How did a scientific paradigm that dominated for many years concerning the spontaneous creation of life dissolve, and what is the difference between the situation today, and the situation before life was formed for the first time
Towards the end of the 17th century, the human race got a clue to one of the most difficult questions in life: why do people get sick?
The bacteria - those small and dangerous disease-makers - were discovered by van Leeuwenhoek, who showed that their existence can be found everywhere. Every cold porridge had bacteria. Every dirt from the ground. Inside the loaf of bread and inside the cup of tea that was left on the table throughout the night. Even in the plaque accumulated on our teeth they can be found in large quantities.
But from here to the conclusion that bacteria are the causes of diseases, or that it is even possible to fight them, there is still a long way to go.
The main obstacle on the way to creating a theory linking bacteria to disease was the idea of spontaneous formation. The model of spontaneous formation that was accepted at the time stated that living beings can be created from inanimate matter. As long as this theory could not be disproved, scientists saw no point in researching diseases and germs [A]. After all, what reason do we have to try to destroy bacteria, if they are constantly regenerating - on our clothes, in the food we eat and even inside our bodies?
To understand the origin of the theory of spontaneous formation we must go back more than 2000 years in history, to the ancient Greek philosopher, Anaximander.
Anassimander lived between 610 and 546 BC approximately. He was a scholar who dealt with politics, physics, astronomy, geography and history. According to the historical sources, he was the first to put his thoughts on paper [D], although only a very small part of his works survived the passage of time. We actually know about his works and his existence only from the writings of the philosophers and historians who came after him.
Anashimander was one of the first prophets of science. He tried to explain the way the universe works through natural laws and not through the Greek gods. He claimed that natural phenomena such as lightning and thunder are related to the power relations between the elements, and not to the gods. Already more than 2000 years ago, Enchimanderus determined that thunder is created when clouds hit each other, and the harder they hit each other, the stronger the thunder. With the help of astronomy, he tried to describe the path of movement of the heavenly bodies - the stars - in relation to the earth, and was the first to claim that the earth is a body floating in space.
Despite his impressive intuitive discoveries, it is important to remember that Anaximander did not have the necessary mental tools to understand many phenomena in the universe. He stated that the universe consists of four elements - fire, water, earth and air, and explained all physical phenomena through them. To explain lightning, for example, Anassimander argued that the explosion created when clouds collided caused the air to fall and disintegrate, thus allowing fire to break free [E].
Another example of Anassimander's problematic intuition is his vision of the sea. The sea for him is the remains of the water that once filled the entire earth. The water evaporated due to the heat of the sun, and the water vapor causes the winds to blow and the planets to circle, because he claims that the heavenly bodies are attracted to places where there is an abundance of water. According to Anassimander, the earth dried up slowly, until water remained only in the deepest areas - and in the coming day these will also dry up [F].
The inquisitive mind of Anassimander could not ignore the problem of the origin and beginning of life. He reviewed marine fossils found on land and argued that the land animals came from the sea a long time ago. Anassimander believed that all animals were originally created in their youth from the mud of the sea. The problem he found with this theory was the long period of childhood that humans experience - at least several years during which toddlers are unable to defend themselves. To solve this problem, Anassimander decided that humans originally formed inside the marine animals until they reached maturity, and then were released from them onto the land, when they were able to protect themselves and find food for themselves.
The Roman writer Censorinus reports in his book De Die natali (IV, 7) that:
"Anaximander of Miletus believed that fish, or fish-like animals, emerged from a combination of warm water and earth. Within these animals, humans were formed, and the young babies were kept captive inside the animals until they reached adulthood. Only then, when the animals were opened, could the men and women emerge into the air of the world when they were mature and able to feed themselves."
This theory is reminiscent of the theory of evolution, but without trying to come up with a provable mechanism of action. In this it is similar to most of the theories of the world of Greek philosophy, which try to explain the nature of the world. They abandon myths and religions, and use material principles to provide explanations for the way things work. This is the basis of scientific thought, on which elaborate experimental methods will be added in the future that also made it possible to test the proposed theories.
Beyond the initial creation of life, Anaximander believed that most creatures are no longer spontaneously created nowadays. The exceptions are the eels and other marine animals, which continue to form directly from inanimate matter on the seabed [B].
Many philosophers who lived after Anaximander's death also believed in spontaneous formation and developed it further. The first of them was probably Anaximenes, who was a student of Anaximander. He decided that in order for living things to be created from inanimate matter, the existence of primordial primordial mud must be assumed. That mud is a mixture of water and earth, and with the help of the sun's heat plants, animals and people are created from it. A similar approach was also supported by Xenophanes, Empedocles and Democritus [G].
Then came Aristotle.
Aristotle lived and died in the third century BC, but his influence on all fields of science and philosophy in Western culture has remained to this day. He researched and wrote on every possible subject - anatomy, astronomy, economics, embryology (the science of embryo development), geography, geology, meteorology (the science of weather), physics and zoology. He also made extensive contributions in the branches of philosophy, and wrote about aesthetics, ethics, government theory, metaphysics, politics, psychology, rhetoric and theology. To seal the deal, he also studied education, foreign customs, literature and poetry. The totality of his books and works actually constitute the totality of all Greek knowledge at that time.
Unfortunately, despite the extent of the canvas covered by Aristotle's works, many errors can be found in his writings. It seems that his main problem was that he relied too much on logic and intuition and too little on practical experiments. Since Aristotle was the most respected philosopher in Europe, many thinkers accepted his erroneous views without examining them deeply, and the progress of science was hindered for a long time. Some of Aristotle's mistakes were marginal in importance, and almost ridiculous - for example the claim that men have more teeth than women. Other mistakes of Aristotle were a real disaster for scientific thought - such as the claim refuted by Galileo, according to which heavy bodies fall faster than light bodies [J].
According to Aristotle, all living things are the result of a combination of five elements. The four primary elements are of course fire, water, earth and air. Aristotle called the fifth element ether, and claimed that it comes from the sky. The properties of each living being are determined by the ratio of combinations of these elements in each part of the body, in addition to a life-giving force known as pneuma. This word was translated in Latin as anima (anima), and it means soul. According to Aristotle, there are different types of souls. A plant has a vegetable soul, which is responsible for growth and reproduction. Animals have a plant soul and an emotional soul, which is responsible for the ability to move and feel. Last but not least, human beings have a vegetative, emotional and logical soul, capable of thinking and reflecting on the nature of things [H].
In his book "History of Animals" Aristotle describes how some animals are created directly from the combination of the elements and the soul of the material in which they are created. Insects can form from rotting soil, or plant matter. Other insects can form inside the internal organs of animals, in dew water found on leaves, in mud, in trees, in animal fur or in their flesh. Even in the animal feces, insects can form, even when it is still inside the animal - and this is how the intestinal worms are formed [I].
Aristotle gives a theoretical explanation of how animals are created in his book, Generation of Animals (Bk 3, ch11):
"Animals and plants are created in soil and liquid because there is water in soil, and air in water, and air always has vital heat, so that it can be said that everything that exists is full of soul. Thus, living things are quickly formed when this air and vital heat are held together. When they are held together, the physical fluids heat up and the creature forms as if it were foam rising above the surface of the water."
In short, living things are created from inanimate matter because there is 'vital heat' - a type of pneuma - already present there. The type of organism formed is determined by the different ratios of the pneuma and the other four elements present in the material at the time of formation.
It is interesting to note that, according to Aristotle, only simple creatures could be created spontaneously. Humans could not have been created in the same way. This belief also suited the early church fathers - Origen and Augustine - and from there it continued as an example of European society. Only two thousand years later, in the 17th century, its existence began to be challenged. Indeed, there is no doubt that Aristotle's influence on European society was stronger than any other.
The belief in spontaneous formation continued to accompany humanity for a long time, and only gained momentum since Aristotle. It was based on countless 'evidences' for the spontaneous formation of living things.
But is the evidence really unequivocal?
One example of testimony came from Egypt. Every year with the coming of spring, the Nile River overflows and floods the Egyptian area near the river. When it calms down, the river leaves behind nutrient-rich mud, which allows farmers to increase that year's food supply. An interesting evidence of the spontaneous formation is that, together with the mud, many frogs also appear that were not there during the dry season.
The conclusion?
Frogs are made from mud.
Another testimony comes from Europe, where farmers store grain in barns with straw roofs. When the roof leaks, the grain spoils and grows mold. When you check the stale grain, you find that mice are hiding in the piles of straw.
The conclusion?
Mice are made from stale grain.
These two pieces of evidence are only the tip of the iceberg of simple folk experiments that show that spontaneous formation occurs all the time. There are dozens of recipes from that period, used to create simple animals.
If you want to get bees, then you must kill a young bull, and bury it so that its horns protrude above the ground. When you come to check the results of the experiment after a month, you will find that a cloud of bees has come out of the body. If you really want flies, you just have to leave a juicy piece of meat on the table. After a few days you will discover that it is infested with maggots, which will turn into flies. To modern man it seems obvious that flies landing on the meat will lay eggs on it, but to proponents of spontaneous formation, this evidence seemed irrefutable.
Despite this, at the beginning of the 17th century, Jean-Baptiste van Helmont - a Flemish chemist and doctor - decided to check whether spontaneous formation was indeed possible. Van Helmont is also known as the creator of the science of 'pneumatic chemistry' - chemistry that deals with understanding the physical properties of gases, and how they are related to their chemical properties [K]. In other words, he was far from being a 'cane killer', and was known as a respected scientist in his time.
In order to test whether the spontaneous formation is indeed possible, van Helmont placed a jar containing wheat grains on his desk, and stuffed a dirty shirt into it. After 21 days he poured the contents of the vessel on the table and discovered that the wheat had turned into mice.
A less serious scientist would stop the experiment at this point, and declare that the spontaneous formation is pure truth. But Van Helmont did not stop there. He chased after the mice that came out of the jar and captured them one by one. He examined the mice, and determined that there were males and females in them at the age of maturity. In the following experiments, van Helmont proved that the mice were indeed able to mate with each other and produce offspring. Hence, according to van Helmont, spontaneous generation can indeed produce mice, but just in case (in case spontaneity fails), the mice themselves can also reproduce.
Of course, one experiment is not enough to prove a point, so Van Helmont performed another experiment. He carved a slot in the brick, filled it with crushed basil and covered the brick with another brick, so that the slot was completely sealed. He exposed the two bricks to sunlight, and after a few days he discovered that the basil had turned into different insects.
But, he failed to convince them with each other [L].
The year is 1667, and the pattern of spontaneous formation has not yet changed like this, more than 2000 years since it was invented.
In 1626, rescue. A new protector is born to science, and his name is Francesco Redi. Redi was born into a noble family in Tuscany. His father was the physician of the Grand Duke Ferdinand II, and of his son, Cosimo III. In his youth, Redi was raised and educated by the Jesuit priests, whose teachings stubbornly adhered to Aristotle's philosophy. He received his medical degree from the University of Pisa, and also became the Grand Duke's court physician. At the duke's court, Reddy took on various and important roles and soon became valued and loved. He supervised the medicine warehouse, advised the duke on diplomatic matters, mediated between the duke and his rebellious son and shared his knowledge with other intellectuals who came to consult him. He was a man of many talents, and was able to diagnose and analyze different opinions and situations with unbiased criticality. He used this ability to conduct clever experiments, with the help of which he eliminated some of the superstitions prevalent in Europe at that time. Some compare him to Louis Pasteur, who lived two hundred years later, and proved his claims with simple and effective experiments just like Reddy [M].
Although this period was still deeply influenced by Aristotle's philosophy, Reddy was impressed by the theories of Galileo and the works of Bruno and Kepler, which contradicted Aristotle. He also read the work of William Harvey, who suggested that insects, worms, and frogs may hatch from seeds or eggs too small to be seen with the naked eye. Reddy decided to put the claim to the test.
In 1668, Reddy placed pieces of meat in open bottles, and watched as maggots grew on the meat and fed on it. He saw that maggots undergo metamorphosis and finally become flies. At this point Reddy recalled that before the maggots appeared, flies flew over the rotting meat. Are they related to the creation of maggots on the meat?
To test this theory, Reddy placed pieces of meat in three different bottles. He left the first bottle open. He covered the second with a thin cloth and sealed the third with a cork. After a few days he examined the bottles. The open bottle contained flies - which penetrated from the outside - and maggots that developed on the meat. There were no flies in the cloth-covered bottle, because they could not penetrate through the cloth, but several maggots still developed on the meat. Reddy concluded that the flies laid their eggs on top of the cloth, and some of them fell through the tiny holes in the cloth and landed on the meat, where they developed into maggots. And most importantly - in the third bottle, which was sealed with a cork, no flies or maggots appeared.
Reddy repeated the experiment several times, and published it publicly, thereby ending half of the idea of spontaneous formation.
Why only half?
Reddy could not state with certainty that spontaneous formation was not valid for creatures smaller than flies. In fact, he could not even establish that the spontaneous formation is not valid for insects that do not reproduce in rotting matter, such as the wasps, which lay their eggs in the leaf, or the intestinal worms. Reddy's students continued the various experiments, disproving more and more 'spontaneous formation recipes'.
After enough such recipes were disproved, the scientific community came to the conclusion that complex creatures do not form by themselves.
Twelve years later, the bacteria were discovered by Antony van Leeuwenhoek. No one knew where they came from, and so the model of spontaneous formation returned to its greatness - but this time it dealt exclusively with the microscopic creatures. Reddy and his students were able to prove once and for all that spontaneous formation is not possible in complex organisms. Two hundred years later, the great Louis Pasteur will come in his own right and show, against stubborn and determined opposition, that life cannot be created from inanimate matter.
All this and more - in part B.
Note: It is important to distinguish between the simplistic spontaneous formation as was accepted in the last 2000 years, and the spontaneous formation accepted by the theory of evolution. According to the theory of evolution, the conditions that prevailed 4 billion years ago on Earth were sufficiently different to allow the creation of replicating molecules from inanimate matter, over millions of years of quasi-random reactions. Reddy and Pasteur proved that the spontaneous formation does not occur nowadays, but you can find believers in creationism who give this conclusion a wider meaning, and claim that because this is the case, it is impossible that the primordial cell was formed at the beginning of time.
[A] Black, JG (1996). Microbiology. Principles and Applications. Third Edition. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. pp. 0-25.
]B] Lloyd, GER 1970. Early Greek science: Thales to Aristotle. New York: Norton.
[C] Louis Pasteur's speech On Spontaneous Generation https://eee.uci.edu/clients/bjbecker/NatureandArtifice/week7f.html
[D] ^ Themistius, Oratio 36, §317
[E] Seneca, Naturales quaestiones (II, 18).
[F] Pseudo-Plutarch (III, 16)
[G] Osborn, Henry Fairfield. 1894. From the Greeks to Darwin: An outline of the development of the evolution idea, Columbia University Biological Series. I. New York: Macmillan.
[H] Toulmin, Stephen, and June Goodfield. 1962a. The architecture of matter. London: Hutchison.
[I] Aristotle, History of Animals.
[J] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
[K] Holmyard, Eric John (1931). Makers of Chemistry. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 121.
[L] Jean Le Conte (1671), Part I, Ch. XVI, "On the Necessity of Leavens in Transformations,"
[M] World of Biology on Francesco Redi
The article: A simpler source of life, from Scientific American
52 תגובות
History of biology should be a mandatory course for every scientist and preferably beyond that - to see how very smart people manage to be fooled by inaccurate proofs, missing logic and more.
I love you
Lines for the character of the chimpanzeoid found in the "Knowledge Site":
1. Some are illiterate
2. Some pretend to be "technion scientists"
3. When he is presented with a scientific article in a respected monthly that contradicts his approach, at first he claims that there is no such article, then he claims that he found the article but the article does not say what the other side claims. After presenting him with the main points of the article and showing him that he was wrong, he loses his temper and uses epithets like "Briathan" "troll" "Mahbat" etc.
4. Let's take care of side things instead of dealing mainly.
5. Like any lawyer worthy of his name, he will never admit that he was wrong.
6. It is certain that he is a scientific expert on the theory of evolution and all the rest know nothing.
Jonathan,
You may have already posted "questions and concerns" on this site that I didn't see. In the responses to the current article, I didn't see a single serious question that you raised. On the other hand, I saw that you raised a series of false and baseless assertions while using most of the creationist debate techniques of the lowest variety (Hitler, Stalin and Einstein), the vast majority of which do not belong at all to the topic of the Saar Ofek article. If you're acting like a typical creationist troll, don't be surprised to be labeled as such. This is probably my last comment on the subject because I too am tired of feeding the troll.
to Nir
Acknowledging the fact that Jesus was a real person does not make anyone a Christian. You are confusing the historical fact that there is a high probability that it is true, that Jesus was a Jew who lived about two thousand years ago and sought to uproot the corruption of the religious establishment at that time, and the commentators who came after him and turned him into a Christian who combined stories and created a new religion with pagan symbols.
There are historical studies by many Jews on the subject. Even former Supreme Court judge Haim Cohen wrote a book in which a quasi-apologetic comparative study was conducted on the subject of Jesus' crucifixion in order to prove that the Jews were not responsible for it, from a legal point of view. Apparently at the request of Ben-Gurion.
I have also read the New Testament and I do not consider myself a Christian.
Finally - it's a shame that you try to stick to everyone who challenges the "creationist" theory of evolution, as I mentioned, this is a pretty poor argument tactic.
I have already raised a number of questions and doubts on this site that no one has bothered to give a serious answer to, except for bridle spur attacks.
Avi,
In my opinion, the main reason that Einstein did not talk much about evolution was simple scientific modesty: Einstein did not at all imagine that he, as someone who is not a biologist and is not knowledgeable in the field, had anything important to say about it. This is in contrast to those creationists who are sure that if they read a few Christian websites and maybe some popular book about Darwin and molecular biology, then they already know enough to "disprove" evolution.
Along with this, it is interesting to note that Einstein, in his article on religion and science that I quoted above, mentioned Darwin in the same line as Galileo Galilei as scientists whom religion tried to silence only because their theories did not match everything written in the Bible:
For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs.
Another text that is worth quoting every time some rabbi conjures up Einstein.
Jonathan,
The use of Einstein's aura as a "reference", as if it has some weight in matters of faith or matters of evolution, is a rhetorical trick of creationists, not of evolutionists. As an evolutionist, I don't really care what Einstein said or didn't say about evolution. In science we judge theories and claims on their merits, and not according to who supported them or did not support them. The only reason I'm dealing with the matter, after you brought it up, is to show how you base your assertions on baseless assertions and then evade when asked for factual confirmation. By the way, I haven't read everything that Einstein said in his life either and I have no idea if he didn't once say to Max Born when he met him in the bathroom "I have a probabilistic doubt in the theory of evolution". I am sure that such a quote does not exist in the scriptures, precisely for the reason that you only brought up the opposite - if the quote did exist, we would see it emblazoned at the top of every creationist website and every creationist comment.
And an amusing curiosity about Einstein and creationists: it turns out that Einstein once said in a press interview (and this actually has a reliable quote in the scriptures) that he read the New Testament, was deeply impressed by what is written there and that he is convinced that Jesus did indeed live in reality (for some reason in this case he did not care about his scientific reputation). The Christian creationists in the USA of course make a whole celebration of it on their websites and announce that Einstein, although he was born as a Jew, was actually a Christian in his faith. I personally don't care what Einstein believed or didn't believe, but it seems to me that the Mahbachim in Israel would have a little problem with it. It might be helpful to save the quote and refer to it every time they cling to Einstein:
To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?”
"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.”
"Have you read Emil Ludwig's book on Jesus?"
"Emil Ludwig's Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot.”
"You accept the historical Jesus?"
"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.”
From George Sylvester Viereck, "What Life Means to Einstein", The Saturday Evening Post, 26 October 1929.
http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/torrance.htm
I've been quiet until now, but I have to tell you that I take my hat off to Yonathan for the elegant way in which he took over your website. To each commenter he responds with a provocation and thus requires you to comment again on his own words.
Ignoring him is not gagging, simply, he and his fellow cheerleaders are not on the right site.
As a person, who has already answered a few people's questions and put many others in doubt, I am afraid of his reputation, but sometimes I get tired of the same stupid claims that are repeated over and over again.
Have a good weekend
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Conspiracy theories again?
If Einstein did not lose his reputation after supporting the development of a nuclear bomb and after insisting for 35 years to find the Unified Torah, then even expressing a position regarding evolution would not have changed anything. Instead of assuming all kinds of conspiracies, you simply have to understand that in his time it was not his person, evolution was the default (as it should be and unfortunately does not happen today because of public relations and conservative presidents).
Nir Shalom
I have nothing to do with Yonatani Katani.
The article you gave as an example tries to show that Einstein was a man of faith. The references on which the site relies do not support the argument.
Just as there are many pseudo-scientific websites that support the theory of evolution, there are no fewer Christian-creationist websites whose arguments should not be trusted.
I never tried to claim that Einstein was a religious man. On the contrary, all I claimed was that, although Einstein was not a religious man, he doubted the theory of evolution. My reliance was not on any creationist site.
Also the quote that I gave in the previous response and that you found its source, is not from a creationist website but from a purely scientific website.
As I said, I received the information that Einstein questioned the theory of evolution in some scientific lecture or program and when I say this I do not mean the lectures or programs of converts or missionaries. Therefore, I had no reason to doubt the argument, although I do not rule out the possibility that I am wrong on this issue, because I did not find a suitable reference, and this probably requires more in-depth research.
Nevertheless, in my opinion, in this case, from the Lao rule we can learn about them. If Einstein supported evolution in any way, evolutionists would cite him as the first reference. The fact that Einstein never expressed support for the theory of evolution indicates more that his thinking was the opposite because if he had supported the theory he would undoubtedly have expressed it. For, in addition to being a scientist, Einstein was a virtuoso in public relations. On the other hand, if he had given wide publicity to the opinion that opposes the theory of evolution, he might have lost the scientific reputation he had gained and would have been denounced as a religious and dark man.
Jonathan,
It is interesting that after your decisive claim that "Einstein doubted the theoretical programming of evolution from a mathematical-probabilistic point of view" you don't have time to find a reliable source for the claim. In my experience this is quite typical of creationist claims.
I found the site from which you quoted with the help of Google:
http://www.bautforum.com/671762-post167.html
It turns out that this is an internet forum, no better than the current forum, and your quote is from the words of someone who writes under a pseudonym and does not refer to any source.
To save you time and work, I also looked up "Einstein" and "Evolution" and indeed found creationist websites that claim that Einstein supported intelligent design and was an opponent of Darwin, for example:
http://www.americandaily.com/article/7913
The creationist claims on this website are apparently based on two articles by Einstein that can be read online:
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/ae_scire.htm
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay.htm
You are welcome to read the articles yourself and prove that there is no trace of doubt in the theory of evolution in Einstein's words, neither from a mathematical-probabilistic point of view nor from any other point of view. Nor is there a trace of support for intelligent design. The creationist site that "relies" on these articles is simply flat-out lying.
I would appreciate it if you would find time to bring a more reliable source to Einstein's probabilistic mathematical doubt in evolution. If you can't find one, there's no great shame in admitting you were wrong. After all that is the meaning of doubt as opposed to blind faith, isn't it?
By the way, just out of curiosity, is Jonathan related to "Little Jonathan"?
to Jonathan
2. Before you expect people to believe something if they don't know it, look in the mirror and try to answer yourself how you attack something that you showed in your comments that you don't understand and give it a wrong interpretation.
1. Billions of facts and not one fact, and it's not just the fossils but also the similarity in DNA, which is much more reliable.
To my father
1. Evolution is not a fact but a theory. - You are confusing archaeological findings (fossils) which are indeed facts and the theoretical conclusion that certain people want to draw from them - "evolution".
2. The cowardly method of pseudo "scientists" and evolution thugs like Dawkins and his ilk is that whenever someone challenges the theory of evolution, they should immediately be stigmatized as "creationist" "dark" or "religious" etc., and thus shut up instead of trying to deal with the claims to their character. This poor tactic works well on children and the layman, but it is unfortunate to find that more advanced people also fall into its net.
I never claimed that Einstein was a creationist and I didn't even claim that he believed in God (although there are indications of this: "God does not play dice"). On the contrary, I actually brought him (and Prof. Shapiro) as an example of a scientist who should not be suspected of superstitions or religious beliefs, yet saw room to doubt the feasibility of the theory of evolution.
Hitler and Stalin were conjured up not as "proof" of the invalidity of the theory of evolution, but as an example of personality flaws who fanatically believe in a certain theory without trying to understand it.
To Jonathan, I do not at all understand why you conjured up the criminal characters of Hitler and Stalin, after all, evolution is a fact and it has nothing to do with what this or that person believed. Regarding Einstein - this is of course nonsense, there are a lot of legends about Einstein, mainly on the part of the repentance movement that is not ready to accept the fact that a Jew will become an atheist, and they are looking for any hint of some kind of faith in one or another of the words he said.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/askeinstein-010900/
In response to a person who asked how what he had read about his religious beliefs reconciled with the fact that religions cause carnage, Einstein replied: "What you read about my religious beliefs was, of course, a lie - a lie that is systematically repeated. I do not believe in private surveillance and I have never denied it, but I have expressed it clearly. If there is anything in me that can be called religious, it is the unlimited admiration for the structure of the world, as far as our science can reveal it."
Nir Shalom
1. First, note that the site you are referring to is dedicated to arguing with "creationism" and this fact must be taken into account in terms of credibility, according to my impressions the site specializes in taking parts of facts and building pseudo-scientific arguments on them. I could direct you to almost two million Christian creationist websites that explain the exact opposite about Hitler, but of course I won't.
Indeed, Hittel apparently believed in some kind of deity. But even in the reference you bring it does not say that Hitler was a creation on the contrary. Here is the exact quote:
"Of course, this does not mean that Hitler's ideas were based on creationism any more than they were based on evolution. Hitler's ideas were a perversion of both religion and biology."
Of course, what is important here is not what Hitler "believed" at one point or another in his life, but the fact that the theory of evolution was the scientific basis of the Nazi race theory and the final solution plan which were also implemented in the end.
2. Stalin
Amerchism actually had a branch within the theory of evolution that claimed that in addition to the classical Darwinian theory, the organism can also bequeath to its descendants traits it acquired during its lifetime. Regarding the debate between us, this does not raise or lower a thing and a half. Believing in Marxism does not mean questioning Darwinism. Also note that the website does not indicate when Stalin believed this and in what period. But the mere bringing of this fact without clarifying what lamerism is constitutes a deception on the part of the site. But to their credit they do not claim that Stalin was their creation.
3. Regarding Einstein. I remember hearing it in a lecture or a science program, but unfortunately now all I could find in the short time I had on the internet was a quote:
"Einstein and Evolution
One of the issues that puzzled Einstein about evolution was that it seemed difficult to have all the number of physical changes observed in nature to occur within the amount of time in which the changes took place. Whether or not this sentiment was based upon his longing for an "eternal" universe rather than a universe that began with a "bang" is unknown. "
to Jonathan,
Hitler was actually a creationist, and believed that in exterminating the Jews he was acting according to God's command, as can be seen in his arguments from "Mein Kampf" and other quotes:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html
Stalin rejected the Darwinist theory and adopted the Hallmarkist theory for ideological reasons. He appointed Lysenko, a so-called scientist, to purge the Soviet academy of Darwinist ideas. The result was a tremendous lag in the life sciences in Russia, which is felt there to this day.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_2.html
Regarding your claim that Einstein "questioned the programming of the theory of evolution from a mathematical-probabilistic point of view", I admit that I am hearing this for the first time. Are you sure you are not confusing Einstein with Dembasky? Would you mind directing me to your sources on this matter?
I repeat my previous words. Yonatan Troll type AA.
I didn't want to say anything before but since Jonathan already conjured up Stalin and Hitler then I have to say that I always thought that the deniers of evolution are very close psychologically and in terms of tactics to the holocaust deniers.
That's how it is: no two educated people are the same, while the stupid ones are all alike.
Nature is not a blind watchmaker, it is not a dull carpenter and it is not a builder with hatchets. Science does not deal with interpretations of words, it leaves that to the Gemara. Nature is the totality of things that happen and the trillions of decisions that are made every moment by each and every creature. Those who know how to survive all these decisions pass on their genes to the next generation. Any other interpretation or one or another image is at the sole responsibility of the simulator.
How many times can it be explained that the mechanisms in nature were created due to the delicate balance of natural selection and not due to one intervention or another, and no probability calculations that ignore some of the arguments of evolution will help - that is, they rely on a scarecrow of evolution and not on the real version.
Another thing - the claim that nature is constantly progressing - on the surface it seems logical - not exactly, creatures adapt themselves to the environment even if this sometimes (and quite often) involves degeneration - for example eyes in creatures that live in isolated caves like the one in Ramla. The evidence that nature is progressing and improving is our bias and another proof that there is no God (who perhaps shouldn't allow degeneration).
Ask your spiritual teacher, Jerry Furwell and his emissaries in Israel about the issue of discharge.
Another such troll will be deleted.
You said to my father and you didn't say - "then the chance becomes 1 that we will end up with something like Discman" - so it is that natural selection will only identify the mutations that give a survival advantage and not a design advantage. That's why the analogy is in place. There are millions of possibilities for adding a function that has survival significance, but only A minority of them will also give a design meaning. It can be summed up like this - the ratio between mutations with survival meaning and mutations with survival + design meaning is one to 10, let's say. (Unless you believe that every survival mutation will also give a form of intelligent design). Therefore, the chance To get one designed mechanism with let's say 10 parts is 1 to 10 to the power of 10. Of course you have to multiply this for all the millions of designed mechanisms that exist in nature. I'll give you an example to illustrate my point - the milk system for example includes a milk duct + milk + mammary gland + receptor + hormone for the receptor + A nipple + a neuron for a nipple. Let's say that even everything was a freak in the past. Let's say that for the first time a simple mechanism appeared consisting of only the tube and the gland and the milk. But that's not how it is - nature for some reason chose to continue focusing on this system that was already functioning great. It chose to "get smarter" and add more and more complexity , another hormone and another hormone receptor and another nipple and more friction sensors for the nipple and another neuron for the nipple and more and more.
That's why the analogy is in place... nature does not plan and does not like to be clever. In other words, nature is not a blind watchmaker.
For someone - if there is a factor like natural selection that removes the unsuccessful ones and does not reshuffle each generation like your mechanism, but also keeps the successful ones (which is not in the mechanism you proposed) then the chance becomes 1 that we will reach something like Discman.
Evolution is a package, you can't just take a part of it and then attack it and find all kinds of low chances for it. Either you take it all or nothing.
Thank you very much Roy - how did you say - "a piece of plastic that undergoes duplication and selection can indeed become a device with a unique and complex function" - that is, if you see a watch and you ask how it was created - either by a person or by a piece of replicating plastic, your answer will be - "the watch was probably created on By a piece of plastic duplicating" ... thank you very much.
By the way... for a piece of replicating plastic (like a person) there may be hundreds of possible directions for each step (let's say a clock consists of only 10 parts and for each part there may only be 100 different directions that are not on the way to create a clock or complexity (like in human genes only on a smaller scale), so the chance to create A replicating plastic watch is one in 100 to the power of 10). Therefore...we will never get a Discman or a watch or a humanoid robot or a refrigerator from her.
To Tom and Lucy Preminger.
I thought about copying Robert Shapiro's article into this talkback but I won't so the talkback system doesn't crash.
Shapiro describes in his article how the DNA theory collapsed. The first one that Dawkins described in his book after that explains why the now dominant theory, of H.N.A. The first is unlikely and finally he proposes to replace the RNA theory. In a new theory he developed that he calls "small molecules" and that he claims that their probability is "much higher" but in one breath he admits that 4 more conditions are needed for small molecules to exist and reproduce themselves. The additional conditions he imposes drastically reduce even the already slim chance that small molecules were the source of life.
I think the esteemed professor had to provide an alternative theory because if he didn't do it he would be denounced as a "creationist" and a "troll" and even more so if he swallowed my words and no one would have dared to publish his article. This is what happens when a predatory inquisition of evolution succeeds the inquisition of the Church.
It doesn't surprise me that Shapiro is Jewish. Einstein was also Jewish and surprisingly he also doubted the theoretical programming of evolution from a mathematical-probabilistic point of view. On the other hand, Hitler and Stalin did not cast any doubt. Shocking, to what extent the Israeli grandchildren of those who were massacred, so fanatically adopted the ethos of those who exterminated their grandfathers. And it does not only concern the theory of evolution, it can be seen in almost every area of our lives. The worship of models and blond children with blue eyes, the absolute intolerance towards anyone whose opinion differs from yours, the maddened hatred for anyone who smells of the Jewish religion and on and on.
Mr. Bar Ilan, even a single million is a thousand times what I manage to get from all the small advertisers.
And also, using political power to get money you don't deserve is theft, and I am not referring to this or that person, but to the phenomenon that the state in general allowed.
Because of this promiscuity, education and health were cut, and higher education deteriorated.
And besides, I need to understand once and for all why the religious are allowed to drip their opinions under every fresh tree and the secular have to talk to themselves?
And again Gil/Danny/someone comes with the same questions he has already asked a thousand times, and received the answer to them a thousand and one times.
It is probably difficult to internalize the idea of 'natural selection', even though this too has already been explained to him a thousand and one times in all the Ynet talkbacks. A piece of plastic that undergoes duplication and selection can indeed become a device with a unique and complex function, and this has even been proven in the laboratory.
In short, the troll is back.
Ignore, please, friends. It's a shame to feed the troll.
To my father - "What looks like a balance between cogwheels in nature (and it is also approximate, and not exact) is the result of evolution that caused everyone who does not fit their place in the cogwheel of nature to become extinct" - nonsense...Dawkins himself admits that the mechanisms of life are more complex and spectacular than the silent clocks. But then he explains (and rightly so) that unlike the stationary clocks, the mechanisms of life have the ability to replicate and accumulate mutations, therefore given enough time it is possible that they will be designed. He claimed and never proved. Nature has no intelligence and therefore will never create something intelligent and randomly designed. point!
A clock does not reproduce, animals and plants give birth to offspring, so this whole image that originates in the 18th century is only meant to confuse"-
That's why I claimed that I'm giving you even a piece of plastic with the ability to duplicate. More than that?.... And now answer (for the fourth time) a simple question of yes and no. Would you say that the watch was created by a person or by a random factor?
Dear Mr. Blizovsky,
For your benefit, I am giving you a little advice for free (without any commitment on my part as to the correctness of the information and its validity in your case):
The budget of all Torah institutions in the last year was 475 million shekels, so relatively Amnon Yitzchak could receive - if he asked - barely one single million.
In addition to this: to the best of my knowledge, he does not receive a shekel from the state (the days have long passed when funds were distributed according to a party key without criteria, and since his lectures do not meet the criteria for benefits he does not receive them either, however indirectly by the decision of the local authority that ordered same to participate in financing).
If he has a mind - and he does - he can easily 'torture' you with a claim for damages for defamation; Especially in light of the blunt style you used, which reveals that your words were not necessarily written in good faith (if his friends organized money for him in the Knesset committees, it is not theft at all!!).
Therefore, for my sake and for the sake of the other regular readers of the articles on your website, I recommend that you talk as much as you like only between yourself. Otherwise, you will have to organize a backup among all the 'subscribers' on your site and it is still doubtful that you will be able to meet the burden of compensation.
Bye
To Danny - absolutely last response. Read Dawkins' book and you will see that you are talking nonsense. What looks like a balance between cogs in nature (and it is also approximate, and not exact) is the result of evolution that made everyone who does not fit their place in the cogs of nature become extinct. You only see those who apparently matched and claim that there is no chance.
A clock does not reproduce, animals and plants give birth to offspring, therefore this whole image that originates in the 18th century is only intended to confuse the mind and be a hook for the conversion of people who lack scientific knowledge, even the little knowledge they have passes through the filter of the mahbatim.
And again, I advised you, if you so much want to promote Amnon Yitzhak, he has so many sympathetic websites, he has a budget of hundreds of millions of shekels that his members in the Knesset stole from my tax money. Leave this site alone.
Jonathan-
You are only reading part of the quote and misinterpreting it. Rana and DNA are complex molecules and your first quote talks about how life was created by interactions between simpler molecules, which later became complex like Rana and DNA (this is simply your understanding of what is being read - "It is more likely that life began in a system of chemical reactions between small molecules, which energy was their driving force").
The second quote says in the last part "We must abandon the idea that DNA, RNA, proteins and other large complex molecules participated in the creation of life" - as a believer in evolution, I completely agree, but you probably did not understand the quote if you think that the professor in the article is trying to claim that life came from creation. All he's saying is that early life was a much simpler molecule than RNA or DNA, and we have to study simpler molecules if we want to mimic the process in the lab.
I have no doubt that one day we will succeed!
In conclusion, I suggest you keep an open mind and not get dragged into insults with other commenters, who do not contribute anything to the discussion on the site.
Lavi-"Watches were created by intelligent people. Nature is not a clock and it doesn't even resemble a clock in its pronunciation" - what are you? You don't know the argument of the "blind watchmaker"? Dawkins published a whole book about it. Do you think Hain did it?
In a still clock, the intelligence that was invested in its creation is evident - parts that depend on each other, electrical conductors, gears and symmetry. All these characteristics are also present in a person and even more. Therefore - if a clock requires an intelligent factor ->> easy and the human material requires an intelligent creator. So what (the third time) )your answer?
If you suddenly come across a clock in the middle of the desert, you will be told that the above clock was created either by a replicating piece of plastic or by a person. What is your choice?
to Yossi Preminger.
For your convenience, a few random quotes from the article:
"The chances of the sudden appearance of a large self-replicating molecule, such as RNA, are extremely low. It is more likely that life began as a system of chemical reactions between small molecules, whose driving force was energy."
"Nobel Laureate Christian de Dube called for the "rejection of all cases whose probability is so small and immeasurable that they can be called miracles, phenomena that go beyond the realm of scientific investigation." We must abandon the idea that DNA, RNA, proteins and large complex molecules Others participated in the creation of life."
And for your information - greater than zero is not always much.
To Avi Blizovsky –
If I understand correctly this site is yours, therefore you have the full right to filter comments. Instead of allowing comments from trolls, comments to trolls and comments along the lines of "don't feed the trolls" you can simply not post comments that do not belong to the topic of the article they were written about. This will probably reduce the number of comments significantly, but on the other hand, it will raise the level of the forum and attract surfers who want to read relevant and interesting comments.
And by the way, regarding Danny, he didn't "start" behaving like a troll. Danny is the super-troll who identifies himself with the names Gil, Mike, Dan, Chen, Avi, Eli and dozens of other names, in the science section of YNET and recently also here. He has a few fixed characteristics and anyone familiar with them will spot his reaction from a mile away.
Blackmail for the article.
As I already mentioned last time that this site has become a scene of wrangling between believers of this type and Hammams of this type (evolutionists are also a type of believer), we don't have to look for our 'unnecessary' daily fights in every scientific discussion.
To the point: in ancient times, as the writer pointed out, the philosophers believed in spontaneous formation. The author did not mention (because it is not the subject of the article) that the sages of Israel in the Talmud also believed in the spontaneous formation of a vegetative or inanimate animal (at least in relation to certain animals such as lice). If in ancient times the belief in the principle possibility of spontaneous formation did not interfere with the belief in creation, there is no reason why this belief - in its present guise - should interfere today.
Bye.
(By the way, the world stands still for the 5/12 and the launch of the last volume in the Hebrew Harry Potter series and you are dealing with creatures from history like trolls??? Do you lack more recent examples??)
Jonathan, I found the article in Scientific American Hebrew. (I searched the site in English)
I'm sorry to inform you that the article does not say what you want to hear. The author of the article actually claims that the formation of life from inert matter is probably simpler than previously thought. The complete opposite of your claim that the creation of life is improbable. Your claim that the alternative theory is even less likely is unfortunate but expected. It is a well-known fact that creationists are not really convinced by good arguments.
By the way, I don't think you're a troll, you're just a human being whose ideology leads him to a scientific error and it's not a crime, just a bit of a shame.
Danny, are you starting to act like a troll too? We weren't either when the grandfather of each of us was born, nor when the father was born, so is that a reason to assume that they were created by God? There are ways to know things even without being present.
We can see how stars and even planets form. From the technical point of view we have no ability to discover life after it was created and certainly during its creation on another planet, if we managed to see it, it would give a death blow to all religious assumptions.
Watches were created by intelligent people. Nature is not a clock and it doesn't even resemble a clock in its sound, you wouldn't want every clock to show a different time for example, but there are even bigger differences between the different living creatures. It is a fact that the closest thing to a clock in nature - the biological clock is not accurate and does not synchronize precisely with the astronomical day. Unlike clocks, nature works on a range, usually that's good enough. There are some tight mechanisms such as the cicadas, but even there it is a matter of weeks between the beginning of the wave and its end.
Dan Solo –
Thank you for the good and wise advice.
and for everyone else -
As for Jonathan, there is no point in arguing with a rude person who ignores everything others say. In short, he is a troll in every sense of the word.
I will personally follow Dan's good advice to ignore Jonathan's messages, and stop reading them from now on. There is no point in reading messages that repeat themselves, ignore any reasonable response, and that a considerable part of the planned is spent disparaging other people.
Good day to you all.
For hobbits of all kinds.
Don't worry, this troll doesn't eat hobbits because they don't have enough meat. And especially to Dan Solo - I think you put the cart before the horse. Before dealing with scientific questions, you need to finish third grade and know how to spell one sentence without five errors.
Apart from that, belief in entities like trolls is progress and an important step towards belief in one God.
The purpose of my talkbacks is to try to get serious answers to questions that interest me, and not to frighten the peace of mind of illiterates of all kinds or those with mental disorders who pretend to be scientists and want to continue living in a fool's paradise.
The truth is, before I started browsing the science website, I never found it necessary to doubt the theory of evolution. The lack of factual answers to serious questions and the astonishingly low level of most of the "evolution thugs", only strengthen the question marks in me. The theory of evolution appears to me not as a scientific theory but as a political change that was made in the nineteenth century with the goal, worthy in itself, of serving as a counterweight to the rapacity of the religious-Christian establishment.
However, to say that due to the lack of serious answers here the theory should be completely ruled out would be going too far, since I assume that this site is not the place to meet the top scientists in Israel.
to Yossi Preminger
See issue 31, article by Robert Shapiro. As I mentioned the link on the home page of this site.
To my father, "The clocks are made by humans, the life was created by nature, when it could do so." Parts are dependent on each other and therefore the comparison is appropriate. We conclude things based on the existing knowledge and not the missing. Therefore, our guiding logic shows that living clocks (the natural world) are not capable of being created randomly. So what is your answer?... You will say that the clock was created by an intelligent person , or by a duplicating piece of metal capable of accumulating changes?
To Danny, you must have made a mistake on the site, the site of the greatest expert in Israel on evolution, R. Amnon Yitzchak is located elsewhere.
In any case, the clocks are created by humans, the life created by nature, when it could do so. Then the plants, which evolved from the first living cell after they split from the animals in a very early period, all of which were single-celled) filled the atmosphere with oxygen, which is a substance that interferes with the formation of life, and is actually a poison that the animals learned to live with (like everything in evolution, if someone doesn't getting used to the changing environment he dies and does not bring offspring). But there is a difference between survival, and the creation of a new life. But as mentioned, this is only one of the parameters, there are many differences between the atmosphere and the composition of the water then and now. I try not to feed trolls, so the answer is intended for the reading public, who will not be left with just the question.
We won't believe it
A question for the evolutionists here... Let's say a person puts you in a room with 100 electronic clocks that are still. He informs you beforehand that he succeeded in developing a block of plastic capable of replicating and accumulating changes quickly. Now he asks you a question - would you believe that at least one of the clocks was created by the replicating piece of plastic , or were they all made by man? What is your answer?
Oops, here's the link:
http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/Creationist_Arguments
Tal,
I am aware of the point you are making, and I also addressed it in the first few paragraphs of the article. However, I probably didn't emphasize the point enough. If and when the article becomes a chapter in the book, I will edit it according to the constructive criticism you gave.
Thanks for the comment.
storm,
The community of European scientists began to suspect that bacteria are the causes of disease only at the end of the 19th century! Until then, the bacteria were considered normal creatures, which do not cause diseases. Koch, Pasteur, Snow and others began to struggle in the sixties of the 19th century, to introduce the paradigm that bacteria are the causes of disease. Probably only after Pasteur's famous vaccine experiments in the 90s, the paradigm penetrated the scientific community, and the miasma paradigm disappeared.
For anyone who thinks they have already heard all the creationists' disproved arguments (and also for creationists who have run out of arguments) here is a not at all short index of arguments and refutations for each and every one of them.
I highly recommend the banana story, sounds like something from Seinfeld and even funnier.
Jonathan: Where is the article you are talking about in Scientific American? I found only one passage with the word abiogenesis and it does not contain what you said.
As for "every self-respecting serious scientist is skeptical", that's complete bullshit. Unless you define a serious scientist as someone who agrees with you... and the scientists who agree with you are a tiny minority.
Update: I found the article! And guess what? It does not say what Jonathan claims. The article deals with the transition of life from planet to planet.
Jonathan, creationists are living proof of evolution.
Your stupidity has developed to frightening proportions.
From the essence of the foundation (in striving for the infinity of the essence in the essence in the essence...; but it is never absolutely finite):
Everything that exists as matter, as a plant, as an animal, etc... is the result of a basic system, which can be defined as the potential of an infinite space (universe) for one of the points contained in it (in the infinite space).
If we try to explain this in a geometric symbolic way, we will get the description below:
A segment on a straight line is the result of the two endpoints that define the segment (length for example), since from each endpoint it is possible to mark an infinite number of points in all directions, it will be possible to draw an infinite number of geometric bodies.
The complexity (complicated) is starting to show its signs
(as a function of experience, knowledge and more), when we try to build different forms in the infinite possibilities that this system allows.
There is a troll here.
It always appears that the subject of the discussion touches (or almost touches) evolution. His opinion differs from 99% of the site's readers (since people who hold his opinion are not interested in this classified information), despite this he shouts loudly to provoke provocation.
I think, of course, that there is a place in a free forum for everyone's opinions, but troll obsession disturbs the peace.
Do you know how to behave with a troll? Don't feed him! (Do not respond to his posts at all). Although this post of mine violates this rule, I thought it might be useful to you, so I deviated.
on trolls
Troll (Internet)/http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki
to storm
Excellent and interesting article. Except for the comment at the end which is completely unnecessary and also incorrect. I understand this is not your comment.
beginning. Not only the "believers in creationism" doubt the spontaneous formation of the primary cell. In fact this theory is questioned by any self-respecting serious scientist, for the simple reason that if this theory were true, it could be reproduced in the laboratory.
Secondly, it's a shame that the person who wrote the comment didn't read the article on this topic in the latest issue of Scientific American - a link on the home page of this website explaining why spontaneous creation of self-replicating molecules is not possible. And it should be added that the alternative theory presented in the article is even more improbable.
The conclusion from this article is that there is a good chance that a hundred years from now the theory of evolution will be looked upon as the theory of spontaneous creation is looked upon today.