the venom system in snakes brings us to the book Challenge: Torah views on science and its problems (The Torah's view of science and its problems) issued by the "Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists" in the USA.
Perhaps it is not by chance that it is difficult for believers to accept the snake venom system as a result of natural selection, according to what is said in the book of Genesis, the snake received this ability in a divine decision as a punishment for the first of the sins "and enmity will be between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed, he will put your head and you Shufenu Akaf" . As mentioned, the basis of the claim is that a primitive venom system has no survival value and therefore there is no starting point from which the sophisticated and complex venom system such as the viper's could develop.
So that's it, dear answer seeker that simple and unsophisticated venom systems are abundant and are definitely an advantage over a completely venomless situation. About 140 million years ago, snakes evolved from lizards, and more precisely from a common ancestor they and the families that today include iguanas and lizards. Venom is much older and the age of the venom glands is about 200 million years. It turns out that that ancient reptile was venomous and some of its Latvian descendants are venomous to this day. Some lizards such as the "bitter heloderma" or in its popular name the Gila monster of the southern USA and Mexico have been known to be poisonous for a long time and some have only recently been found to be poisonous. Among the poisonous relatives of the snakes is also the famous and intriguing lizard: the Komodo dragon whose saliva can be found no less than 4 venom proteins common to it and snakes.
Although all these lizards have is poisonous saliva, the bite of the venomous lizard leads to muscle weakness, breathing difficulties and bleeding. Humans who were bitten (only three recorded cases) reported confusion and dizziness: exactly the state in which the predator prefers its prey. The biochemistry of the active substances in venoms has been thoroughly studied both for theoretical interest and for the hope of using similar substances as medicines.
It turns out that the snakes did not invent venom substances out of thin air, each active ingredient in the venom has a "scaffold" meaning a protein that the body produces anyway and that mutations in it make it toxic. These raw materials are very diverse, but they are all secretory proteins, meaning proteins that are stable in the extracellular environment and that the cell knows not only to produce but also to export them. These are enzymes of the digestive system and saliva, that is, substances that already have the ability to break down tissues, as well as molecules used for communication in the nervous system. It is precisely the proximity to existing proteins that enables the great effectiveness of the venom: the snake is not required to produce a new substance but to utilize the ability of existing proteins to bind to specific sites in the nervous system or blood clotting.
A successful change in terms of the snake's evolution is one that causes the protein secreted in the venom to bind more strongly to the site to which it has affinity in the first place. Thus, for example, a mutation in the enzyme acetylcholinesterase, which is essential for the transmission of messages between one nerve cell and another, created a venom component that attacks the same system that is disrupted by the chemical warfare agents that we humans invented only about 100 years ago. Other proteins that "turned their chanters into spears" in the snakes are the lectins - proteins that are attached to the cell membrane and recognize for it the chemical environment outside.
What distinguishes the "real" venomous snakes, i.e. the vipers and the pythons, are hollow front venom teeth that serve as a syringe that injects venom from the gland into the victim's body. The lizards as well as the semi-venomous snakes do have a "sophisticated chemical laboratory" but they lack the sophisticated biting mechanism.
But even this mechanism was not planned in advance and the gradual development process that led to it can be reconstructed. After separating from the lizards, the ancient snake lost the lower venom glands while the ancestor of the power lizards and the other venomous lizards lost the venom glands of the upper jaw. Anatomically, the iguana actually preserved the original structure: small venom glands scattered as simple salivary glands in both the upper and lower jaws. The venom in lizards is created, as mentioned, in normal salivary glands and reaches the oral cavity under the pressure of the chewing muscles. Another step towards the perfection of the system is found in the semi-venomous snakes, whose distinct representative is the rattlesnake. In these snakes, the production of the venom has been transferred to one specialized gland called Duvernoy's gland, named after the biologist who discovered it (Duvernoy's gland) and it flows its product to the rear teeth which, although not hollow and removable, are decorated with grooves that serve as channels that bring the venom near the bite wound.
The Vipers and the Pathans added to the Dubrnoy's gland a reservoir of venom ready for action and a connection to the muscles that squeeze this reservoir when needed. A microscopic examination of the hollow venom teeth reveals that there is always a "seam line" in the enamel along the front part of the tooth. It seems that the venom duct in the tooth developed as an open slot, such as is typical of the teeth of semi-venomous snakes, deepened until the enamel around it closed and formed the syringe that would be used to inject venom directly into the depth of the bite. Nature is very diverse in forms and very conservative in basic structures, venom is ultimately toxic saliva and salivary glands are associated with swallowing mechanisms that occur in the back of the pharynx. Accordingly, the teeth to which the salivary glands flow and the venom glands that developed their products are precisely the back ones.
Venom teeth pulled from the snout of a viper are indeed an impressive example of a "hydraulic system worthy of its name and incredibly accurate" except that these teeth are not really front. Tracking the embryonic development of the jaws in venomous snakes reveals that the front teeth present in the semi-venomous snakes and in the non-venomous snakes have degenerated and disappeared. The venom teeth are nothing but those back teeth which have been pushed forward with the gland associated with them by accelerated growth of the bone behind them and the arrest of the growth of the part of the jaw in front of them. The inextricable complexity is a logically elegant argument but tends to crumble when the examples are examined in detail. It seems that the "intelligent planner" needs more intelligent honesty advisors than the "answer seeker" and his ilk.
Thanks to Dr. Ram Rashef for his help.
Yoram Sorek is the editor of the section Things that Yoram knows Benene 10. This article is published on the Hedaan website for the first time courtesy of the author
More on the subject on the science website
159 תגובות
There are no snakes there as far as I know http://www.redseahoteleilat.co.il/153610/%D7%9E%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%9C%D7%A6%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D
Say, what would you do if I walked into your house with a spray can and sprayed an advertisement all over your living room wall? That's exactly what you're doing with this cheeky comment.
To all creationists, don't forget that the world is flat and at the end of the world there is a river Sambation that throws stones into the sky and it is impossible to pass that the world has existed for six thousand years and the earth was created two days before the moon and the stars now deal with it
Nehemiah:
I didn't notice your comment until Gael addressed it.
He is of course right and I am also afraid that your question was not asked in good faith, but nevertheless I found it appropriate to explain to you that evolution is something that is not only not miraculous but is a necessary thing.
It is very difficult to describe a world without evolution because evolution is a mathematical conclusion of a theorem whose conditions are extremely simple.
That's why evolution is also used in the "worlds" that man creates.
See, for example, the following example:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-of-an-efficient-search-algorithm-bgu-2907079
Besides - regardless of the above, you should know that light years are units of distance and do not measure time.
Nehemiah, in your words you present great confusion and a lack of understanding of the whole subject of evolution, not to mention ignorance. My advice to you is that you read a little about the subject (for example on Wikipedia) before treating it and rejecting it.
Hello my father,
You are a very fascinating person, really interesting to be around, but I have some important points to convey, please take them seriously.
A. From all your words, it seems that you really check the truth in everything and reject what seems fake, a virtue that not many people have, thanks for the guilt...
B. I would suggest that you be a little more serious, not mocking or sarcastic, so that you will be accepted as more believable.
third. I'm very interested in the topic of evolution, but there are some very basic things that don't quite work out for me, if we say that evolution is true, isn't it the most impressive process in the universe, if so how did this process come about? This cannot be in evolution!
d. It is very difficult to ride a donkey without a head, even if it has very, very impressive legs and muscles..., (don't hurt, I don't mean you...), the evolutionists start from a certain time, it doesn't really matter how much it is, even if it is said to be a trillion A trillion light years, after all, it must have developed from some beginning, this beginning is bound to have a certain reality in it, that is, space itself, a place that some wave or something similar could enter it, but if there was no reality then what entered why? What comes to what? If we are missing the head, how can we continue the explanation of what follows if we do not have an explanation of the head, of the beginning? There is no use in explaining the sequel! Shame on every drop of ink...
God. In conclusion, if we say that evolution is true, then this is the most beautiful creation that the Creator created....
with gratitude
Nehemiah
a question:
You are not worth an answer
B:
What a collection of gems!
One of the strongest proofs of evolution is the collection of unnecessary details it leaves behind.
It concerns the wings of the ostrich and other birds that cannot fly, it concerns the eyes of rats and those of bats and deep-sea fish, it concerns the remains of legs in certain snakes and the fact that birds are able, under certain conditions, to develop two and it concerns the minds of ultra-Orthodox people.
In all these cases, these are remnants that natural selection has not yet had time to eliminate because a planner would not have left them - certainly not if he is intelligent!
The fact that a bone hurts when you hit it does not indicate its necessity.
By the way - what do you conclude from the pain that amputated limbs cause to their owners (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_pain )?
Are these limbs necessary? Are we harming the patient by healing the pain?
Most of the proteins formed in the chimpanzee's body are no more different from those formed in humans than the difference between the proteins formed in two different humans. Why are you making up false claims?
The fact that the whales are in danger of extinction actually supports the claim of evolution and not the claim of the idiot planner. Why did you think otherwise?
The question about the AIDS virus is very much related to the planning process. In order for creatures to be created that did not exist before, the creation needs to continue and you were asked if the planner continues to work. Are you really trying to prove what I claimed as a joke on the minds of the ultra-Orthodox?
The evolution also happened in cars. what? You really didn't know that? Evolution exists wherever there is replication with changes and competition for resources. This is also true for the design ideas that they reproduce of the type that Dawkins called memes.
Chromosomal fusion happened after human evolution?
What nonsense?!
What do you infer that from?
What is "human evolution" anyway? Do you admit that there was human evolution?
And why did the fusion take place? Isn't its occurrence evolution in itself?
And regarding reading science books - you should start doing so. Others do this but you should at least start and you should start with popular science before you start with serious science books that you have no chance of understanding.
By the way - do you think that even those who wrote the science books did not read them? Why does everyone believe in evolution? Why did they sign this document?
http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf
And in relation to the "thought exercise" - you should take reality more seriously.
Evolution does happen wherever a number of basic principles that I have repeated here hundreds of times already apply.
You are welcome to read, for example, this article:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-of-an-efficient-search-algorithm-bgu-2907079
Have a nice week!
B,
As someone who loves desserts - how could you ignore the icing on the cake?
I am of course referring to the challenge I posed to you and you shamelessly continue to evade and ignore it.
What about your intellectual honesty? What about the real desire to understand how things work?
And if you forgot, here's a reminder:
You claimed that the theory of intelligent design is a scientific theory.
I argued that if the existence of an intelligent creator is not a scientific theory, the theory of intelligent design is not a scientific theory either.
Can you propose an experiment that disproves the existence of the intelligent creator???
Is it excessive to ask for the fourth time that you don't avoid the question?
Oh well….
” Are you claiming that your planner works like the car manufacturers? I mean he made model A and then discovered the fuel injection and added it to the next model? Does that mean it improves life all the time?" - No. Although it is certainly possible and therefore this argument cannot disprove the planning argument. Maybe man exterminated them? Maybe the creator exterminated them?
” If he is still creating new viruses then why not large animals? "-Who claimed that he creates new viruses? The resistance of bacteria to antibiotics does not create new systems or new creatures. And again, this does not belong to the argument from planning.
"Why, for example, do whales have degenerated limb bones?" - this probably belongs to their reproductive organ. I hope you got to see the size of the bones. It's really a joke to think that whales walked with them in the past.
"Why do penguins have degenerate wings?"-Who said they are degenerate? Maybe they are used for better navigation in diving? And anyway, since when is degeneration evidence of evolution? Degeneration can be obtained from random genetic drift of simple mutations. A similar phenomenon also exists in salamanders.
"Is this how they were created?" - see above, not sure.
"By the way, I didn't understand your answer to (4), how do you explain the extinction of creatures like the dinosaurs? What did your intelligent creator not plan well??? So maybe he's not as intelligent as you think, isn't he?" - Or maybe he chose to exterminate them?
"And the answer to your "thought exercise" is yes, if there were conditions that would have given a clear preference to anything that looked like a toaster or a clock and you had given enough time, rapid replication and mutations, then yes, you would have found a toaster at the end of your piece of plastic" - very interesting what you says
"After every random change, the software will compare the text to the Bible. If the change corresponds to the writing, it will remain, but if it is different, it will be deleted. Within a few hours to days you will get to writing the entire Bible. Note that this happened randomly. What was not random was the selection.
This is an exercise that was done and demonstrated the power of selection processes over random creation processes" - very true. However, this is exactly the opposite of what evolution has the power to do, because if in order to create a functional protein we need 100 letters (mutations). So even if the first 99 letters are created, natural selection will not Find them out and they will disappear. In other words, all 100 need to appear at once for selection to occur. In order for a protein to be functional and meaningful, it must be long enough. The reason: proteins fold due to chemical bonds between the various acids that make them up. Only when the rest of the protein skeleton is present will it fold correctly and the protein will be functional. Deficiency in a few amino acids and the protein will break down. And if you want a specific example - the kinase protein has 2 "legs" that allow it to transmit transmissions between photons. Deficiency in one of the legs and it will not perform its function. In the globin protein, for example, there is an internal space for a "molecule" They", and it is the one that allows it to bind oxygen (through an iron atom in its base). In other words, both the "hem" molecule and the special pocket for it are required in order for the protein to bind oxygen. And both consist of hundreds of bases in dna. There are many more examples...
Have a nice week. I probably won't answer this article anymore. I've had enough..
Previous message from me.
and to finish b. Take a real exercise: Could a random process write the Bible?
And the answer is yes. Program or ask someone you know to write a simple program that randomly adds and changes letters in a text file. After each random change, the software will compare the text to the Bible. If the change matches the writing, it will remain, but if it is different, it will be deleted. Within a few hours to days, you will reach the writing of the entire Bible. Note that this happened randomly. What was not random was the selection.
This is an exercise that demonstrated the power of selection processes over random creation processes.
Shabbat Shalom
And the answer to your "thought exercise" is yes, if there were conditions that would have given a clear preference to anything that looked like a toaster or a clock and you had given enough time, rapid replication and mutations then yes, you would have found a toaster at the end of your piece of plastic.
B. Now I really don't understand. Are you claiming that your planner works like the car manufacturers? I mean he made model A and then discovered the fuel injection and added it to the next model? I mean he improves life all the time? So how is it different from evolution? Does this also mean that creation by the same planner also applies today? so where is he
And it also relates to the virus matters that you didn't understand, if he is still creating new viruses then why not large animals?
Maybe you will give us once and for all a coherent "intelligent planner" theory that will answer all the questions? Why, for example, do whales have degenerated limb bones? Why do penguins have degenerate wings? Is that how they were created? A car manufacturer adds a propeller to its car?
By the way, I didn't understand your answer to (4), how do you explain the extinction of creatures like the dinosaurs? What did your intelligent creator not plan well??? So maybe he's not as smart as you think, huh?
And one last thing, do me a favor and don't patronize anyone here about reading or not reading serious books.
Dear friends, I was already thinking of closing the basta, but I am a known lover of desserts.
I will try to answer the more relevant questions asked here-
St-
"Now we are checking which of the theories explains the most observations in the best way and it will be the control until it is disproved (if and when..)." - Very true. And the planning theory explains the observations excellently. Are there better observations than the existence of a clock for the planner that you planned?
Now we will see you explain the following observations in the light of your planner (because evolution has very simple explanations for them):
1) Why would an intelligent designer make us a coccyx?" - The coccyx is designed to hold part of the skeletal structure. Have you ever tried to walk without it? Did you notice that it hurts terribly when you hit it? (a hint of its vitality)
2″) Why do we have an organ such as the appendicitis that only causes trouble?" - a good question that the scientist website published an article about -
https://www.hayadan.org.il/apendix-have-a-role-1310079/
") How is it that even the closest proteins between organisms such as ribosomal proteins and ribosomal RNA differ from organism to organism? If there was an intelligent designer, he would make everyone the same." - Who determined? Why does car x have magnesium wheels and car y from the same company has aluminum wheels? Hence an intelligent creator did not create the above cars.
"4) How is it that creatures became extinct? The great designer created unsuitable creatures ????”-How is it that whales are in danger of extinction?
"5) Where did the AIDS virus Sars and swine flu come from? Does creation continue today? If so, why only viruses and not large animals?" - How does this relate to the design argument?
"6) How is it that all the fossils in the world are arranged in layers of layers from simple to complex creatures, you will not find human bones under a layer of dinosaurs. And the links you brought are completely false." - And they are false because you stated? And how is it that when you dig deeper you discover simpler cars and in the upper layers you discover more complex cars? Did evolution also take place in cars? Maybe cars used to evolve from each other?
And for everyone who tries to lecture me about science, you should start looking at the professional textbooks and not just tabloid-level popular science books.
And a small word about chromosomal fusion between man and chimpanzee - according to evolution, the fusion took place after the split, so there is certainly no evidence of a common origin, even according to evolution itself.
And a little mental exercise to finish, so that you understand how much evolution really holds water: if we were to give the feature of replication + mutations to a piece of plastic, would we get (after millions of years of natural selection) a watch or a toaster? Is it not true? So why is it possible in evolution? .Food for thought….
Have a nice week everyone...
Is that supposed to prove something??? It's bullshit.
In nature there are so many phenomena of synchronization between different values, miraculous adjustments between so many things and themselves. Here only in the last article we found that the golden ratio appears on a quantum scale.
There is no evidence of any of these combinations of cases.
It's just like the combinations of numbers and letters that are done on the Bible and the like.
You can open tarot cards and get amazing things but it is not proof of anything.
B:
here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMj_45epINM&feature=player_embedded
Now it's your turn.
B,
Since I see that it is difficult for you to meet the challenge I set for you - maybe you should consider sending us a more senior chaplain?
And one more thing https://www.hayadan.org.il/on-evolution-denayers-040801/
I am in response 140
to B
© © :
What does the intelligent creature consist of?
If he created the other intelligent beings does he still continue to exist and if so why? and if not,
Why does it not exist and where and how did it disappear?
Dan Shamir,
On the contrary, I am the one who enjoys watching B twist and dodge and be embarrassed and try unsuccessfully to divert the discussion from his belief in a higher power to imaginary contradictions in the theory of evolution.
And another word to B:
I would like to emphasize, this insistence on what is a scientific theory and what is not, does not come from malice or a desire to embarrass you.
Just understand please, in our science, the criteria for examining the truth of things are much higher than in your world.
In science, it is not enough to make statements such as "so it is written in the Holy Scriptures", or this is a word of the Torah", or any similar statement.
To be considered a scientific theory, you have to meet strict criteria, and it's perfectly fine if you don't like them - that's your right. But please don't push yourself into places you don't belong, and don't try to push fairy tales into science.
And if in the meantime you thought of an experiment that could disprove the existence of your intellectual power, we would be happy to hear and even be convinced.
what are you saying? (Just please - answer the question and leave the evolution you hate).
There is something that is not so clear to me,
I read the last 50+ comments and I don't understand why all the last commenters
Do you even treat someone like B who is apparently on a scientific website just to annoy and enjoys watching you squirm?
B pulls out of his hat arguments from pans that have long been proven and disproved as a joke
Because he believes and belief has nothing to do with facts, proofs or experiments
And certainly not suitable for serious reactions from you.
You should internalize - B does not want to understand or know and cannot be convinced because he is led by blind faith and any answer for him is just a waste of time.
B, the way science works is that there are unexplained observations. Now building theories to explain them. At this point any theory is legitimate even the strangest. Now we are checking which of the theories best explains the most observations and it will be the dominant one until it is disproved (if and when..).
Now we will see you explain the following observations in the light of your planner (because evolution has very simple explanations for them):
1) Why would an intelligent designer create a tailbone for us?
2) Why do we have an organ such as the appendix that only makes trouble?
3) How is it that even the closest proteins between organisms such as ribosomal proteins and ribosomal RNA differ from organism to organism? If he had planned intelligently he would have done the same to everyone.
4) How is it that creatures became extinct? The great designer created unsuitable creatures ????
5) Where did the AIDS virus Sars and swine flu come from? Does creation continue today? If so, why only viruses and not large animals?
6) How is it that all the fossils in the world are arranged in layers of layers from simple to complex creatures, you will not find human bones under a layer of dinosaurs. And the links you provided are completely false.
As mentioned, evolution has simple answers to these and many other questions, therefore it is the preferred theory until the day it is disproved.
For those who do not understand
In our day we observe the results of an "experiment" or a process of animal transformation that will continue for several hundreds of millions of years. The changes happened because of climate changes, geographical changes, social changes or because of different types of catastrophes. Those who have learned to know the rules can read the process without much difficulty. Even when you find an ancient manuscript, which is missing several letters that have worn out and disappeared in the ravages of time, it is almost always possible to restore the missing letters based on knowledge and context.
Those who want to believe in an intelligent designer, must also understand that he was not so wise, since he created millions of life forms that did not stand the test of time and environment, and in a sense he created humans so stupid that they are able to believe in an intelligent creator.
Since we like to quote Einstein here, I will quote his famous statement: "There are only two infinite things, the universe and human stupidity, actually I'm not sure about the first one".
Whoever insists on joining this infinity, be damned. But why does he also insist on confusing our minds with his nonsense.
....
ב
we're waiting
B. the smart one
An experiment in the evolution of desert animals under climate change conditions has now begun.
The experiment will last about five thousand to fifty thousand years. I invite you to check the results in the final of the experiment. What, it's not practical? You are not satisfied with any practical experiment that can contradict the creationist claims.
By the way the intelligent planner is a mighty dragon that lives in my basement. If you want to know how I communicate with him, I invite you to read the book
A Haunted World, by Carl Sagan, where the solution is found!
B,
Are you unable to address the matter?
What does evolution have to do with this?
You claimed that the theory of intelligent design is a scientific theory.
I argued that if the existence of an intelligent creator is not a scientific theory, the theory of intelligent design is not a scientific theory either.
Try to contradict what I say, and forget about evolution - it is generally not related to the discussion this time.
Your attempts at evasion do you no honor
Evolution is not disproven it is proven
Noam - I'm still waiting for an experiment that will disprove evolution. And no, rabbit fossils in the Precambrian will not disprove anything...
B,
Please, don't keep us in suspense and don't stay silent - tell us how the existence of an intelligent creator is a disprovable scientific theory.
And if you are unable to propose an experiment that disproves the existence of that creator - why don't you show intellectual honesty and explicitly admit that you were wrong: the theory of intelligent design is not a scientific theory.
Avoiding and ignoring do not indicate any innocent intentions of searching for the truth.
I could comment on the likelihood of the first molecule (and I have it). But I will respect your request and quietly watch from the sidelines.
The explanation accepted today by most researchers is that after life was created, they changed the conditions so that the same primordial molecules could no longer be produced. First of all, as my father pointed out, oxygen enters the picture. The composition of the dry sea and the atmosphere changed and in addition cells were created that use everything available as food so that even if a replicating molecule is formed it will be immediately broken down by the surrounding microorganisms.
Today there are several groups in the world trying to recreate the same initial conditions in which the first replicating molecules were formed, but don't forget that they are trying to recreate what happened in nature for tens and maybe hundreds of millions of years in just a few decades. So for now you have to be patient.
And in conclusion, the fact that the question of the beginning of life has not yet been resolved does not say anything about the validity of evolution.
You are unreasonable with your illogical questions
Avi Blizovsky:
But such a good and promising patent that makes it possible to create living cells from chemicals.
Why would nature forget to produce something it has done so many times.
After all, the survival of this ability itself is not limited.
Because it does not depend on special conditions precisely because it is a very basic feature.
The reason for the extinction of different types of life and their replacement is not grasped when it comes to the basic ability of a primary and initial definition of a living cell.
After all, from an evolutionary point of view, this would have allowed new species to develop at the same time.
Although the event took place 3 billion years ago. And for some reason life has continued ever since.
Apart from the ability to create the initial basic thing necessary for their creation.
A very strange and unacceptable conclusion.
You are talking about an event that started 3 billion years ago, that almost no area that existed then survived. Certainly in nature billions of experiments have been conducted and it is possible that more than one was successful and what we see today is a synthesis between the successful types, or alternatively the first living creatures in our style were fed by other living creatures. Don't forget also that there were changes that accelerated evolution such as the production of oxygen by the blue algae - a gas that was extremely deadly for many of the creatures that lived then, and they stopped living except in rare areas with little oxygen. Every mechanism that was created pushed those who had less developed mechanisms to the margins or to the fringes. There is no reason to think that this was not the case in the first competition of living beings, however primitive, for resources.
Avi Blizovsky:
If nature has tried so hard. It doesn't make sense that he managed to produce one start and no more.
Nature must have had a way of producing endless beginnings of individual cells from chemicals.
And if the method was found, why was it suddenly deleted and suddenly it stopped happening.
It is unlikely that if you found such a good method for an inanimate living creature suddenly nature activates an elimination and you cannot find another
such phenomena. unacceptable.
You claim that computer simulations depict this happening. If so, surely it would have been possible to find a realistic example of simulations. Why is it only in simulations?
To date the only aliens we have seen have appeared in movies and simulations.
a question
No one knows scientifically how the first molecule that caused life on Earth was formed.
In Tanach, for example, they try to explain how life was created. But they are not scientifically accurate even if there are things that are similar.
Humanity is still far from getting an answer on this matter.
Evolution better explains the scientific process of organism formation.
Not "how" the first molecule was formed on Earth.
Therefore, your insistence on getting an answer to this question now (today) is clearly illogical.
Question, it is said that scientists have performed a thousand such experiments to date, do you know how much nature tried until it succeeded? Trillions upon trillions upon trillions, an unfathomable number of times that for the thousand drops for tens of seconds that the scientists tried, nature tried billions for billions of seconds in billions of separate places on Earth until even a 1 to 1 event with 10 zeros behind it had a reasonable chance of materializing. There are not enough scientists because there are too many people doing other things such as law, accounting, staring at the letters of ancient books, nuns, or just playing football.
Recruit a million more scientists into the field and give them labs and they will find it. By the way, in computer simulations they were able to prove the programming of transition paths from inanimate to living. It is clear that the initial life was much simpler than today, but it is enough that they did what was assigned to them - to survive and multiply to bring us to today's situation.
I didn't write a single word of the assumptions you made that I wrote.
You prefer to make assumptions instead of reading.
I have not written anywhere about a mechanism. And not about intelligent planning and not about power over him.
If all science was based on assumptions instead of facts it would become practical stories.
why do you insist
I was just talking about the starting point. If there is evolution, it had to start from something.
And if there was a beginning, why is an initiation event (the creation of a living cell from chemicals) not a common thing but rare.
All the other phenomena of evolution appeared in many different forms.
So why the hell didn't the start phenomenon appear even once.
And why is this phenomenon so special and evasive like an alien in a flying saucer.
Maybe the aliens are the ones who scattered the first seeds of life here.
But then who scattered the alien cell nuclei.
Question, the fact that the mechanism has not yet been discovered does not prove intelligent planning. How many times can you say that?
Mendel showed that traits are inherited. After that for a long time no one understood how and I'm sure there were wise men like you who claimed it was a higher power. Until Avery came along followed by Hershey and Chase and showed that what passes is the DNA.
Wait a few years and you will see that cells will be produced in the laboratory. This will not prove that this is how the first cell was created, but it will show that no higher power is needed for this.
And besides, as my father told you and you still insist, evolution is not just about the creation of the first cell.
True, besides "suppose" you also used the word "describe to you" sorry.
Regarding the way the questions are presented, it can be made easier for you.
It will be much more convenient for you if you say what answers you have and based on that we will add the questions.
a question
I didn't say what you say.
You misinterpreted what I wrote.
And now I understand why it is difficult for you to understand the answers of others.
You may be asking the question incorrectly.
To get the most correct answer you need to pose the question in the most correct way.
ghost moon:
You say: Suppose! Aha!
Let's say the other way around maybe? Let's say so and let's say like that.
Let's assume that the stories of Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and all the legends are true.
And why Avi Blizovsky
You assume that only one initial event took place.
Why not assume that initial events are most common.
We should have seen a lot of such events.
Just like we had to see a lot of aliens.
So why don't you see anything?
It is a matter of time until everything is proven in turn. We don't live here long enough to have all the answers
We will have to make do with some of them, which exist in the 'time' we live in.
To the question, you will hear something like this: Suppose no one can present a claim that aliens visited here (even though there were such claims, for example in America there are websites that resemble crop circles that say it is a message from the aliens they left after they visited. Or something like that) but imagine that in a thousand or 10 thousand years it will be possible To prove that it is true, maybe the extraterrestrial himself will come and prove it, and then your claim today is wrong.
Avi Blizovsky:
No one saw it happen. You still need a strong belief that it actually happened.
Because after all, no laboratory in the world has yet succeeded in recreating such an event.
With so much inner conviction and knowledge no scientist has been able to find a way to reproduce it.
You could equally argue that aliens have visited here only unfortunately no one can present one.
You can believe in many other things in the world.
Question, come back with a question.
This is not what the theory of evolution stands for, and there is a problem to locate an extremely rare event, it is like asking you out of a hundred million ants to locate one red ant with a green tail, while examining one after the other under a microscope. But enough with the nonsense. This event had to happen in one way or another, and probably only once, so it is very difficult to discover it exactly, but the approximation so far of processes in the laboratory is enough to understand the principle. There is no wonder here, and this whole thing was invented by the creationists to evade the demands from them.
And I think we deserve to hear not only how to disprove evolution (which we have already tested millions of fams) but also how to disprove the theory of intelligent design that you pretend to give a scientific gusher. A scientific theory should have the possibility of refutation, and it should succeed.
B,
In my opinion, the theory of evolution has not yet been fully explained because it does not explain everything, it has not yet been definitively proven.
The idea of intelligent planning sounds like the idea called "website" at the time. It may seem logical but I am sure that over time it will be explained in such a way that it will replace the theory of evolution when the latter is finally proven.
Avi Blizovsky:
So there remains a tiny question of how the first creature, the first living cell, appeared.
There is no factual observation of the emergence of a single living cell from chemical elements.
On this tiny difference stands the theory of evolution. So where is the proof here?
B,
And where is the experiment to disprove the existence of the intelligent creator??????????????????
Well, despite my pleas, you continue to evade (the truth is, between us no one will hear - I didn't expect otherwise...)
All that remains is to conclude that the theory of intelligent design, which relies on the existence of an intelligent creator, is not a scientific theory - one and the same.
Of course, you have the right to continue believing in it, but don't get confused and don't be mistaken - this is not a scientific theory.
And if you still find such an experiment - please share it with us.
To the question, there are millions of proofs for evolution, there are estimates as to the origin of life.
However, it is not far-fetched that evolution is also responsible for this. Life has had billions upon billions of opportunities to form and only once has it been absorbed, so a certain type of evolution was at work at this point. However once the first complex living thing was created, the rest was at the mercy of evolution. All diversity is created from the same microscopic creature.
Okay guys. So here is my own summary and in accordance with the spirit of my father's words, I will try not to comment again and part as friends.
") the origin of later creatures from earlier creatures - this claim has never been disproved. Show me human bones in a geological layer of let's say dinosaurs and you disproved the claim. Nothing like this has been found to this day." - Not one but several were found:
http://www.google.co.il/search?hl=iw&q=trilobite+human+print&btnG=%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A9&meta=&aq=null&oq=
) All life on Earth is based on replicating molecules - proven." - You mean that everyone has the ability to reproduce. This is indeed true.
"2) The process that confers variation is mutations during replication - it is easy to show that new mutations are created all the time." - Mutations are indeed created all the time.
"3) The selection process applies through selection, which means that the suitable ones survive - apply antibiotics to bacteria, only those that contain a mutation for resistance will survive" - no one disputes natural selection
"The conditions that created the first replicating molecule have not yet been found, although I think we are already close to finding them." - so pick up the phone when they are found :)
"Now the fact that point 4 is still unclear does not constitute proof that there is an intelligent creator." - True. But it shows that there is a missing explanation for the first complexity.
"Regarding the intelligent creator, look above at the response of Noam who nicely summed up the knowledge about him - 0." - you don't need to know anything about him other than the fact that he is intelligent. This is what the intelligent design came to show.
"With the exception of your gut feeling that something as complex as a cell cannot be created without planning, there is no evidence of the existence of a Creator." - So there is also no evidence of an intelligent creator from finding well-designed crop circles or an ancient bell. The law of archeology :)
"Even the shapes of the clouds, the ripples of the waves and the weather are of almost infinite complexity, even though the processes that create them are known, do they require an intelligent creator?" - What is complex in clouds? Clouds are formed in a natural way and do not need a special explanation for them. But a cloud cannot be compared to a complex system. like a clock
summary-
I proposed an experiment to disprove the design claim. To take the bacterial injection mechanism that supposedly evolved into the shoton. To show that by adding a single component to this mechanism at a time, it is possible to reach an active shoton, while maintaining functionality at each step. This is a feasible experiment that will disprove the claim of complexity that is not given to reduce
What Ken Miller showed (one of the most senior evolutionists in the world today), is that the injection system contains several components similar to those in the Shotton (which, by the way, I gave a link where the injection system probably developed from the Shotton, which is actually a reverse evolution). Of course, this claim cannot prove that the Shotton could indeed have developed from it. This is because in the transition from an injection system to a rod, about 3 components are required that will allow rotational movement: a free axis (hundreds of bases), a drive system (hundreds of bases) and the tail of the rod (hundreds of bases). There is no benefit in just one of the components, so the rod could not open from it.
"And with this we will part as friends" - with fun :)....
Avi Blizovsky:
The evolution you speak of is based on development from one developed state to another.
There is no direct observation of the development of a living cell from raw chemical elements.
There is a tendency to discard the interpretation of phenomena from middle states to a state of beginning.
This is of course only speculation, no one has yet proven that it is feasible.
The idea of an intelligent being that created everything, in my opinion, is a problem from the field of psychology related to man and his subconscious and how he interprets certain things about himself and the environment.
I personally do not agree with this idea.
But from this idea to make a connection with religion because the intelligent being reminds them of God is a mistake that originates from ignorance in relation to religion and faith.
He who defames ultra-Orthodox is like an ultra-Orthodox who defames a secularist.
I believe in God but in a way that is more similar to Spinoza's description, and whoever thinks of God as a 'being' then this is where the problem arises.
B. There are several aspects of evolution here that you are confusing and it is not clear to me now what you are arguing about and the truth is that I am also a little tired of grinding it out so I will summarize my words and if you want you will accept and if not then no.
The theory or theory of evolution holds the following claims:
1) The origin of later creatures from earlier creatures - this claim has never been disproved. Show me human bones in a geological layer of let's say dinosaurs and you disproved the claim. No such thing has been found to date.
2) All life on Earth is based on replicating molecules - proven.
2) The process that gives variation is mutations during replication - it is easy to show that new mutations are created all the time.
3) The selection process applies through selection, which means that those who are suitable survive - apply antibiotics to bacteria, only those that contain a mutation for resistance will survive
4) The origin of the first cell in natural processes that created molecules capable of self-replication - as I have already written several times, this is the most mysterious and unclear point. The conditions that created the first replicating molecule have not yet been found, although I think we are already close to finding them.
In my humble opinion you cannot argue any point except 4.
Now the fact that point 4 is still unclear is not proof that there is an intelligent creator.
Regarding the intelligent creator, look above at Noam's response, which nicely summarized the knowledge about him - 0. Except for your gut feeling that something as complex as a cell cannot be created without planning, there is no evidence of the existence of a creator.
The shapes of the clouds, the ripples of the waves and the weather are also of almost infinite complexity, although the processes that create them are known, do they require an intelligent creator?
And with this we will part as friends.
heart. You probably have a sadistic pleasure in wasting my time and the time of the commenters in long articles where you basically go back to the starting point and again look for flaws in evolution instead of doing what Noam asked you to - to propose a theory that would disprove intelligent design.
You probably didn't learn the lesson from your previous block that was after this kind of exhaustion. With all due respect, write your nonsense on an ultra-Orthodox website and leave us alone, to repeat nonsense a million times in the hope that it will be accepted as the truth - that's a shame.
Noam is writing to you, I am still patiently waiting for a proposed experiment to disprove the existence of the intelligent creator"-
And you answer him for the millionth time, "Show me how the pipe was created from the injection system. No links and in your words. I'm all ears." The pipe has been proven beyond any doubt that it was created gradually, and we want proof of intelligent design and not a refutation of evolution, which has already withstood millions of such refutation experiments and survived them all - Also the shotton.
Breeze-
"Take any protein conserved in evolution, i.e. one that can be found from bacteria to humans, run the Blast program to compare sequences (for example here: http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi)
and look at the result. Take for example cytochrome C, ribosomal proteins, DNA polymerase, RNA polymerase and others.
What you will see is gradual changes along the evolutionary tree from simplicity to complexity. "-Are you sure of your words?
Globin, for example, consists of approximately 150 amino acids. And that is the minimum for it. It is made up of 3 main components: the "hem" molecule, an internal space for it and the protein skeleton (control sites as well). You will not find a simpler protein that binds oxygen in my opinion. Or would you claim that it evolved from cytochrome?
"If there was an intelligent creator, he would give everyone the same thing and we wouldn't see the change." -Rebuttal to your statement: There are cars that can be placed from simple to complex. You can actually show the degree. But it is clear to everyone that they are an intelligent product. And even in this case, there is minimal complexity underneath it You won't be able to find a car (wheels, engine, axles, etc.). The same goes for enzymes: how many necessary sites are required for each enzyme.
"Since we keep discovering explanations for natural phenomena, the gods are getting farther and farther away." - There is no serious explanation for the appearance of biological systems.
"Today the origin of life seems mysterious and there is not yet a satisfactory explanation that is agreed upon by everyone, so immediately people like you turn to the option of a higher power." - I have a conclusion from a clock. If a binding clock is created because of its complexity, then so is a cell, which is much more complex than a binding clock. In your opinion no? Give a logical explanation for this claim.
"With the exception of the origin of life itself and the creation of the first cell," this claim is equivalent to the claim "With the exception of the first clock that was created by a natural process that we do not know what it is, we know how complexity is created in evolution." The question arises - why would I even accept the creation of the first cell clock?
"The process of development from simple to complex cells and from them to multicellular organisms is no longer mysterious and is very well explained through evolution." - We have already seen during the thread how empty this claim is. So I will ask again - how did the enzymes responsible for the synthesis of the "them" molecule gradually come into being? After all, even if they appeared At the same time the first 4-5 enzymes, there is no point in this and we need another 2-3 enzymes that are needed for the synthesis of the molecule. Natural selection will not clear them up because they have no biological benefit. Only if all the enzymes needed to create it are created in one fell swoop, will natural selection be able to take action. Do you agree with this solid claim?
"All the predictions arising from the theory have been found or proven and, as of today, no contradictory or inexplicable evidence has been found." - Are you sure of your words?
Here are some conflicting findings-
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-other-words-phylogenetic-reconstruction-is-sheer-fantasy/
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nick-matzkes-ttss-to-flagellum-evolutionary-narrative-refuted/
"What cannot be said about the theory of the intelligent creator which, as was said before, constitutes a huge hole of knowledge and in fact there is no direct or indirect evidence of its reality." - no hole but the obvious - a complex object with the characteristics of a watch that binds a creator.
"And again, if there were solid evidence other than the way of negation for the existence of a higher power/intelligent creator/God or whatever name you call him, the scientists would be the first to try to understand it, the problem is that there is none." If someone finds a stone carved in the shape of a triangle, he will immediately determine that it is an intelligent agent. All the more so in biological systems that are much more complex.
Noam-
"Can you or can't you propose such an experiment" - yes. Show how a complex system can be gradually created, while maintaining functionality at every step. Try even a system of human engineering.
I hope it's clear this time. further:
"The theory of intelligent design requires the existence of an intelligent creator."
I'm sure you'll agree with that. If not - please explain" - of course it is.
"You will certainly agree with me - after all, one of the most important criteria for a scientific theory is the possibility of conducting an experiment that will disprove it." - Absolutely true.
If up to this point everything is clear and agreed upon, then there is no escaping the conclusion that the theory of intelligent design cannot under any circumstances be considered a scientific theory, as long as the basis for its existence - that is, the existence of the intelligent creator - cannot be considered a scientific theory" - and what have I done up until now? I offered you an experiment.
I'm still patiently waiting for an experiment proposal to disprove the existence of the intelligent creator" - show me how the rod was created from the injection system. Without links and in your words. I'm all ears.
Pine-
"Just now he proved once and for all that he doesn't have a single clue about biology. He just uses terms without understanding them" - if you say. I hope you at least know what an "active site" is.
And now I also want to hear how the claim of common origin is disproved experimentally. I'm all ears. Unless evolution is not scientific?
If it is so simple why not use the method to create a living cell characterized for the requirements of chemicals.
Evolution claims the creation of life from the beginning, from simple chemical elements to living things.
What you describe is that they will be included from the middle.
The technologies you talked about only work once you have living things and replicating cells.
Does it seem to you that there really is no difference between the middle state and the starting state when you still have nothing?
Does evolution have no technologically usable predictions?
Our entire understanding of species extinction, disease development, epidemiology, development of new varieties of plants/animals/ and unicellular organisms such as yeast and bacteria is based on the theory of evolution. How are strains resistant to antibiotics created? Mutations + selection. How do you make a fast racehorse? Human-made hybridization and selection by choosing the suitable ones, which in this case are fast horses. How do you develop yeast strains for a new beer? Mutations + selections.
Why do species of animals and plants become extinct? How do we prevent this extinction? It's all based on understanding the evolution of species.
Since when is evolution just the creation of a living being? In fact, evolution hardly touches the origin of the first cell, and there really is no agreed or established theory on this yet. Except for that the whole "natural selection" thing is as useful as it gets.
Moreover, the principles understood from evolution are also applied in economic, social and other models.
Does science need faith to exist and progress?
Perhaps evolution does not need faith because it is only an interpretation.
Because evolution has no predictions that can be used technologically.
After all, there is no technological method to create a living creature from basic chemical starting materials.
my father
If religion knows nothing, and science knows nothing, science knows more. This is implied by the data in the question.
I didn't understand the purpose of the question, and I don't really understand why I'm answering even though this is already response 99, when already in 70 responses I mentioned that it was really too much.
This mainly means that we are no longer about the article.
Assaf, you can't. All "reality" is only in the mind. It is possible to establish a consensus, but even that is debated.
You can only argue and the result you get is what determines the continuation of the debate.
How do you prove a negative? ? ?
B,
I probably wasn't clear enough in my previous response. I apologize and try again:
I wrote: "I hope you don't dodge"
The intention is that you will answer the matter, that is, if I ask for an experimental proposal to disprove the existence of an intelligent creator, I will not receive an answer about evolution. A simple answer will do: can you or can't you propose such an experiment
I hope it's clear this time. further:
"The theory of intelligent design requires the existence of an intelligent creator."
I'm sure you'll agree with that. If not - please explain
"If it is not possible to propose an experiment to disprove the existence of the intelligent creator, then the existence of the intelligent creator cannot be considered a scientific theory"
You will surely agree with me - after all, one of the most important criteria for a scientific theory is the possibility of conducting an experiment that will disprove it.
If up to this point everything is clear and agreed upon, then there is no escaping the conclusion that the theory of intelligent design cannot under any circumstances be considered a scientific theory, as long as the basis for its existence - that is, the existence of the intelligent creator - cannot be considered a scientific theory
I am still patiently waiting for a proposed experiment to disprove the existence of the intelligent creator...
and something else b. The natural tendency of humans is to explain unknown phenomena by a higher power. Since we are discovering explanations for natural phenomena, the gods are getting further and further away.
Once upon a time there were sun and moon gods. They thought that the rainbow was created by a higher power. At that time you B would come and say "How is it possible that such wonderful colors appear in the sky without divine intervention?" But the mechanism by which the light is refracted by the water drops was discovered and suddenly there is nothing unnatural here. Today the origin of life seems mysterious and there is not yet a satisfactory explanation that is agreed upon by everyone, so immediately people like you turn to the option of a higher power.
With the exception of the origin of life itself and the creation of the first cell, the process of development from simple cells to complex ones and from them to multicellular organisms is no longer mysterious and is explained very well through evolution. All the predictions arising from the theory have been found or proven and, as of today, no contradictory or inexplicable evidence has been found. What cannot be said about the theory of the intelligent creator which, as was said before, constitutes a huge hole of knowledge and in fact there is no direct or indirect evidence for its reality.
And again, if there were solid evidence that wasn't by way of negation for the existence of a higher power/intelligent creator/God or whatever name you call it, the scientists would be the first to try to understand it, the problem is that there isn't.
For his lawyer - science still doesn't know everything (and it's also a matter of definition) but religion doesn't know anything, so who knows more?
Actually, I'm quoting new words from B -
"Plasmids are existing genes. No new active sites were created here."
He just proved once and for all that he has absolutely no idea about biology. He just uses terms without understanding them.
No mind, no worries 🙂
"To prove that a complex protein could have been created in a natural gradual process. Once they do it, there is no need for the rational explanation, since a natural process can do it."
Great, now we've made progress. Take any protein conserved in evolution, i.e. one that can be found from bacteria to humans, run the Blast program for sequence comparison (for example here: http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi)
and look at the result. Take for example cytochrome C, ribosomal proteins, DNA polymerase, RNA polymerase and others.
What you will see is gradual changes along the evolutionary tree from simplicity to complexity. Sometimes you will see the replacement of sections and sometimes spot changes.
If there was an intelligent creator, he would have given everyone the same and we would not have seen the change.
parable
entertaining. The last thirty responses repeat themselves in almost the same words on the part of B. He always gives the same answers. Maybe he just doesn't understand the questions...
"I agree with Noam's call, propose an experiment to disprove the intelligent creator." - to prove that a complex protein could have been created in a natural gradual process. Once they do this, there is no need for an intelligent explanation, since a natural process can do it. Intelligent design claims only one thing - proteins were created in their entirety and not gradually. As soon as you disprove this claim, you will disprove the claim of intelligent design. And what disproving experimental test will you offer for evolution?
Regarding what you didn't understand above in #86. Beyond point mutations there is a transition of DNA segments that include genes, control sites or parts of genes between cells and even different organisms. These elements are transmitted by viruses (as in the case of oncogenes), plasmids and other carrier elements." - and they are all pre-existing genes
"Take a plasmid (even read on Wikipedia if you don't know what it is) that contains several genes from one organism and express them in another organism, and wonder and wonder, you have received new and complex properties in an organism that did not contain them before." - Plasmids are existing genes. No new active sites were created here.
Come and say now, it's true, but all this was done by man, who is an intelligent creature." - It's good that you understood
"Yes, but everything is done with the methods we learned from nature itself, that is, the whole issue of gene transfer already exists and occurs everywhere without any intelligent planning," - you assume what is requested. That they were created without planning = a logical fallacy. If you're only talking about the transfer itself, then apparently you really don't need a planner for this. But the question arises, what is the chance that let's say 5 different components will mix into a complex system in a random lottery.
Only random transfer + selection. In the laboratory we only apply these processes. In fact, if you think about it, given the number of gene transfer events (virus infections for example) and the number of cell types, any genetic engineering experiment we can think of has probably already happened in a natural way once. "-Absolutely not. Take for example the enzymes that synthesize the "hem" molecule. The aforementioned molecule is shared by the family of cytochromes and globins. A deficiency in one or two of the 8 enzymes responsible for its production will result in the formation of a molecule that lacks any biological value. Therefore, all of the aforementioned enzymes needed to be created at the same time. There is no point in only some of the above enzymes. And it is unnecessary to mention what would have happened if "them" molecule had not been built in its entirety. Even if we assume that only 5 primitive enzymes (50 amino acids each) were responsible for its production, then the space of combinations is 250 ^20 which is too much and evolution cannot afford it. And virus infections (retroviruses) will not help here.
I agree with Noam's call, propose an experiment to disprove the intelligent creator.
I promise you that if one day it is discovered that - DNA is coded therefore that it was "made in Japan" I and it must be assumed that Noam will be 100% convinced that there was an intelligent creator here. Alternatively, if the heavens open and the Messiah descends, we will not argue with that. But I can't think of any proof that would convince you (assuming you're religious) of its non-existence.
Regarding what you didn't understand above in #86. Beyond point mutations there is a transition of DNA segments that include genes, control sites or parts of genes between cells and even different organisms. These elements are transmitted by viruses (as in the case of oncogenes), plasmids and other carrier elements.
Such a transition can bring about far-reaching changes at once. The example I gave is again an example that everyone who has ever worked in a laboratory knows. Take a plasmid (even read on Wikipedia if you don't know what it is) that contains several genes from one organism and express them in another organism, and wonder and wonder you got new complex features that are unparalleled in an organism that did not contain them before.
Another example, take a tobacco plant and inject it with a gene for a toxin that makes it resistant to pests that originate from the Bacillus bacterium. After that, a protein is inserted into it that will express more the first one that originates from a virus and finally another gene that codes for a channel that easily transfers the toxin that originates from marine algae. This plant will now grow in our field better than all the other plants. Everything I'm telling you is done in laboratories routinely.
Come and say now, right, but all of this is done by man, who is an intelligent creature. Yes, but everything is done with the methods we learned from nature itself, that is, the whole issue of gene transfer already exists and occurs everywhere without any intelligent planning, just random transfer + selection. In the laboratory we Just apply these processes. In fact, if you think about it, given the number of gene transfer events (virus infections, for example) and the number of cell types, any genetic engineering experiment we can think of has probably already happened in a natural way once. All that remains is the selection that chooses the suitable ones. We don't need Assume no intelligent creator.
B,
Let's try again:
The experiment you proposed does not disprove anything, for even if you are convinced that gradual development can create complexity, this does not contradict the possibility that at the same time your intelligent creator works and produces complexities in leaps and bounds, parallel to the gradual process.
But here's a real challenge, and I hope you won't try to avoid it:
Propose an experiment, disproving the existence of the intelligent creator
If you cannot do this, then the existence of the intelligent creator cannot be considered a scientific theory, and therefore, the theory of intelligent design, which relies entirely on the existence of an intelligent creator, certainly cannot be considered a scientific theory.
I look forward to your trial proposal…
Regarding the Shotton, if the previous presentation was not enough for you, see an exhaustive discussion of exactly the questions you raised:
http://www.tapuz.co.il/Forums2008/ViewMsg.aspx?ForumId=570&MessageId=135461380&r=1
B. You have an error on the site. This is a scientific site and it deals with scientific theories. On non-scientific and even anti-scientific websites, non-scientific theories can be put forward. The explanations regarding the eye and the whip definitely satisfied me.
Before I give up, I'll try again-
pleasantness-
"Do objects like a watch or a computer or a car have self-cultivation capacity? Do they have mutations?" - No, they don't and I have already argued this clearly. Therefore, whoever claims that these properties are enough to create complexity as a clock, the evidence is on him. Whoever claims that through the ability to replicate + mutations we can reach such a high complexity, let him prove his words and give Empirical evidence. Why does he need to prove? Because reality shows that it is a complexity that requires several components for its operation. In other words, the opposite of what evolution has the power to offer. In other words, evolution is a missing explanation for the formation of an object with clear design characteristics.
"You did not propose any experiment to disprove the rational theory," - say, do you read what I write? Again - if you see how a gradual process can create complexity like a whip, you will refute the design claim that claims that it was created all at once. I will not repeat it again.
"And you didn't explain how an elaborate creature "of inextricable complexity" like your intelligent creator was created by itself without the planning of another intelligent creator. To claim that the intelligent creator has always existed is a poor evasion from addressing the fundamental problem." -Absolutely not. So I will claim that man has always existed. Why would you not accept my words? The reason is clear: there is evidence that man had a beginning. If this evidence did not exist, you would can claim that man has existed since time immemorial. The same goes for the intelligent creator - there is no evidence that he had a beginning.
"The injection system has already been given an explanation a number of times, but it is convenient for you to ignore and insist on arguments that have lost the cob." - What explanation? Did you fully understand the evolutionary argument for its appearance? Did you understand why if it had evolved from the injection system it would have had to change at least 3 components ?
St-
"Can you specify what rebuttable test you propose for intelligent design?" - see this response to Noam.
"For example, use antibiotics and you will see a lethal selection in favor of the resistant ones. Use several food sources, the bacterium that grows best will eventually catch up with the others (experiments that are done every day in high schools and in the first year of university). The efficiency of the process does not indicate intelligent planning or any kind of intention." - Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is achieved by exchanging plasmids or point mutations on a site in the bacteria. No new gene or new complex system was created here.
"third. This is true if you are only referring to the creation of cumulative point mutations. You ignore the whole issue of horizontal transfer of genes and gene segments between cells and within cells by viruses, plasmids and transposons, which results in dramatic changes in the genetic composition." -Recombination, duplication, prime shift, etc. remain of the same probability as the accumulation of point mutations, since this is also a random lottery Here.
"A plasmid containing a gene for resistance to antibiotics + a gene for a light luciferase protein + a gene that codes for the expression of galactosidase that allows growth on lactose is absorbed by a bacterium in one fell swoop. The bacterium becomes resistant to light and can grow on a new carbon source (lactose). Where is the intelligent planning here?" - Where is the creation of new genes here? You are talking about existing genes. Attach a link so that I understand what it is about.
B,
Let me summarize your position:
As befits a curious intellectual who spares no effort to deepen his knowledge, you use the microscope to find holes in the knowledge of the theory of evolution.
You put all the holes you think you've found under the wings of one entity, and you don't notice (ignore on purpose?) that in the process you create not a small hole in knowledge, but a huge pit of lack of knowledge and call it an "intelligent creator".
So let's check together what is known about the intelligent creator:
Who made the creator? Unknown
How long has it been around? Unknown
How long will it last? Unknown
What is its source of energy? Unknown
By what laws does it operate? Unknown
Is there only one intelligent creator? maybe 10? Maybe 100 intelligent creators? Unknown
Does the intelligent creator work in the whole universe or only in us? Unknown
Did the intelligent creator act once a long time ago and not interfere since then? Unknown
Is there a way to communicate with the intelligent creator? Unknown
Is it possible to predict the actions of the intelligent creator? Absolutely not
And now, with your hand on your heart, you want to say that the theory of the intelligent creator makes you feel that you understand better how the world works???
As a curious intellectual who constantly strives to better understand the world, don't you find it pathetic and wretched to look under a microscope at the poor schooner and completely ignore the abyss of ignorance known as an "intelligent creator" ???
Even if you collect all the possible holes, in all the scientific theories, all of them together will be no more than a small particle of ignorance compared to the huge hole of ignorance in the theory you believe in.
If you really and sincerely want to better understand how things work, why don't you try, with intellectual honesty, to close at least a little the knowledge gaps you have about the essence of that imaginary entity? .
And if you need help investigating the intelligent creator (and it seems that you do need it) - don't contact me - I don't believe in this nonsense.
B,
Regarding the Shoton - to save you time in searches, here is the explanation you asked for:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w&feature=related
A. Sorry I don't have time to read all 80 comments above. Can you elaborate on what rebuttal test you propose for intelligent design?
B. Regarding the apparent evidence for intelligent design, all of evolution is based on there being a guiding hand for progress and that is natural selection. That is, the fittest is the one who will survive. The efficiency of natural selection is directly proportional to the selection applied. For example, use antibiotics and you will see a lethal selection in favor of the resistant. Use several food sources, the bacterium that grows best will eventually catch up with the others (experiments that are done every day in high schools and in the first year of university). The efficiency of the process does not indicate intelligent planning or any intention.
third. This is true if you are only referring to the creation of cumulative point mutations. You ignore the whole issue of horizontal transfer of genes and gene segments between cells and within cells by viruses, plasmids and transposons, which results in dramatic changes in the genetic composition.
For example: a plasmid containing a gene for resistance to antibiotics + a gene for a light luciferase protein + a gene that codes for the expression of galactosidase that allows growth on lactose is absorbed by a bacterium in one fell swoop, the bacterium becomes resistant to light and can grow on a new carbon source (lactose). Where is the intelligent planning here?
B,
And if you continue and repeat like a parrot on false claims will they become the truth?
Do objects like a watch or a computer or a car have self-cultivation? Are there mutations?
Do you really not notice the fundamental difference or do you think you can "work" them all?
You did not propose any experiment to disprove the intelligent theory, and you did not explain how an elaborate creature "of indecipherable complexity" like your intelligent creator was created by itself without planning by another intelligent creator. To claim that the intelligent creator has always existed is a poor evasion from addressing the fundamental problem.
The Shoton injection system has already been explained a number of times, but it is convenient for you to ignore and insist on arguments that have lost their weight.
Wouldn't you like to move forward a little?
In short, apart from memorizing mantras and repeating the same sentences like "evolution is a fact" and intelligent design is a "religious belief" I didn't get to hear even one real claim from you. So let me summarize-
A) I proved that both theories are scientific and I proposed a refuting test for both. And I'm still waiting for someone to disprove this claim.
b) I showed that the default is actually planning, since the same evidence of planned objects is also present in biological objects and the great atheists admit this.
c) It is not possible to turn an injection system into a rod, since only a jump of 3 components at the same time will give an active rod.
In short - I am waiting for someone with more serious knowledge to try to refute these claims.
The second sentence in my previous response should be: Again I say: even if the theory of evolution is incorrect (and it is verified every day), it does not say anything and a half about the truth of intelligent design.
Noam, you are absolutely right. If we were having this discussion about 300 years ago b. He would claim with gusto that the sun revolves around the flat Earth. Then that flies are created from rotting flesh by spontaneous creation. After that the bacteria are formed by spontaneous creation and so on and so on. Note that these are always the same people who rely on the Holy Scriptures and their theses are always in retreat in the face of research and observational results.
B., these are my last words to you: you did not write and no one agreed that the burden of proof was on evolution. Again I say: even if the theory of evolution is wrong (and it is verified every day), it has nothing to do with the truth of intelligent design.
B,
When I see your desperate efforts to stick to intelligent design, I have to admit that I feel some empathy for you.
It's not a simple thing to see how science progresses day by day and slowly collapses your worldview, when you know it's an unstoppable process.
Every time you think you've found a contradiction in this horrible theory called evolution,
Science comes along and provides new evidence, and you and your friends are forced to retreat to a new defensive position. Slowly but steadily, the unknown area is reduced, which allows you to enjoy the doubt, but obviously not for long.
With all the empathy I feel for you, it is clear to you that the progress of human knowledge cannot be stopped just because of an outdated and fossilized belief, completely barren, lacking any basis and proof.
The more you try, the more pain and frustration there will be, but of course that's your choice.
Yigal, you have to decide unequivocally - the whip was created gradually or in large steps. Evolution claims - small steps. Intelligent design - large steps. The evidence shows that indeed, large steps are required to transform an injection system into a rotary drive system, and I demonstrated why. I also explained why the burden of proof Falling more on evolution.
B, I see that everyone was right in not entering into a confrontation with you - you are a creation who is not willing to take a beam from his eyes. If all you have is to take my words out of context, I have no interest in arguing with you.
For example: I specifically wrote that it is not meant that the shotton can be created at once!
In short, you are not really interested in discussing but just continue to spout the accepted nonsense.
Another try?
"The theory of evolution does not claim that development appears gradually" - evolution is a degree. You can't play with it.
"And intelligent design does not 'only' claim that complex systems appear all at once" - this is her main claim. That is to say - the whip was created in giant steps and not small steps. As soon as you prove otherwise - the claim was disproved.
"Show me how it is possible to disprove the existence of your intelligent designer!" - see above. And I haven't talked about abiogenesis yet.
"Since complex systems are not necessarily created gradually and sometimes evolutionary changes occur in leaps" - then the Shotun can indeed be created all at once? Interesting. Why then are they trying to find a step in its creation? Let them claim that it was created in one leap and peace be upon Israel.
"The shoton could have evolved from other organs with a completely different function. "- No, he is not. I explained above that in the transition from the injection system, he must have at least 3 different components designed for rotary movement.
B.,
I have not heard from you how it is possible to rule out intelligent planning! Intelligent design is not a scientific theory!!
The theory of evolution does not claim that development appears gradually and intelligent design does not claim 'only' that complex systems appear all at once: intelligent design mainly claims that behind the appearance of life on earth is an intelligent designer. Now, for it to be a scientific theory, show me how you can disprove the existence of your intelligent designer! The evolutionary 'degree' that creationists are looking for does not have to exist, since complex systems are not necessarily created gradually and sometimes evolutionary changes occur in leaps (there is no contradiction between this way and Darwin's theory). The jumps are created when genotypic mutational changes (which are not harmful and do not have an impacting phenotypic event until that moment) appear in the phenotype. Note, the change you are looking for is not necessarily the complete system that works, but sometimes just a slight change in the direction we are talking about.
The rod could have evolved from other organs with a completely different function. Remember! Evolution has no purpose (it's not God), living things use what they have in their arsenal of traits to survive, and that's it. The one who has more at a given moment to survive, raises more offspring and to some of them also passes on his "more", and the offspring each utilize their "more" at their given moment. All these "extras" add up to a useful feature.
society, scientific intelligent design as evolution, there is nothing to be done. Both meet the definition of a scientific theory. The evolutionist who claims that complex systems are created gradually and the intelligent design claims the opposite. That is, negating one of the claims will negate one of the theories (for example if you find a step from a simple to a complex system). The scientists showed that the rod system apparently developed from a bacterial injection system. However, if the rod was indeed created from it, it must have at least 3 parts that do not exist in the injection system: an ATP-based energy source, a free shaft and the tail of the rod. In other words, it is not possible to get from one system to another in small steps. The design claim stands in her eyes
his lawyer
I don't really understand the meaning of the sun in Gibeon Dom, nor do I really care what it means.
Hatred of spinach and religion are indeed different things, you are right that there is no connection between them.
Someone who is educated with a coach and margarine will be 100 times more educated if he reads the Tanakh after that and will first of all be able to understand what he is reading (there were enough genius commentators who each interpreted the Tanakh according to his understanding).
I'm sure science is interested in how the telescope works, I don't disagree with that, that's what I meant, I'm not sure that the person who invented it should be named for its operation.
The problem today is that the young people think they know that's why they don't need to study. What will they learn if they have already thought of everything and don't need to think anymore?
Yigal
I agree. I even said these exact things in response 31b.
The problem is that there are those who use science in the same way as those people who use religion.
They bother me no less, because even science does not yet know everything, and therefore those people are "false prophets" in the name of science, and when the truth is revealed, the public may come out against the science in whose name these prophets spoke.
wind
I guess there is one Nobel laureate who hates spinach. Spinach hatred and science do not "go together". There is no connection between them.
Even those who manage to understand "The Artist and Margarita" will learn from this. It does not set it apart from the other books.
And maybe the problem lies in your first sentence. Science is indeed interesting, and even very interesting how the telescope works.
As far as religion is concerned, the sun rises every day and that is good enough. (By the way, just for a bit: think about the scientific meaning of "Sun in Gibeon Dom".)
In any case, 70 responses to one article is really, really much too much.
Who cares, tell me? To understand how a telescope works, you don't need to know who invented it.
Most of the people here I see think about what happened and barely understand and know what they already thought before them and this does not promote anyone and anywhere.
There are many interesting books, but those who manage to understand the Tanakh will no doubt be wise.
I don't want to educate anyone here, but the possibility that religion and science do go together is as real as the winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry before me, and forgive me for not remembering when two years ago something like this occurred to me - it is religious.
Who wants to say about him that he is a jerk or that he knows science from a thousand years ago or that he steals money from others?
Was the Tanach written by Jews?
An interesting question in itself. The Book of Esther was almost certainly written by Jews, as well as the entire later part of the Tanakh.
But since the history of the Jewish religion as it is known today, in fact, began only after the terrible massacre by King Josiah of Judah of all those who differed in his religion, it is almost certain that the early writers of the Tanakh should not be classified as Jews, but as Israelites, who in fact did not know about the Jewish religion (and ate goats in milk emu).
Rah and his lawyer,
Religion and science may not be related and may not even be really contradictory, but religion and the Bible are used by people to attack science. The problem is not religion, but those people (and they are quite many) who use it for nefarious purposes, including the attack on science, non-believers and other religions.
wind
I sometimes have trouble understanding when you are speaking with humor and when you are not.
"Tanach is a book written by Jews" - this is a fact that does not add up or increase in my opinion. I know excellent non-Jewish books as well as our own.
Religion and science, in my opinion, are not really related, maybe a bit contradictory, but I don't see how they complement each other.
Nor do I see how such a belief will advance me in any way.
The Bible is a book that I understand that people find great pleasure in, just as I understand that others prefer Grossman to Dan Brown. Personally, I prefer Asimov.
Not in their favor, it means that the coherence mmm... I wanted to say indicates a mental fixation, the problem is that it indicates perhaps a lack of thought process as a whole. In my opinion, it has no positive sides.
His lawyer indeed said inaccurate things, it was an attempt to laugh at the non-believers.
Another thing, show the Muslims how advanced they can be even though they believe in monotheism.
I am personally against Streimel and growing sideburns and the prohibition of poking noses on Shabbat or turning on a light and all this nonsense, but
Tanach is a book written by Jews and I consider it appropriate to learn from this book because I see religion as the "missing side" of "science".
See science as the complementary side of religion. Such an understanding can advance intellectually and contribute.
You say it is not in their best interest that the religious are coherent what do you mean?
wind
It's not really surprising.
Complex things are understood differently by different people. For example: me and my friend have a different way of explaining to ourselves what a "wave function" is.
Of course, none of this is relevant if we are told in advance what to think and how to understand. This is the religious case.
I answered about the spirit of your words, because they are of course completely inaccurate.
Religious and leftists are not opposites (and again 48 watch her). Religious is the opposite of secular or atheist.
Right-wing is the opposite of left-wing.
There are left-wing religious people and certainly and certainly there are right-wing secularists.
But it is true, the religious are cohentic. It would not be in their best interest if they consulted me.
B.,
Intelligent design is not (!!) a scientific theory, because there is no way to disprove it. There is no fossil or living creature whose discovery would result in the supporters of intelligent design saying: we were wrong. Even if explanations are found for all their current arguments, they will be able to find another argument, no matter how far-fetched, that will try to discredit the theory of evolution, such as: "A person is walking in a field and suddenly finds a watch. It's obvious that someone made it. You see? Evolution is wrong!"
The fundamental mistake in creationist thinking is that mutations are created with intent or design. The fundamental difference between engineering planning and evolution is that in engineering planning the planner sets the goal and all his actions are aimed at reaching this goal. In the process of evolution there is no planning: mutations occur all the time. The harmful ones disappear and the ones that are not harmful are added to the pool of changes that exists in the particular creation. When the conditions change (which happens all the time) and when some collection of mutations brings benefit to the production that carries it, this collection reproduces more than others as a result of the advantage it gives to the production that carries it and these changes appear more in the said population than changes that do not bring benefit.
I noticed that the religious are more "coherent" than the leftists. I don't know why, but it seems that the believers go in one direction and the non-believers each deviate in their own way.
Every mechanism proposed by the intelligent planning people - the eye, the shotton, etc. was tested and the gradualness was found. The denial is similar to the denial of the Iraqi Minister of Information who said that there is not a single American tank on the Iraqi border with a convoy of American tanks behind it.
Again, the evidence for design is there (don't you see design in the design of the Shotgun engine?) and you can even read about the marvels of design in the various atheist popular science books. See the chapter on bat sonar in "The Blind Watch" for example. See how impressed Dawkins is with its function and ingenuity. In fact, the default is that such systems were designed, rather than created by a natural process. When someone sees design as a clock, even if there are mechanisms of inheritance and mutations, the starting point is that someone designed this design, until proven otherwise. Or as Dawkins claims in his book that such a level of complexity needs a real explanation. If there is a clear-as-sun theory that explains how this design was created, we will accept it. And if not, then the best explanation would be the rational explanation (again, because the design is identical to man-made products). In your opinion, no? Detail and reasoning. And again, intelligent design and evolution are equally scientific, In terms of the ability to refute.
B,
You wrote: "Since the same characteristics that exist in human product design (clocks, computers, rotors) also exist in biology"
Maybe you can explain to us where you found natural multiplication and mutations in clocks, computers and rotors?
B,
So you believe that there is an intelligent creator, who has existed since time immemorial, and one day he felt like starting to create creatures on the face of the universe.
Is this something that can be confirmed? prove? refute? This is what you call a scientific theory???
Does this seem more plausible to you than the theory of evolution?
Those who claim the right to an intelligent creator, focus on pointing out what they see as "holes in the theory of evolution, and ignore the fact that the intelligent creator is one big "hole" in itself - religious belief and nothing else.
Yair
It seems to me that the part about Wikipedia in message 46 was a joke.
If not it's a bit sad.
But at least justifies response 48.
ghost response 46
The definition you quoted from Wikipedia is wrong.
Biological evolution is the processes of changes in organisms and populations of organisms, all the changes, genetic, phenotypic, behavioral, and not just as it says the process of genetic change.
ב
No atheist big or small accepts intelligent design. The blind watchmaker is an absolute counter-argument to any design.
All of your examples make no sense from the point of view of an alleged flaw in evolution.
You need to go back and study the theory of evolution.
I will expand a little on the theories-
Intelligent design claims only one thing - the best explanation for biological complexity is the intelligent explanation. Why? Because the same characteristics that exist in the design of human products (clocks, computers, rotors) also exist in biology. Even the great atheists recognize that there is evidence for design (a blind watch, for example). The debate here is about whether it is possible to create such a design in a gradual process, with a reasonable chance. The intelligent design does not say at all who the creator is. Its role is only to show that it is intelligent. There is also no logical fallacy here as to who created the creator, since we do not know whether the creator himself had A beginning, as opposed to a person whose beginning is known.
A scientific theory must offer a refuting test in a controlled experiment in the time domain. This is what I proposed for both theories. I also gave a specific example - hormone + receptor or the stages of photosynthesis. If evolution is correct, surely we can find functionality for each component separately. The problem is that these are proteins that depend on each other. Also Regarding the Shotton-Bihi link, he explained that although similar parts can be used in different systems, both systems are quite complex, so we have not solved the problem. For comparison, wheels are used in both cars and airplanes, but both are quite complex.
One of the best things about the wiki is the links to other sources
(collect another)
Wikipedia is an excellent tool for general knowledge and as a "teacher of the embarrassed",
Relying on him as a "super judge" or as an indisputable arbiter... a mistake!
Yigal C,
You explained it well.
In general, anyone who favors "intelligent creation" commits a logical fallacy called false dichotomy. By saying that if there is no evolution then there is "intelligent creation" and ignores any other possibility.
From Wikipedia:
False choice is a logical fallacy from the group of correlational fallacies in which the options are presented as exclusive when the actual situation is not. Often, this fallacy is used to obscure the plausibility of one option or to frame an argument in the user's terms.
B (a little order in things...):
The theory of evolution is indeed a scientific theory, because there is a way to disprove it (and it was not the intelligent design people who proposed it, and it is not the way you described either). The hypothesis of creationism/intelligent design is not a scientific theory, because there is no way to disprove it: the people of intelligent design say that 'if not evolution, then intelligent design'. The invalidity of the theory of evolution does not prove the validity of the hypothesis of intelligent design.
Ami, who is the inventor of the vaccine?
I apologize for being a bit stupid
Sorry, someone here called it "intelligent planning" I haven't heard of that either
According to Wikipedia's definition:
Biological evolution is the process of genetic change in a population of organisms over generations. The evolution process includes both the small changes of allele frequencies in the population……..
Those who believe in evolution are idolaters.
Besides, what I understood from several commenters (or less) that the idea (as I understood from their words) that the gene that produces a gene is a little different and more sophisticated - only proves what you call human intelligence (personally, I haven't heard of it sorry).
And in my opinion such an idea also proves the God of Judaism.
Although, I personally don't think of God in the form of a super-intelligent being or anything like that.
B,
Read carefully why the experiment proposed in the article (actually not exactly an experiment) gets an answer:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
In addition to this, intelligent design contains a known and unchangeable self-contradiction:
You want us to believe that certain creatures could only have been created by a much more sophisticated intelligent factor **that created itself** (or was created by an even more sophisticated intelligent factor that created itself and so on)
I'm a bit stupid, can someone define what science is please?
Society - what is faith?
Where knowledge ends, faith begins... If we knew there was a God, we wouldn't believe in him, we would know he exists!
By the way - science cannot deny the existence of God, because it is always possible to claim that God created the world and the universe (etc.) as if he was created billions of years ago, even though he was actually (according to belief) only created about 5700 years ago, and he did this by The "stamping" of all forms of life, as if in the characteristics of millions of years ago... in addition, he "could" decide that the whole world and universe is governed by physical laws...
To the question of whether God is merciful or whether he only created everything according to certain laws and then left his creation to develop on its own, according to the laws established in creation (or do they change - which is also established in creation) - we currently have no ability to answer.
That is why faith should not be denied - idolatry of any kind should be denied - clothing, prayers, justifying actions, etc... Faith gives people hope and meaning, and therefore it has a place in our lives. It's just a shame that people misuse it
It's a shame even more - that I don't believe...
Noam, see here for example:
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm
I didn't talk about snake venom at the moment, and I'm sure it's a change of hundreds of nucleotides in this case as well. For example, did you know that the genes responsible for producing the venom are silenced in the rest of the snake's body? Did you know that these are control systems that depend on hundreds of nucleotides themselves? And how is the venom injection mechanism gradually formed? How many genes required for this mechanism? Even what seems simple is really not.
B,
Perhaps you could expand on the experiment proposed by the intelligent design people (link?)
You wrote: "It is that *perhaps* each part was used in turn for something else. In other words, this serious hole is covered by *belief*"
How did you introduce faith here?
It is not a matter of faith but of scientific findings. You just have to read carefully.
For example: before the venom of the snakes, poisonous saliva of lizards, which existed before the snakes.
Antecedent to snakes with hollow and retractable fangs, snakes with fixed fangs and non-hollow rear fangs.
You just have to read with your eyes open, so where is the faith here?
A scientific theory is one that can be disproved by a controlled experiment. I proposed such an experiment, and therefore both are equally scientific. On the principle level. Anyone who claims otherwise, I am welcome to hear why it is not true. The argument of inextricability is an argument that has not been disproved. The argument against it is that *perhaps* every part It was used in turn for something else. In other words, this serious hole is covered by *belief* and therefore mathematicians come out against it. A hormone will not do anything without a receptor, so this argument is very interesting. If the hormone was created first, natural selection will not clear it up, the same with the receptor. And if we are talking about let's say 100 mutations (50 for the receptor and 50 for the hormone) and let's say that every month a mutation occurs in population x then it will take
About 100^20 months for the formation of a hormone-receptor complex. According to evolution, this complex was created in only a few million years, so do the math yourself. And this is not my claim, but that of scientists dealing with bioinformatics and mathematics.
B:
You can give countless examples of systems that seem to you to be unchangeable, and time and time again these rebuttable assumptions will be grounded. Since then, evolution as a theory is far too solid for a single case that appears to the layman to be a non-freak to invalidate it as one.
It's as you'll see David Blaine hovering: Is the theory of gravity wrong or have you probably got something wrong?
To all the "opponents" of evolution -
No problem. Resist evolution. But be honest with yourself - the next time the doctor prescribes you antibiotics, take antibiotics from 50 years ago. Since you don't believe in evolution, you have nothing to fear about species changing as a result of selection pressure from antibiotics. That is, if the same antibiotic 50 years ago killed the bacteria that causes your disease, and there is no evolution - that is, the species are fixed in their properties, then even today the same antibiotic will kill the same bacteria that causes your disease now.
Are there volunteers?
I'm pretty sure that instead of volunteering for the experiment, two claims will be raised against me:
1."Antibiotic resistance is not species change/not evolution." So what is "enough" change of species? What is evolution? If evolution for you is seeing a bacterium spawning humans then rest assured that the evidence and science are behind you. If for you evolution is many small changes that add up to one big one and you don't believe in that, then repeat the experiment with antibiotics enough times until you turn a species of bacteria that is vulnerable to all antibiotics (and heavy metals) into a bacteria that is immune to all of them - unfortunately there is such a bacteria in nature. Is this change enough? Not yet? What change will be enough for you? Any evolutionary change that can be shown to you will be small, but that's how it is - evolution works in small changes that add up.
2. "God decided to change the bacteria, not evolution." Is there proof and evidence for divine intervention? Or is this a claim thrown into the air just like that?
Father, you are right.
The wording: "or in other words "the strongest survives"", is bad.
It can be replaced by: "And there are already those who will translate it to "the strongest survives".
I hope the wording will please you, it seemed clear enough to me even before this.
B - Intelligent design is a creationist idea, but even if not, its wording contradicts itself. The rest of the discussion about its scientificity is unnecessary.
I'm a small evolutionary expert, but I assume that a big one would know how to explain to you the development that bothers you so much. I personally don't find a problem with "unhelpful" (nor harmful) mutations that only after the accumulation of a few of these are found to have a benefit that has spread.
survival of the fittest
Which translation software translates FITTEST as strong?
A bit of order:
Evolution is a theory, just as intelligent design (not creationism) is a theory. From the knowledge I have, the intelligent design people proposed a refuting test - to show that composite systems can be created gradually, that is, evolution, that is, the opposite of one-time creation. It turns out that they have not yet performed such an experiment. And the experiment The above can also be a rebuttal test for evolution, meaning that both are scientific. I gave a specific example - hormone-receptor dependence. Or even the stages of photosynthesis. A lack of one of the components in the above systems will cause the system to go out of action. This indicates that they were created in a one-time process. And then we fall into a probability that is too low. This is the main probabilistic argument of many mathematicians who come out as a buffer against evolution. Even if a hormone is created for the first time, there is no point in it without its target receptor being present. Hundreds of useless mutations, to complete the system.
My previous response was mainly intended for "his lawyer",
And since I mentioned the difference then:
"A fruitful discussion is conducted by exchanging ideas",
"When there is a debate between ideas and facts,
The fruitfulness of the discussion is impaired."
"Discussion is an exchange of opinions and information
And a debate is an exchange of ignorance."
Not true :
As our globe is round, as the sun is at the center of the solar system,
As our sphere revolves around the sun... and so on, so does evolution...
After it has been proven, we will be "Archimedes' theorem" for fact... not for theory,
After Harushima and Nagasaki, the fission of the atom is a process... not a theory,
So maybe it was correct to define evolution as a process (instead of a fact),
A process that continues to exist (and as such a fact), continues to emerge,
In which "the strongest survives" but the fittest, a process in which he is one of the factors
Natural selection, there is also mate (sexual) selection, and other factors,
It is assumed that there are factors that are not yet known,
After the existence of the process (the fact) became clear, scientists have a lot to do
to explain it in detail,
There is room for discussion about the methods of operation of the process, there is room for discussion about
Its direction, or is there a direction, is there a place for the study of evolution in the past,
But, just like there is no discussion about the internal combustion process...
There is no room for discussion of evolution,
(For the difference between discussion and debate, see other responses).
The attempts to contain the "laws of evolution" on social theories
We rely on the "theory" not on the process and therefore also... Noel.
To this day there are those who are afraid to go far for fear of falling at the end of the world,
Likewise, there are those who are sure that there will be someone to watch over them lest they fall,
This too believes in... vanity.
A belief that allows terrorists and charlatans of all kinds to target their believers
to the "worse and wicked deeds",
In the name of faith and religion.
Hello everyone
I am reading this thread with great interest, a bit of a bystander. And it has a lot of material to provoke reflection about our true ability (whether we are scientists or on the side of the scientists, whether we are rabbis or on the religious side) to be faithful to the principles by which we are supposed to follow.
My predecessor will "come back and remind" every time a religion comes up on the site (meaning it's from the scientists?) that "the most evil and wicked acts are done out of religious conviction". Does it stand the test of reality? Were the tens of millions who were murdered in cold blood during the Second World War murdered because of religious conviction?
Another commenter firmly claims that religion "and most importantly, does not update, does not learn. It is based on knowledge that was once known, and there is no problem with that. But today we know much more and we have changed our theories according to the new discoveries. Science is updated, science as soon as a new discovery arrives admits its mistake and corrects it. Religion twists the truth to fit what they once said." Did the aforementioned commenter bother to check this important fact? I am not well versed in religious matters, but from what little I can see - a tremendous amount of work is constantly being done in religious thought that will be founded in response to developments in the spiritual, material and social spheres."
Are the above commenters interested in knowing the truth (which sometimes involves unpleasantness, as in this case about religion), or are they interested in establishing their old opinion (that religion is outdated, and responsible for all the evil in the world)
Asaf
You are a sinner and you sin.
A. Evolution is a theory. Probably correct, and certainly more suitable than the other theories offered today, but still a theory. Treating evolution as a fact indicates a lack of understanding of these things, or such a lack of care, and in any case it is a mistake.
It is indeed much easier to say "it's a fact" and walk away, but there are among us who are more interested in the truth than in the actual persuasion (I personally assume that most of those who express their opinion will not change their mind, but perhaps a silent reader will not be tempted in vain.)
B. Evolution, and "natural selection", say that whoever is better suited to the environment will take over, or in other words, "the strongest survives." From there it turns out that the road may be short to "social Darwinism", the father of "race theory" in general and the Nazis in particular. Therefore, as you can now understand, evolution can also lead to bad and evil things, even without the help of religion. You have to understand that it is not necessarily religion that is bad here, but the people who make use of it. The reason for the conclusion of section A is an attempt to prevent similar people from making similar use of science.
Maybe if the various explainers stop treating evolution as a "theory" and internalize that evolution is
Because it can be explained with the help of a theory (one or another) any argument will be unnecessary,
In any case, every time you upload data to the site, I will come back and mention that:
"The root of evil is the belief in the one and only truth."
"The more evil and wicked deeds
They are done out of religious conviction."
The validity of a scientific theory is derived from the existence of a way to disprove it. If it is not possible to define a way to disprove a theory, it is not scientific. For example, finding fossils in a rock layer that do not belong to it, will disprove the scientific theory known as the theory of evolution. It is clear from this that it is not possible to "prove" a scientific theory.
On the other hand, there is no scientific way to contradict the hypothesis regarding the existence of God, hence from the scientific point of view it is not valid. This does not mean that God (of any kind) exists: in the same way there is no way to contradict the existence of witches, scientists, monsters (including the flying spaghetti monster), any other nonsense that comes to the imagination of anyone who wants to.
heart. The mutations as well as the genetic variation obtained in each generation are the core of evolution, so I don't understand the contradiction you find. And beyond that, even a new use for an existing protein is an evolutionary change, even though it is enough to change the order of individual molecules in a protein to transform it into a completely different protein with different properties.
Potato and B.
There is only one truth.
What Luzzi said: "Science does not pretend to understand anything before it has been definitively proven" is not so clear to me
I think he meant something else.
Science does not prove anything (there is proof in mathematics). Science finds theories that can explain what is happening.
Gives a prediction with the help of the theory and checks if it is correct and repeats, God forbid.
If the prediction is not correct the theory will fall and science will have to find another theory.
Sometimes there is an overlap between the theories, and they know how to explain the same things, and then science finds how they differ, and plans an experiment to test which of them works and which just happened to be successful.
If there are two theories of gravity (I know one, I'm sorry), science probably does not yet have the ability and money to conduct the experiment that will choose the correct one.
There are also things that science does not know how to explain (it had quite a bit of time to explain "everything"), but it never assumes that "this is how it is", or "a higher power", etc.
There is no proof of evolution, nor will there ever be (this follows from the fact that evolution is not mathematics and what I argued before), but in the test of comparison between the various theories, evolution passes all the tests (especially if you ask the people who actually studied it), creationism falls because it is refuted (it makes no sense that any A complex thing like that was created by itself, unless a much more complex being was created by itself earlier and created it) and against "God planned everything and planted dinosaur bones to put us to the test" apparently from the beginning it is impossible to really contend.
to lucy-
It is actually true that *still* there is no unequivocal proof of evolution. In all the cases you described, it is a point mutation, plasmids. No protein with a new activity was created there. Genetic homology cannot be used as evidence either, just as 2 similar cars are not evidence of divergence from each other (regardless of for the ability to reproduce).
You wrote it yourself and also answered yourself.
You wrote the theory of gravity. And that's right.
Because it is still a theory.
Science does not pretend to understand anything until it has been definitively proven.
Contrary to religion that:
1. Believes in unproven things
2. Basing things on hearsay or stories
3. And most importantly, you don't keep up to date, you don't study. It is based on knowledge that was once known, and there is no problem with that. But today we know much more and we have changed our theories according to the new discoveries.
Science is updated, science as soon as a new discovery arrives admits its mistake and corrects it. Religion twists the truth to fit what they once said.
Luci:
By the way, none of the theories I mentioned refutes the other, it can be better with advantages over the other and in any case it does not refute.
Luci:
Nanala, you are a jerk.
Check out at least 2 theories of gravity and they both work. And it turns out today that there should be more.
How many quantum wave equations are there to check.
In the language of bundles, some isomorphic bundles can be adapted to representations or phenomena in general.
potato,
I will repeat what my father said.
In reality there is only one!
And everything has only one explanation.
It's true that about things we don't know yet we stick to theories. But that's the whole idea in science. You produce a theory, check in scientific research whether it is true or not. In case you found it to be true, and refuted other claims, you arrived at the truth and what is called a scientifically proven claim.
As long as you haven't come to it, it's still a theory.
But there are things these days, lots of them, that are one and only truth.
And following what I wrote earlier,
The professor's conversation with the student is still illusory and impossible. No Prosor would answer as the text tells.
What's more, Einstein certainly wasn't, because he was a non-believer who spoke publicly about his lack of faith and the non-existence of God. What's more, I don't think he was ever in the position of a student-professor, it seems to me that his studies ended quite early in his life.
Avi Blizovsky:
The belief that """"there is only one truth""""" is a very energetic nonsense.
For all the phenomena and events, endless theories can be adapted that perfectly match the results.
Yair Seligman,
The story you brought is a handful of religious claims that are repeated again and again in different forms in debates between religion and science.
The point is that these claims are baseless.
Evolution has absolute proof. We found transitional fossils between species. We found remains of dinosaur DNA in chickens. We showed that we and monkeys have 98% genetic compatibility.
And the claim that no one has seen evolution today is also incorrect and indicates that you are not familiar with science news.
UCLA University has a laboratory that has been able to produce rapid evolution in E-Coli bacteria. In that in each generation of bacteria he was able to accustom the bacteria to exist in a different chemical environment and showed that after a few generations the bacteria developed mechanisms to use substances that until a few generations ago were toxic. All the bacteria and generations with the genetic changes are frozen in the refrigerator and you can actually see their evolution.
There are many more studies today that show evolution, have shown that certain species of fish that are hunted a lot by humans have evolved to smaller sizes just to survive fishing nets. They showed that a certain species of bird migrating in winter from England to France developed a corresponding species of birds of different origin and different genes that remain in England due to the feeding of the birds by man in winter. There are many more such examples you just have to research.
Likewise, the claim that the professor's mind cannot be seen is also wrong. Because you can easily do an MRI scan and see his brain. Or smashing his head is also an option. And they have already proven that humans have a brain... we'll see. to me…
Get out of the religious bubble in which you live, and you will understand that there are things in the world that are much more amazing than God, things that are proven, tangible and true.
Finally, I will repeat my answer. There is only one truth. Have you ever read anything Einstein wrote? Or his biography? There is a difference between stories and truth. Everyone can make up stories according to their own agenda, but the truth is very difficult to hide unless, as in this story, one simply lies and does not even try to base it on any real fact.
I don't want to argue with you. Really.
Finally: maybe you believe people who tell stories that are disproved by others?
The difference between us is that I believe what I have proof of and you believe people who make up stories.
It is saddening to see Einstein's character recruited again and again to the ranks of theists, there is nothing more wrong than that.
Apart from the fact that there are people who confuse faith with high statistical probability in light of proven facts.
Avi Blizovsky, so wherever you go around you were influenced by the same articles you present, so what makes you right? After all, apart from being compared to that ultra-orthodox troll, you are no different from him.
Banish ghosts - the answer is because the rabbis have my money and I don't have theirs, so they can invest more than me. But truth is not a matter of democracy. There is only one truth. In Einstein's case, there are enough documents that he wrote and places where he was quoted.
Besides, as an ultra-Orthodox troll, you probably hang out in places where this story is considered true. It just shows how your environment affects you.
Father, I don't want to defend anyone here, but could you please answer a question for me:
How is it that not many people have heard of the claims you present and more have heard of this story about Einstein?
(at least that's how I see it).
Einstein talked a lot about God and also explained clearly and in detail what he meant. Einstein was a Spinozist and according to him "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmonious lawfulness of the world". As an avowed admirer, he even wrote a eulogy for the philosopher that opens with the words "How much I love this noble man."
The God of Spinoza and his student Einstein is not "creator of the world" nor "Lord of the world" but the world itself. Einstein made sure to most explicitly rule out the idea of divine providence and of course the idea of reward and punishment. Here is something I wrote about Einstein's faith
http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=661112
By the way: the student in this dialogue was not Einstein, both because what was said there completely does not correspond to the positions that Einstein expressed explicitly, and also because it was idle chatter and Einstein uttered reasoned words of wisdom even when it finally became clear that he was wrong.
A lie repeated a million times does not become the truth. Einstein wrote explicitly that he ^^^^did not^^^^ believe in God. A fact that he ordered his body to be cremated. The converts prefer to lie to you with a determined face, including inventing such convoluted stories that prove nothing but a thesis that intended to prove itself in advance.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/askeinstein-010900/
Does anyone know how the first hormone-receptor dependency was created? It is known that both are dependent on each other. There is no survival value for each individually.
1. To defend the hypothesis of the discharges in the snake's venom mechanism - additional hypotheses are put forward. Do additional hypotheses make the hypothesis a theory with 'scientific' validity?
2. And what really about the claim of the non-discharge of the sight mechanism?
Yair, it's such a shame to see evolution in action, for example in the war against the AIDS virus.
Also, you can see the other guy's brain.
Even with the help of a mirror you can see your own mind.
I didn't get to know a professor who claimed that he was conveying the truth to the truth, there is always room for skepticism.
It's a shame that this is not the case in religious matters.
An atheist philosophy professor lectures his class on the problem science has with the omniscient God
Can. He asks one of his new students to stand
Professor: Do you believe in God?
Student: Absolutely, sir.
Professor: Is God good?
Student: Sure.
Professor: Is God omnipotent?
Student: Yes.
The Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. Most of us were
Trying to help others who are sick, but God doesn't. How does it show that he is good?
(Student is silent)
Professor: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again. Is God good?
Student: Yes.
Professor: Is Satan good?
Student: No.
Professor: Where did the devil come from?
The student: From... God...
Professor: That's right. Tell me, son, is there evil in the world?
Student: Yes.
Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God created everything, right?
Student: Yes.
Professor: So who created the evil?
(Student does not answer)
The Professor: Are there diseases? Immorality? Hate? ugliness? All these things
exist in the world, right?
Student: Yes, sir.
Professor: So who created them?
(Student does not answer)
The Professor: Science says you have five senses that you use to recognize and serve the
the world around you Tell me, my son, have you seen God?
Student: No, sir.
Professor: Did you hear him?
Student: No, sir.
Professor: Have you ever felt God, tasted Him, smelled Him? mother was
Do you have any sense perception of God?
Student: No, sir, unfortunately not.
Professor: But do you still believe in it?
Student: Yes.
The Professor: According to empirical and measurable test procedures, science says
that God does not exist. What do you have to say about that, son?
Student: I only have my faith.
Professor: Yes, faith. And that's the problem science has.
Student: Professor, is there such a thing as "heat"?
Professor: Yes.
Student: And is there such a thing as "cold"?
Professor: Yes.
Student: No, sir, there is no such thing.
(Class goes silent)
Student: Sir, there are many types of heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat or
A little warm, but there is no such thing as "cold". We can heat 458 degrees below
To zero, which would be heatless, but you can't go below that. "Cold" is just a word
In it we describe the absence of heat. It is impossible to measure cold. Heat is energy.
Cold is not the opposite of heat, only its absence.
(Absolute silence in class)
Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as "darkness"?
Professor: Yes. What is the night if it is not dark?
Student: You were wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have light
Weak, normal light, bright light, flashing light... but if you don't have continuous light,
You have nothing, and it's called "darkness", isn't it? In reality, darkness does not exist. if he
If there was, you could make it darker, right?
Professor: So what's your argument, young man?
Student: Sir, my argument is that your philosophical premise is flawed.
Professor: Defective? Can you explain?
The student: You work from the premise of duality. You claim there is life and there is
Death, bad God and good God. You see the concept of God as something final, something
that you can measure. Sir, science cannot explain even a thought. he uses
in electricity and magnetism but never saw, and certainly never fully understood, any of them.
To see death as the opposite of life is to ignore the fact that death cannot
to exist as an independent entity. Death is not the opposite of life, only its absence. now tell me
Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from the monkey?
Professor: If you refer to the natural processes of evolution, yes, definitely.
Student: Have you ever seen evolution with your own eyes, Professor?
(The professor shakes his head with a smile as he understands where the argument is headed)
Student: Because no one has ever seen the process of evolution in action and cannot
To prove that it continues to happen, aren't you actually teaching opinion, sir? Do you
Scientist or preacher?
(The whole class is roaring)
Student: Has anyone in the class ever seen the professor's mind?
(Class roars with laughter)
Student: Has anyone heard the professor's mind, felt it, touched it, smelled it
him? No one… So according to empirical and measurable test procedures, science
Says you have no brain, sir. And with all due respect, how do you want us to trust your lectures?
(The class is quiet. The professor is staring at the student)
Professor: I guess you have to believe them, son.
Student: That's it, sir. The connection between man and God is faith.
... and some say that that student was Albert Einstein...
But it is unnecessary to explain this to the believers of the "intelligent creation" theory,
They are known for not letting the facts confuse them.
It should be noted that most venoms in the living world are not produced de novo
Most of the toxic substances are from the plant world. The plants produce these substances as secondary metabolites,
These are consumed in the food chain until they "eventually" reach the poisonous plant.
The subject is not as abstract as "looking for answers" indicates.
Unfortunately (rather fortunately...) there is evolution,
A complicated and not simple mechanism that explains all forms of life on Earth.
exciting. Thanks!
And regardless of the article itself, your section contains excellent articles.
------
My blog - Another science
Does reality exceed any imagination?
Nice.
What about the scorpion, or the dendrobites?
Last week, the inventor of the vaccine against viper venom passed away and he is over ninety years old.