In preparation for Charles Darwin's 201st birthday on February 12, and International Darwin Day, it's worth reflecting on the big trend about evolution in the US. The situation as a whole is not good
Guest column of Roy Speckhardt, American Humanist Association
Based on the 2006 study, acceptance of the theory of evolution through natural selection is at a low point compared to many other countries. Nearly a third of Americans reject as false the statement that the human race evolved from earlier species of animals.
Compared to Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, France, Japan and other Western countries, where the rejection of evolution hovers around 10% of the population, in the USA the proportion of supporters - these barely reach 15% of Americans compared to 80% of the members of those nations. In the entire survey, only in Turkey was the proportion rejecting the theory of evolution greater than in the USA. Worse, the study shows that the percentage of Americans who are unsure about evolution is growing.
Moreover, science-hostile politicians at the federal, state, and local levels continue to denigrate evolution, mock evolutionists, and in the process try to hide the scientific evidence of evolution in public school science classes. Legislators trying to present the intelligent design that is creationism in sheep's clothing as a theory with equal rights, which competes with the theory of evolution in science classes, and which has also won laws in several states.
When they did not succeed with the intelligent design, they turned to the "learn the controversy" method in which the students learn that there are holes in the theory of evolution but the evidence presented to the students is fake and driven by religious motives.
Of course, in many classrooms where the teachers are conservative and the majority of students are Christian, the study of the controversy simply becomes an excuse to attack the theory of evolution. It is difficult to convince Americans about the strength of the evidence supporting evolution through natural selection, when officials and elected officials interfere with the assimilation of the study in science classes.
However, there is also reason to be optimistic. President Obama has proven to be a pro-science leader, and in particular he has supported evolution. In an interview with the York Daily Record when he was a candidate, Obama answered a question about the study of evolution in schools and said: "I believe that our schools should teach scientific knowledge. I believe in evolution and I believe in the difference between science and faith. This does not make faith less important than science, but only that these are two separate things. I believe it would be a mistake to obscure science studies with theories that do not stand up to scientific investigation."
This year, the American Humanist Association continues the tradition of celebrating Darwin Day. We call on President Obama to show his support for evolution with a presidential proclamation on Darwin Day. Among other things, we suggest that it be written:
"On Darwin's birthday, it is important to recognize the contribution he made to the advancement of science. It is also important that we continue to educate future generations about evolution through natural selection in science classes. We must not diminish the importance of Darwin's theory, and the wealth of evidence supporting it. We must repel attempts to downplay the value of science so that we can preserve in our children and grandchildren the wonder of scientific discovery and the desire to gain knowledge."
If President Obama were to recognize Darwin Day, a day when people come together to celebrate the life and work of this great man and enshrine scientific progress, it would send a strong message to the world that Americans are getting back on the side of science.
Our proposed statement calls on all Americans to preserve science as the cornerstone of our society and celebrate Darwin Day with events and activities. We also call on all Americans to resist the intrusion of religion into science classes. Action is thinking today more than ever. A wrong study of evolution sends a message that not only the theory of evolution is flawed but that all science is undermined if it does not fit a certain ideology. Trying to provide our children with the best scientific education will create future generations who are ignorant and cannot compete in the global marketplace of ideas.
192 תגובות
And of course at least one more type of man developed - the Neanderthal.
Unfortunately this type of man became extinct because a handful of living Neanderthals was enough to collapse the claims of the idiots (who curiously ignore dead Neanderthals).
Hello Camille.
The holes are not in Darwin's theory but in the Israeli education system which is careful and teaches evolution as if it were walking on eggs. Unfortunately, only those who take five units in biology really learn what evolution is, and even that, you'll be surprised to hear, is an option. It's like when we learn English we will only learn its basic grammar if we take five units.
And this was until Dr. Gabi Avital took office.
The question of when we became aware has many answers, probably it is not only in the transition from monkeys to humans but much earlier. Even dogs, for example, are self-aware and belong to a different track of mammalian evolution. In answer to the question of why exactly one type of human capable of writing evolved, one can also ask why only one type of giraffe with a long neck evolved. Every living thing has some quality that a little cultivation of it helped it to survive. And again - humans are able to write but chimpanzees and especially bonobos are able to communicate in sign language or by pressing buttons.
Conscience also developed gradually, when nature tried, and still tries to this day, to bring into the world both those with a conscience and those without a conscience, and each time other hands have the upper hand.
But there are holes in Darwin's theory!
When did we become self-aware and how?
Why did only one type of "man" develop capable of writing the way he does?
Where did the conscience come from?
And many more questions that even as a secular person are not clear to me from the theory of evolution.
It is worth noting that I read about this in the wonderful series of articles on artificial intelligence written by Israel Benjamin in Galileo
What a beauty!
At Cornell University, they opened an "automated scientist" that works with an evolutionary method:
http://ccsl.mae.cornell.edu/eureqa
http://ccsl.mae.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/Science09_Schmidt.pdf
You made a fair and logical argument but I am not ready to continue this argument. I don't want to argue with myself
or on you
Ghost:
Well, we have reached the psychological analysis.
This is the miracle solution of those who are not ready to deal with factual claims.
1. How do you think I know what I know? (Note! That was a question!)
2. Do you think it's because I didn't ask questions? (another question!)
In fact, I also asked you some questions in my previous response.
It turns out that the real situation is that you don't want to give answers and not that I don't want to ask questions.
Michael, with all due respect, you're a hater who doesn't like to ask questions, and it's probably because you are
Think you are smarter than others. Maybe you really are a little smarter than others but not in everything
There are things that others understand a little more than you even if they are less intelligent than you.
As you asked, I stop the debate, and this is my opinion.
It's been a week and you're still feeding the dogs?
People, *don't feed the dossies!*
Ghost:
Enough!
When someone talks about something and expects people to understand what he is talking about and relate to him, he needs to define what he is talking about.
When scientists talk about dark matter they know what they are talking about.
They don't know all its properties but they know they are talking about the same thing that causes the effects of galaxy rotation and gravitational pull in a way that contradicts the laws of nature if one doesn't assume the existence of another factor.
When talking about a specific thing - it is possible to cooperate in conversation and research.
It is not true that you need a special authority to define - everyone is qualified and even must define the things he is talking about if he wants to be understood. When someone else understands what the speaker meant he can argue that a better definition for the same thing should be based on other words but even that he cannot do if the speaker is not willing to define his meaning.
If God is equivalent to "everything" then why do you need the word "God"? Is the word "everything" not enough? Do you feel an irresistible urge to confuse your listeners?
Why not willing to set? prepared! The thing is, who am I to decide? I can only make a claim
Which to me seems the most logical and as I understand it.
I'm learning what God is, like scientists today are learning what dark matter is.
If I really knew what God is I would explain (but it doesn't make sense).
I can't explain because I'm still trying to figure out what it is (and probably will learn it for the rest of my life).
Until now the opinion I have formed is that God is equal to everything. (Although in the definition of everything is also included
The concept of an entity, but I don't see God as any entity - although that makes sense too - in his image we were created,
That's why I still have questions.
This is the shortest and clearest description I can come up with at the moment.
I think that there is the way that man explains God and it is a very narrow and limited way.
And there is the way of the Tanach which explains much better but there are still limitations that the book cannot
to explain, because it is a book, and in such a case a person is turned to explain the scripture, but as I said
Man's explanation is very limited.
In my opinion the religions attribute to God the meaning you are talking about for the reason I mentioned
In response 175 (when I talked about bringing people closer to religion by force). The true meaning of God
It is written in Tanach and it is very complicated to understand the meaning.
On the other hand, you refute the existence of God, and I do not understand how it is possible to refute or prove
the existence
By the way, I noticed that you like the word "beep" - what is it?
Ghost:
I have precisely defined the God that I claim does not exist and this is the God that the Torah refers to, the same God who is omnipotent and omniscient (and is probably not wrong and is also able to correct if someone makes a mistake in writing) dictated according to the Jewish religion.
God does not exist.
In the interpretation I said that the question of its existence depends on its definition so that it is not correct to claim that nothing will convince me that it does not exist. What will decide if I agree that it exists or not is its definition. If God is a box of corn - he exists. If it is nature and energy (which is included in nature and there is no need to specify it) and everything (which is not defined at this moment) then my opinion on its existence or non-existence will depend on your definition of "everything".
Do you allow yourself to talk about a term that you are not ready to define and expect people to form an opinion about it?
Can you even explain what reason you have to use the word "God" in a different meaning than the religions attribute to it? Maybe use the word beep? That way at least there will be no confusion.
I did not claim that when someone says A, he means B.
Nor did I claim that someone is hiding one or another truth from you and not revealing it.
What I said is that those people's interpretation of God is wrong (in my opinion).
I did not claim that God is nature. I argued that God is both nature and energy and everything together.
The fact that the rabbit does not rummage does not mean that God does not exist. (Even if you think he wrote the Torah)
At most it can be a mistake (that the rabbit rummages) but not a refutation of the existence of God.
Do you deny its existence based, among other things, on things you understood from the rabbis? And maybe those rabbis themselves
Don't understand what they are talking about?
Nothing I say will convince you that God exists, it's like proving to Ron or his ilk
the fact that evolution is true.
I talked about this in response 173
Besides, if you're tired of this argument, I can understand you. I'm tired of it too. And not just me…
Ghost:
The truth is you just tire me out and I feel like my time is being wasted.
As one who does not meet the conditions he himself set for understanding the word God, you should not be talking about God.
You do this because you know these are not serious conditions.
I don't think Baba Sully was a genius and I don't know (just like you don't know) how he interpreted the word God.
If he interpreted it differently from other people, he could not use it in a way that they would understand him and in general - how do you know how this or that person interprets a certain word? Only through the way he explains the word.
Claiming that he explains "A" but means "B" is just bullshit.
When I say there is no God - I'm talking about the God the rabbis talk about (not the one they think about but don't reveal to anyone).
Once someone comes up with a different definition I can address it.
I have already said that if someone defines God as yellow cheese there is no doubt that I will agree with his claim that God exists (but of course I will ask him why he decided to call yellow cheese "God" and if he is one of those rabbis I will also ask him why he defined God differently until this moment).
When I say that an omnipotent and omniscient God who created the world and dictated the Torah in which it is written that the rabbit raises rumen does not exist - I am clearly basing myself on science and rightly so. After all, the rabbit does not rummage and this disproves the claim of the existence of God mentioned above.
When someone comes and says that God is nature (a claim that in my opinion is equivalent to the claim that God is yellow cheese) I say "Ok, God really exists but do me a favor and let's continue to use the word nature because the word God is only misleading"
Michael
First of all, I don't understand much about theology (as well as the other subjects) and my opinion about God (as already
I wrote before - similar to Spinoza's description of God. I mean I personally think about God
As everything, as nature, as energy which is the sum of all the energies in the universe together and even more than that I will answer what else
not known to us).
You wrote: You say that the rabbis use the word as I use it to explain to people who don't understand - so what happens after the rabbis explain to them? They use the word just like me.
exactly.
All these people don't understand God on the level that Baba Sali and the Rambam and all that understood
other geniuses. That is why their interpretation of God is wrong. Few understand the meaning
God's real one (and I don't pretend to be one of those people, I'm trying to understand those people
and formulates my own interpretation).
And because Jewish studies in the world today (that's how I think and not relying on an examination) are deteriorating
They will answer that there is more assimilation of Jews, there is more escape from religion to secularism, so of course he understands
What God is is far for them, so they accept an interpretation that is most convenient for their understanding.
An interpretation that is wrong.
And once again with all due respect Michael (and much respect to you) this is what I am talking about in response 173
When you say there is no God you act just like a devout religious, but from the other side of the fence.
You wrote: Until today - the only way that the human race has found to distinguish the truth from the lie is through science.
So you think God is a false statement? Based on what? About science? How can it be refuted?
Are you a scientist??
Ghost:
I do not accept your words for several reasons.
One is that you yourself use the word God without having dealt with religion all your life (if only because you have not yet lived your whole life).
Words are meant for communication and a word that no one understands cannot be used for that purpose.
The second is that the things are really clarified in the holy books in an explicit way.
You say that the rabbis use the word as I use it to explain to people who don't understand - so what happens after the rabbis explain to them? They use the word just like me.
Language is a collection of conventions and since most people use the word God in a certain meaning (which is also written in the holy books) then this is the meaning of the word and all the other meanings that are trying to attach to it (and in my opinion the meaning you are trying to attach to it does not even exist and certainly is not known to you) are confusions of the mind.
I said that a situation in which science is wrong and religion is right is not possible - not because I don't believe in God, but because in religion the claims are plucked from the finger (at best) and in science they are based on experiment and orderly logic. It has nothing to do with my belief or disbelief in God and I explained that too.
How would you explain the flying spaghetti monster if it exists?
It's a meaningless question because it doesn't exist and it won't exist even if billions of people believe it.
To this day - the only way that the human race has found in order to distinguish the truth from the lie is through science.
Any claim to the truth of something that has not passed the scientific test is a meaningless claim because, as mentioned, apart from science we have no way to find out the truth.
I also wanted to add that, like science, new interpretations are added with each discovery
So also God in each "generation and generation" is interpreted in a slightly different way to make it clearer to understand.
And I'm not inventing new interpretations.
Michael
I think that the interpretation you attribute to God in religion is the same interpretation that the rabbis explain
For people who do not understand religion or find it difficult to understand. They explain it in simpler language
Make it easy to understand. In my opinion the interpretation is partly incorrect, in my opinion the interpretation
God's truth can only be understood by man himself after he has read the Tanach
and was involved in religion all his life (and even then he will not understand one hundred percent what God is).
You can't read a few books in your Bible and think that you understand what God is, what are you Baba Sally?
I'm sure he didn't know everything about God either (maybe about the Bible yes, but not God).
Don't get me wrong I'm not defending religion or science and I'm not trying to convert anyone.
I brought religion into the debate just as an example.
You wrote that it is not possible for science to be wrong and religion to be right.
I guess because you don't believe in God then you made such an argument.
Because otherwise how will you explain God on the assumption that he does exist? With the help of science? No! with the help of religion.
And the interpretation that the rabbis give about God for meddling in the world, in my opinion, is to
To bring people closer to religion by force so that the rabbis and the like have the power to control them (for example to control a people
to lead a state, after all, there was no democracy in the Land of Israel at that time)
And it makes perfect sense assuming that's how it was used in those times.
Ghost:
When religion makes significant claims about the world - then if science comes to a different conclusion - science is right and religion is wrong (theoretically it is also possible otherwise but with zero probability and it has never happened).
Science deals with reality and therefore never talks about things that have nothing to do with reality.
Therefore, a situation where science is wrong and religion is right is not possible.
A God defined by various religions is a God who intervenes in the world (and for example dictates a book in which nonsense is written about the world). There is no such God.
You say there is a God but you don't use the word to describe the same thing that religion talks about.
About the God you mean - religion does not speak either.
There is an interesting phenomenon here in which the religions invented the term God and gave it a certain meaning, and then all kinds of people come who want to defend the religions by inventing a new interpretation of the word God - one that the religion did not intend at all and they do not understand that by doing so they are not defending the religion but only obscuring it the language
Michael
that's what I'm talking about.
When science claims the things you mentioned (a rabbit ruminates, etc.) that are not true, in this case
Science is right, but it is only a part of religion, it is by definition not the whole religion.
In the same situation when the Jewish religion states that there is a God and explains him in the scriptures, in this case
The religion is right because it is possible to logically understand why God exists (provided that those who have read and read the Torah understand it well). But even here the explanation is partial because science cannot prove or disprove God.
That is why the atheist scientists 'run away' from religion because they do not find unequivocal answers in it.
And the devout religious do not believe in science because it is unable to explain God, and all
An argument against God sounds absurd to them.
There is a difference between the two sides, but as I wrote, the difference is in the wording of the written content
One writes there is no God because so and so and the other writes there is a God because so and so, regardless
in each other's claims. (Not you, you are actually thoughtful and I noticed that you bring arguments
Make sense, but on the other hand, argue with a billion or more religious people in the world).
In my opinion, the question of whether science is right or religion is right or not is irrelevant because both sides are right
Partially and partially wrong, and from this point of view I don't see a (real) difference between them.
That is, in my opinion science is right but not in everything and so is religion right but not in everything because it is impossible to prove
Or to disprove God and it is impossible to know how life was created and it is not known if my sons really came out
Israel from Egypt (although there are all kinds of proofs) and it is not known whether the Higgs boson exists or not
(Although there are all kinds of proofs).
At least in my eyes science and religion do not complement each other but add to the experience of life
And to the level of human knowledge, to deny one of them is, in my opinion, absurd.
Bioinformatics:
Well, that's really funny.
I said exactly what it was about. You asked for a reference because you realized that it undermines your claims. Now - because you got a reference - you are trying to disqualify it based on what I said in advance even before you asked for a reference.
First of all - you should know that any chemical identification of products is based on the matching of a lock to a key - this is also true in the case of single cells. That's how chemistry works. Both the drugs kill bacteria by fitting a key to the lock and the neurotransmitters in the brain are picked up by the dendrites in such a fit and some drugs - again - work by fitting another "key" to the "lock".
In fact, a huge part of biochemistry is like this.
Besides - when you are told that it works in a single cell system - what wiring and processing center were you looking at?
I repeat: You realized that this undermines your claim already when I said the things at the beginning.
You postponed the end by asking for a reference.
Now - the end has come but you refuse to wait.
So I read the link... there is no association there with the olfactory system. The fact that receptors react to different chemicals is not new to me. The olfactory receptor fits like a lock to the key to the smell molecule. The link has nothing to do with any smell molecules, not to mention their wiring and processing center.
Bioinformatics:
You're probably just not reading what's in front of your eyes.
Read the link at the end of response 162
Michael-
I asked for a link that proves that there is a simple olfactory system as you described, and you gave me a link to the "evolution of the Shotton". Does this make sense to you?
Ghost:
But if religion claims that the rabbit ruminates or that the Euphrates and the Tigris come out of the same point or that lice are created from human sweat while science claims that all of this is not true - is there no difference between those who claim that science is right in its claims and religion is not and those who claim the opposite?
Bioinformatics:
In short - you are able to see a comment that has a link to a detailed reference of what I said and then claim that there is no reference.
sweet Dreams.
I noticed that the links that Ron brings are from websites that if we compare them to newspapers then it will be possible
To say that the sites are "yellow" would answer "tabloids".
Michael
I don't really know you but from my impression of you I understand that you are a very educated person
And not religious, and I don't claim that you are a "scientist" in quotes, I attributed that to others and I meant scientists.
I don't know if you are a scientist or not. And the intention was not that you specifically said nonsense about religion.
The things you say about religion (and back up the claims) seem logical to me.
I just wanted to make it clear that to me there is no difference between people who claim that science is right and religion is not
Or vice versa that religion is right and science is not.
But what I really can't understand is that I won't break my head and try to understand
People like Ron for example, that's how there are people like that who don't even bother to understand even what is presented
They face facts.
In short, Michael, there is no evidence for the claim you made. You just threw out unfounded arguments (olfactory system with only a receptor? I really don't think so).
And to be more specific - a small protein like globin consists of 150 amino acids and the chance that it will be formed at once is approximately one in 150x20 (the number of types of amino acids multiplied by the number of acids that make up the protein), which is much higher than the number of atoms in the universe, so 14 billion A year of mutations is the threshold of nothing. And I'm talking here about the level of the individual protein, if you reduce it, it will not be able to transfer oxygen, so it is impossible to believe that it evolved from a simpler protein. That is, even if we take a single protein that performs a specific activity (in this case - oxygen transfer) it Still above and beyond what evolution is capable of creating.
to the frinks-
Too bad your basic assumption is that these enzymes were not designed.
The basic premise for something as complex as enzymes is that they were designed, and not created naturally. After all, the same complexity also exists in a television clock, so the basic premise is that they were designed. Until proven otherwise. The evolutionary claim is that it takes millions of years. And as mentioned, even 14 billion years is a little for a protein One is a fool.
Bioinformatics:
It is important that you understand that even if I could not so far refute each and every claim of yours - there was no truth in your claims.
Obviously we don't know everything and it is possible that one day you will make a nonsensical claim that I cannot prove is nonsensical but it will still remain just an invention without any factual backing.
The solution of rational people to a situation of lack of knowledge is to keep researching.
The solution for people like you is to plug the gaps in knowledge with the god of the gaps or with an alien equivalent (by the way - I heard that the flying spaghetti monster is actually very suitable for plugging holes because spaghetti is flexible and sticky).
Ghost:
I hope you don't define me as a "scientist" (with quotation marks) and you don't claim that I say nonsense about religion
Please clarify your words and if you think I said some nonsense about religion - please point to it.
Bioinformatics:
The link on the joke is against the joke you wrote on the subject.
Regarding the second matter - you are welcome to read or continue to ignore the facts and "wait"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotaxis
I have been reading the correspondence on this topic for some time now, and I must say that this discussion fascinates me...
I will warn and say that from the beginning I came to this discussion with prejudices (anti-creationism) and in the meantime I have not even found a single opinion that would convince me. And I doubt if she will ever convince me, since I am an atheist.
In addition to being an atheist, I believe that the very existence of a phylogenetic tree disproves the claim that creatures were created "from nothing", since all the branches of the tree are linked in an incredibly precise way, when every phenomenon has an ancient explanation.
In my opinion, it makes sense that from a statistical point of view such complex organisms would be created, since the time period is extremely significant, and there is no shadow of a doubt that mutations exist in nature.
Attaching to technical details is unnecessary, in my opinion, since there is no need to observe things as they are today, but rather the need that caused their creation back then.
No need to apologize
The movie is full of lies...
It's just so well built that it's hard not to agree with it. It was allowed to say that the only problem with the film is simply that most of the facts there are incorrect or just speculation
Please confirm my response.
Thanks
The responses of people who believe in religion and say nonsense about science are similar in content but different in wording
From the comments of "scientists" who say nonsense about religion.
I really don't see a difference between these people, because both sides are right in some of their words
And in another part they are wrong.
The question of which of them is more right is probably irrelevant. Still, I tend to agree with what he said
Michael because he backs up his claims in the most logical way, while the religious probably don't understand that much
What are they claiming and therefore unable to stand behind their words.
Michael-
"And also to understand that the sense of smell is such an ancient sense that it existed in single cells long before any nervous system was created in the world." -Sense of smell in single cells? Is it possible to provide a reference for this primitive olfactory system? (I hope this time you back it up with a reference)
"It is a chemical interaction with the environment that caused the bacteria to move towards food and escape from poison.
There's nothing" - and how does this relate to the link you brought to Shoton? Do you have a link to the most primitive olfactory system based on the purity of the receptors? I'd love to see, I'm waiting...
Michael, that language again? – Stupid 🙂
I noticed that you really like to bring links from Wikipedia
Maybe the name they chose for him that suggests an encyclopedia gives him an appearance of heaviness and weight
Please note
Wikipedia is a very effective tool for implementing an agenda
Get a topical and very rough taste
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119745
Annie sides with the film Zeitgeist.
Sorry
that's it! I found where Ron gets his ideas from!
Don't know if he gave this link at some point, but if so it must be lost among all the other links he gave...
This is a very sophisticated method of telling the truth and other facts known to everyone and then adding more information that is not necessarily true. The next film is really excellent in all these methods and in general it is very fascinating. forced in the heat. Before that I really didn't understand what motivates all the conspirators and how the hell they are so stupid. It sounds really inhumane to me to go against all the facts. Now I understand this movie almost and stole me too. Well done to them for the effort...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=30520153323173669#
(there is also part 2 of the movie on the right)
Ron, you have to understand that the purpose of the creators of this film is to make money and the fact that they were not murdered (something that had to be read according to their theory)... in any case, I really enjoyed it...
how boring!
I am not returning to the stupid discussion, but I suggest that the participants in it read a few things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum#Evolution_of_flagella_and_debate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella
And also to understand that the sense of smell is such an ancient sense that it existed in single cells long before any nervous system was created in the world.
It is a chemical interaction with the environment that caused the bacteria to move towards food and escape from poison.
It's alright.
For bioinformatics (151):
Again, these are excellent questions.
in which we do not underestimate them.
Friends, it seems to us that we are losing a little focus. That's why I will try to show the difficulty in the form of questions-
a) What survival benefit was there in the appearance of a receptor without the other components of odor processing?
b) What survival benefit was there in the appearance of the other components without a receptor?
If there was no use in them, we would never reach such a system in an evolutionary step. Indeed, there is no use for a receptor without a processing mechanism (think of the value of a molecule that just sits up her nose).
Bioinformatics (148):
If you would show me in what sense your explanation is simpler, I would probably be convinced of the explanation.
The natural evolutionary explanation contains many questions, although it confirms itself both in terms of its predictions and in simulations that show that complexity can indeed be created from simpler rules.
"We have shown that complex systems cannot be created gradually" Who showed this? Nature shows us in countless cases the exact opposite (I return to my question, how was the solar system formed? Why do you answer this question with "I don't know"? After all, you supposedly have a simple explanation (which, by the way, can be used as an explanation for everything you don't know))
Your explanation contains immeasurably large questions. If I gave you a large research grant that would last you 30 years, please tell me how you would start researching the origin of life? Where would you allocate your research resources? Would you send spaceships into space to search for aliens? What observations would confirm your claims that there was or still is an intelligent being roaming the universe and spreading life? In what sense is this explanation simpler?
bioinformatics,
You cling to the clock model like a drowning man clinging to a straw, and in doing so only prove a basic lack of understanding of the concept of evolution.
In your example, you come out of a finished product, and wonder how you could have gotten there without intelligent planning beforehand.
This is where your lack of understanding lies. We designed the watch in advance for a specific purpose.
Whoever built the watch knew in advance what he wanted to produce.
In evolution there is no planning in advance, and there is no direction. Evolution "didn't intend" to produce Shotton, and it didn't "intend" to produce humans.
These are the results of a long and protracted process, the only direction of which is the adaptation to the changing environmental constraints.
Different environmental constraints would have caused differences in the results.
Going back to your (unsuccessful) example, after a few billion years, replicating matter teeming with mutations and natural selection has evolved into a vast variety of life forms, as we see around us today.
The products of the process are much more complicated and complex than your watch, but they were not created by planning in advance, nor by setting a goal in advance!
My main argument is that if evolution claims that by a mechanism of inheritance + mutations complex systems will be created, and we have shown that complex systems cannot be created gradually, then the theory is wrong and they were created all at once. How can we know that there is no use for each part individually? Good question, so I gave a simple explanation. Is there any benefit to separate clock parts? If we were to put a piece of replicating material and let it sizzle with mutations and natural selection for millions of years, would we eventually get a clock? I guess your answer would be no. If so, why do you assume this process happened in the bacterial cell for example?
You are absolutely right about the fact that if there was no survival benefit to the parts individually it would make the evolutionary explanation very difficult. How can it be proven that there was no such benefit?
As mentioned, the benefits vary according to the environment, different environments dictate different benefits. The fact that today we do not see a benefit does not mean that it has always been this way. Indeed, there are many questions for science to investigate here (as I said, I am not an expert).
I'm not sure what you mean by "fine tune". There are indeed many systems in nature whose balance between its various parts is extremely delicate (I gave examples of some of them).
"In any case, there is no product of replication and natural selection here, so the mechanism is different and not relevant to our example"
I thought you were looking for an alternative explanation to replication and natural selection that would explain the formation of complex systems. You claim that these principles are not enough to explain the complexity, right?
Well I showed that complex systems can also be created by natural processes and simpler principles to explain them.
At what point does complexity become so complex that it needs to be created by an intelligent being?
Why is your claim not valid for any complicated system?
"This means that there is the possibility that certain parts of the system had a different "role" during evolution." - Okay, again - these components *need* to have some survival significance, individually. And if there is no survival benefit for each part individually, then no evolutionary step to create A system consisting of components abc. What survival benefit does the receptor have on its own? What survival benefit does the odor processing mechanism have on its own? The answer is that there is no benefit.
Regarding the solar system:
What "value" do the stars have in the solar system? Was it also created by an intelligent being?" - I don't know. I'm not well versed in physics (but I'm sure you've heard of the term fine tune that is common among many physicists)
In any case, there is no product of replication and natural selection here, so the mechanism is different and not relevant to our example.
For bioinformatics (143):
The examples I gave are indeed not biological. My purpose in giving examples of complex systems that are not biological is to emphasize the fact that when we come to examine a complex system ("non-discharge" according to your definition) of any kind (biological or non-biological), we have no reason to assume a priori that it was created by an intelligent being. How does the complexity of the solar system differ from that of the "olfactory bulb" (forgive me but I am not familiar with the intricacies of the olfactory system so I cannot go deeper into this example)?
When I talked about objects not having a role per se, this meant that there was the possibility that certain parts of the system had a different "role" during evolution.
Regarding the solar system:
What "value" do the stars have in the solar system? Was she also created by an intelligent being?
My Dingling
http://overcompensating.com/posts/20070615.html
Lisa - I didn't understand how this belongs to biological systems. The sense of smell, for example, is processed only when there are at least 3 components: an odor receptor, a neuron that connects to the olfactory bulb and a mechanism that processes the smell and translates it. These 3 components are 3 proteins each hundreds of amino acids long. There is no The survival benefit of the olfactory receptor, if there is no wiring to the processing mechanism, and without the smell processing mechanism itself. This is an inexhaustible system. So you basically want to say that the above 3 components were simply worthless to the organism until they accumulated in an integrated system that only in the end created the sense of smell, I understand right?
Bioinformatics (141):
Well, the purpose in bringing these examples of systems from nature (natural rainbows and the solar system) is as follows:
These systems have no "goal" and no "role". We as humans see them as something unusual (and indeed these are very "unlikely" structures) but this does not mean that someone intelligent created them. Instead the formation of the systems can be explained by simpler principles.
The example you gave is a good example. You say: In the beginning there was an arch without any purpose. At a later stage it was used beyond cats, now it is his "goal". This is a beautiful analogy to what happens in nature in many systems, they get a "role" according to the context in which they are found. The environment defines the "goals" - what is "good" and what is "bad". And when the environment changes, so do the "roles".
The "role" of an object is not a physical property of the object but of the environment
Lisa, indeed, looking back, I seem to have understood differently from you, Suri.
And,
If the formation of a natural arch gradually depended on natural selection. And if the arch was used retrospectively for a purpose (let's say a bridge for cats over a dangerous river) that would have been canceled if any part was missing, then yes, it was also an inextricable system.
For bioinformatics (139):
"Okay. At least we understood that he is intelligent" I don't remember understanding such a thing.
As for the examples I gave, I chose them carefully. They meet the definition of the island of discharge as I understood it from you. They are also aimed at my question - what is the "function of a system"?
Lisa-
We both apparently agree that there is a mechanism that creates the complex thing we are examining. The next step is to find out what (or who) it is. "-Okay. At least we understood that he is intelligent. I personally have no interest in understanding who the specific person is who created the watch in my hand.
Regarding non-degradability - it is better to focus on a clearer example, for example a watch or a car. It is more relevant to biological systems. Maybe I will rephrase the definition - an indegradable system is a system that if we remove a component from it it will cease to function. If we remove the hand of a watch it will not show the time. If we remove a screw as above. If we remove the battery as above, etc.
For bioinformatics (135):
"If I show you a straight watch, you will conclude that it has a maker, even without seeing it."
I agree.
"Who he is or what he is is irrelevant to the question we are trying to find out - whether he needs a creator or not."
I actually think that who is or what is "the" question. We both apparently agree that there is a mechanism that creates the complex thing we are looking at. The next step is to find out what (or who) it is.
"An inextricable system is a system that consists of components that are dependent on each other, that are aimed at a common purpose and that a lack of one of the parts will cause the system to be invalid."
Thank you for the clarification. With your permission, I have more questions:
What is the "purpose" of a system? What is the "purpose" of each part of the system? When does she become "disabled"?
What is the mechanism that determines these purposes?
Let's look at natural arches:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_arch
Do they have a purpose?
I guess you will agree that without the supporting columns this system will also change its shape. Will she become disabled?
For a slightly more complex example, you can look at the solar system. Does she also need a creator?
To the site administrators - it would be very easy if you didn't monitor the comments.
Bioinformatics:
so you said
It's not true, but it's true.
Yes, the truth is I got tired too...wink wink
Michael-
As far as I'm concerned, all your questions have been answered and it feels like water grinding to me. That's why I'll focus on the main argument: you said-
"Therefore - if the clock has inextricable complexity (and I think this is indeed the case) it will not be created in small, advantageous steps.
But - as mentioned - this does not say anything about the life in which inextricable complexity has never been discovered" - it is far-fetched. Almost every gene is inextricable. In other words, thousands of inextricable systems exist in your body. Much more than just a clock.
Lisa-
If I show you a straight watch, you will conclude that it has a maker, even without seeing it. Who it is or what it is is irrelevant to the question we are trying to find out - whether it needs a maker or not.
An inextricable system is a system that consists of interdependent components that aim at a common purpose. And the lack of one of the parts will cause the system to be disabled. The bacterial shuttle is like that. The atp turbine is like that. today in the world), shows that he found a system that has several parts similar to those in Shotton. He did not show that the parts of Shotton can be functional by themselves, but in cooperation with several other proteins they form another system, called ttss (bacterial injection system). It's like claiming that a car is an intermediate stage Between an airplane and a bicycle. Both have similar components in common: wheels, axles, screws, etc. However, it is not possible to gradually get from a car to an airplane. After all, an airplane requires some unique components that do not exist in a car. Therefore, it is not possible to get from a car to an airplane, or from an injection system to a shaft, or from a rabbit For an elephant, or a clock for a flute...
Ron:
There is no contradiction in what I said, but your lack of understanding really bores me.
The contradiction is in your words Michael:
Because your position -can- be rational only if you accept the findings of the intervention theory - that it shows the correct data, the correct facts on Earth.
The exercise you do with this is only mental - because just accepting the idea of aliens - is a huge discovery in itself
And of course you accept that they have solutions that we think are impossible such as - the flight distance solution, that is, your theory of evolution that does not fit the earth is at best the theory that the earth is flat
Lisa:
Note: although this is the expression I used, it is not about an indecomposable structure but an indecomposable complexity.
It's something else entirely.
The term is very common in debates with creationists.
A structure with inextricable complexity is a structure that, just as they said here in our creation - cannot be reached by small steps, each of which carries an advantage.
The idea is that this is the type of steps in evolution - when a certain mutation multiplies to the point of affecting the species it is a result of the fact that it gives its subjects an advantage. Mutations that do not confer an advantage will not become the property of a sufficiently large part of the population and will not accumulate to create new species.
The structure I described is of inextricable complexity and therefore an evolutionary algorithm will not be able to discover it.
All the random placements of three knives are equal to each other except for placing them in the configuration I described, therefore not a single random placement constitutes "progress" towards the goal compared to others.
The only way for such a structure to be obtained in an evolutionary process is pure luck, the probability of which is zero.
Therefore, if you see such a structure you can conclude with high certainty that it was designed.
That's why creationists love the term so much.
The problem is that they have never been able to find in nature a structure whose complexity is inextricable.
They tried to point out all kinds of such structures (like the eye, for example) but in all cases it was proven that there are ways to reach the final structure through a series of small changes, each of which is beneficial and they add up to the desired change.
To Mr. Roschild (130):
Well we need a definition of what discharges are. After all, your explanation of the structure you describe consists of several components. Is an indecomposable structure one that cannot be broken down into components? Is it one that is created in stages?
When I refer to the formation of life as a freak thing, I am definitely talking about a process that I can describe using simpler principles (like the knives in the example you gave). When you described the structure to me in your answer, you "deconstructed" it into simpler components and even described to me the process by which the structure was created.
There are many structures in nature that resemble the structure you describe like crystals. Are they "unbreakable"?
Ron:
I'm not wrong.
You say that all the research is taking a different direction - that's true - it goes to explain how the aliens evolved naturally and the only natural way known to us is evolution.
Your positions lack any internal logic and it really surprises me that you continue to cling to them.
This story of "who teaches" is also ridiculous.
And if you saw me as a teacher - so what? Would you accept my words then? If these are your considerations then you are really a lost cause. I never accepted my teacher's words before realizing that they were true (and sometimes I came to the conclusion that they were not true and put my teacher in the wrong).
According to your approach to teachers - the last thing I would want to happen is for you to see me as a teacher.
The first thing I'd like to see happen is for you to finally start making sense.
Lisa:
There are unbreakable structures.
There are even very simple non-decomposable structures.
Suppose you want to bridge the heads of three bottles taped to the table on the vertices of an equilateral triangle using three knives at your disposal.
Let's say that the distance between the head of one bottle and another is slightly greater than the length of the knife.
I guess you can imagine how this can be done by combining the knives in the center of the triangle so that knife 1 rests on 2, 2 rests on 3 and 3 rests on 1.
It is a stable structure that meets the requirement. Can you describe to you a process in which this structure was created in stages and without external support?
And let's assume that an external support is provided that is removed later - given such support, does the combination of the knives in the way I described have an advantage? (It should be remembered that we are not talking about an advantage gained by understanding in advance the next step but about a "blind watchmaker").
That is why there are indecomposable structures.
Life is just not structured like that.
Further to 128:
Correction - Bioinformatics (126)
For bioinformatics (127):
Well, regarding the watch, first of all I am definitely not able to make a watch (maybe this is my personal limitation). If I research and study the subject maybe I will succeed.
I believe that all complexity is "unpacking" (maybe you could provide a definition of what is unpacking complexity? At what point does complexity become "unpacking").
Regarding the Indonesian watchmaker, it is true that you have never seen him, but I guess you also believe that if you go to Indonesia you will see and hear him. Where should I go to see the creator of the cell (I'll be content with hearing him too)?
Regarding our current inability to create life, this is indeed a valid criticism. When we know how to do this we will really know much more about the process which is currently shrouded in fog. If we look at the history of science, there have been many complexities that seemed "unbreakable". It was once thought that the elements (the "unbreakable") were earth, water, air and fire. Then they thought that the atom (which, as we know, means "unbreakable") is indestructible. Then they realized that the atom is also broken.
The fact that right now there are things we don't know doesn't mean we won't know them forever
Bioinformatics:
You claim that the predictions of evolution have been disproved.
You even claim it happened above.
The fact is, of course, that they were not refuted - not above, not below, not in front or behind or from the side.
The fact that you buy keyboards doesn't really interest me. It's more important to me that you don't succeed in selling them.
Regarding the digestion of the nylon - I hope that one day you will understand what I said about it and then you will be able to relate logically.
Regarding the snake: I also have no reference for the absence of the flying spaghetti monster. Whoever claims that it exists should provide evidence himself. I have no proof that the remains of the legs are not used for reproduction just as I have no proof that they are not used for flight. You claimed something on the subject and you are required to provide evidence.
The synthetic bacterium is a synthetic bacterium (actually one should not exaggerate. I was only talking about synthetic DNA).
Synthetic is one that was made and not one that was taken from somewhere else.
At first they took an existing bacterium and began to reduce its DNA and put the reduced DNA back into it to see if the bacterium still manages to live. This is how they created the smallest DNA string that still manages to live.
Then they produced the same DNA string synthetically from chemical elements and without animal parts.
http://www.jcvi.org/cms/research/projects/chemical-synthesis-of-the-mycoplasma-genitalium-genome/overview/
It is not yet artificial life because it relies on a living cell without DNA into which synthetic DNA is inserted.
Your mess with the watch is just hilarious.
You claim that a way to disprove the lie of creationism is to create a watch that is produced in small, advantageous steps.
Of course it won't disprove anything but you said it would.
The idea behind the proposal that you probably copied from somewhere without realizing it is that the clock is a metaphor for life and therefore - if creationism claims that a creator is needed for life - just as a creator is needed for a clock, then if I succeed in showing that a clock does not need a creator I will prove that creationism's claim about the impossibility of the creation of living beings through evolution is not Correct (I hope that when you got to the end of the sentence you still remember the beginning. From what I've learned about you I'm not sure about that).
An essential part of the idea is that life has inextricable complexity and therefore it can be likened to a watch whose complexity is also inextricable.
The point is that this essential part is nonsense and no one has ever been able to point to something in life that has inextricable complexity (and don't try to sell us that the idea is not inextricable complexity because that is exactly the idea for which we talk about "advantageous small steps").
After all, it is clear to everyone that something of inextricable complexity will not be created in "superior small steps" and no one argues about that.
Therefore - if the watch has inextricable complexity (and I think this is indeed the case) it will not be created in small, advantageous steps.
But - as mentioned - this says nothing about life in which inextricable complexity has never been discovered.
The truth is that the nonsense goes much further than that and it is clear to me that even if someone succeeds in building a clock in small, advantageous steps, the creator will come and claim that it means nothing because we have proved that a clock does not have inextricable complexity, but life still does.
More than that.
If someone even succeeds in creating a human being with small advantageous steps, the Creator will come and say - "So what?! Well, fine, it is possible to create a human being through an evolutionary process, but in practice that is not what happened and that is not how man was created."
Therefore, at biodisinformatics, there is no point in arguing with you and your ilk.
Michael-
"Evolution has predictions." - and they were refuted above.
"Regarding nylon digestion I have already addressed your incorrect reference." - I hope you know what the mechanism of plasmids is.
What you "know" about the snake is not true." - and a reference can be found in?…
The synthetic bacteria is not an animal genome.
Where did you wink that from?! "-They took a genome (something like 400 genes if I remember correctly) of an existing bacterium. Otherwise they would have claimed to create artificial life a long time ago.
"I never claimed that the clock was created by evolution and therefore your proposal to refute it has no validity." - I did not claim that it was. But about an intelligent factor that can change whatever it wants, just like in mutations.
Lisa-
"I ask for an extension that will explain this conclusion.
Does the fact that we don't know how something was created necessarily lead to this conclusion?" - No. But it leads to a very clear premise - someone planned it. Since the same characteristics in the watch, which indicate that it has a creator, are also present in the cell.
"Regarding your explanation that the creator is intelligent. Who is this intelligent? If I ask him he will be able to produce for me (I will provide him with a laboratory if he needs) life from raw products? Have you ever seen him? Have you heard him?"-not relevant to the question of whether the cell requires a creator or not Also a watch that was created in Indonesia - I have never seen or heard of its maker.
Try to answer the question I addressed to Michael - are you, as an intelligent agent, able to create a clock with hands gradually, where each step is useful in itself? When you do this, you will disprove the claim of inexhaustible complexity.
Regarding chromosomal fusion and ring species - there is no concept of inextricable complexity here. Nevertheless - chromosomal fusion apparently occurred after the split. So evidence of common ancestry is probably not.
*"And not that it can grow naturally where it is"
Please ignore this sentence - I do not have the authority to speak from this sentence.
Here you are wrong Michael.
Because if the intervention theory is correct - the direction of the research changes completely
that's what important.
Your example regarding the formation of a bacterium - the evidence excludes some kind of ancestor here on Earth (view the first series of slides) - and not that it cannot grow naturally where it is
I understand that I need to emphasize - I do not see you as a teacher and I do not see myself as your teacher - we exchange ideas - whether you want to discuss/watch or not
Your right to choose is paramount and respected
Ron:
If you don't know why you are wasting my time then I suggest you just stop doing it.
If you don't know how the aliens were created then your theory explains nothing. You and your friends claim that there is not even a natural way for a bacterium to form, but claim that an alien that has traveled impossible distances and is capable of genetically engineering us could actually have formed naturally.
This is of course a contradiction, but it is also not a contradiction.
My answer is that I don't know.
Ron:
Why are you wasting my time with links that don't contain even a hint of an answer to the question I asked you?
To anonymous from comment 115:
Nice link.
I always guessed that there should be such a thing but I couldn't point to verified information on the subject.
If I had the link in the past I would have certainly used it in several debates.
I will try to spare you - if you are interested - the long viewing of the lecture
And I will link directly to an abstract description of what the intervention theory is
And a slide presentation is divided into all parts of the information at the base for impressions
http://www.lloydpye.com/intervention.html
reader:
You haven't understood yet.
Read again.
I can't help but smile when I read Ron's comments 🙂
Every time I discover another layer and something new - I don't believe in evolution, I do believe in aliens who created us...
It's amazing how much time he spends gathering "evidence" to support his beliefs. It seems as if he is well versed in all the conspiracy theories that exist, and since there are endless ones (as Michael mentioned, with the current population of the earth there is no shortage of fools who will throw stones into the lake, embodied by the internet these days) I really don't understand where he gets the time. And no It's enough that he believes in aliens, no, he did extensive research and knows exactly what engine they used. I was sure that such people only exist in American movies 🙂
Mr. Michael Rothschild:
Take a mirror and see that you are using the same dry and withered arguments of those you are fighting against.
The example from YouTube you gave is not a prediction, it is simply one of those adaptations of imagination that exist in everything you look at.
Do matches found using the letter skipping method make an impression on you with their predictive power?!
I think the answer is negative.
So how do you accept from such an argument that a match was found between chromosome 2 and the combination of two chromosomes.
After all, there are a lot of micro combinations like this, it has no meaning at all.
For those who don't know, there are current examples of evolution in action in the form of a ring species:
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99_%D7%98%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%AA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
No, the difference is that the interference theory says that man is a laboratory genetic hybrid between the DNA of the primates
and the DNA of the creatures (in the ancient language - the Anunki) that created this genetic hybrid.
That is, this is not a natural continuity for primates - the primates continued to evolve into something else - similar (not a change of species)
The lecture on the intervention theory gives very strong explanations and examples in my opinion.
I would like to point out that it is a pleasure to read your non-aggressive comments
Lisa:
Well done for your persistence in personal care. At least now you're not even trying to disguise it as something that belongs to something.
Ron:
Not true.
That's not all you claimed.
You claimed that we are not descended from primates. This is true. But you also claimed that we do descend from the primates that the aliens manipulated.
It's okay to claim something and its opposite, but it's also not okay.
I don't know what intervention you are talking about.
You think that man and life at all would not be possible without such an intervention, but you simply ignore that the intervener also has to be created.
Did we say vice versa?
We said but of course we didn't say either.
It's a contradiction but it's also not a contradiction.
Again the word nonsense? 🙂
All I have argued from the beginning is that man's origin is not from the primates
I'm not pushing forcefully - but Darwinist evolution is wrong - and I reject it with the same force that they push it on me.
what yes I don't know for sure at this moment (although the intervention theory makes the most sense to me in light of the findings [see video] regarding the person)
To Mr. Roschild (110):
All it takes to disrespect you is to read your comments.
The very thought that I will be convinced of nonsense demeans me.
Why don't you explain how the aliens were created?
They did solve this problem with an aircraft based on an anti-gravity "engine" - which, of course, allows them to manipulate time and distance, and the existence of warp holes.
Without learning the material it sounds like a fantasy - but it is very well-founded, to your surprise.
I don't want to burden this post,
However - if you wish - to know once and for all, what it is about (know the enemy..?)
Read one article (over 2500 entries) that I participated in collecting the material for
About the extraterrestrials - testimonies and evidence
http://www.emetaheret.org.il/?p=2284
And the intervention theory is explained in one video (albeit from 1999 and there are updates
but explains and demonstrates very well)
http://tinyurl.com/InterventionTheory
I answered you without disrespecting you.
Ron:
Who is talking about floods!!!
The truth is that of all those who suffer from evolution denial syndrome, the strangest are those who are not creationists and at the same time say that it had to be sped up by aliens because life is too complex otherwise.
Of course, this requires the formation of those aliens who are obviously much more complex than humans and also solved physical problems that, as far as we know today, are not solvable at all (such as interstellar movement in reasonable times) and all this in less time than it took for humans to form.
I can guess that for those people the process by which the aliens were created (a non-evolutionary process, of course) is called #!@#^&T&%
Life was intelligently developed by aliens
The DNA of all the variety of life on earth contains their stamp
DNA contains encrypted and hidden information that cannot be changed
Changing this information will cause it to disappear.
The aliens bombarded the universe with capsules of germs driven by the gravitational force of a black hole.
A process designed to spontaneously create intelligent beings on the planets.
The range of options that can be obtained from DNA is quite limited and finite.
Although it seems to us that the entire process of evolution was created through natural selection.
We will most likely get the same variety of life on other planets as well.
Thanks for the flood Michael
Would you mind me uploading material here that shows that Darwin was a racist and more?
Will that change your mind?
Probably not.
So let's get down from this tree.
Please accept my long response which concludes for me
Ron:
As I said - I see no point in making an effort for you.
A conspiracy troll remains a conspiracy troll.
Here are some free links on the antisemitism of the antisemitism:
http://www.euroculturemaster.org/pdf/IpPapers0809/group6/2-Dervoz-Armin-OL-KR.pdf
http://www.kuwi.euv-frankfurt-o.de/de/lehrstuhl/vs/politik3/Dokumente/lehre/Michaela_Gr__n_NY_END.pdf
http://www.inlogov.bham.ac.uk/seminars/minor_parties/pdfs/Rekawek.pdf
http://isp.org.pl/files/11297950200606281001164194296.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA336106&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
Michael, I didn't ask you to make an effort for me - I don't see you as my educator.
In the document in bioinformatics brought by 700 + scientists I saw no connection between it and creationism
And the very fact (similar to the false global warming) that scientists are forced to reach the point of signing petitions in order to be heard - demonstrates the silencing of the academic establishment
A quote from one of the seals
"I found it important to sign this statement because I believe intellectual freedom fuels scientific discovery. If we, as scientists are not allowed to question, ponder, explore, and critically evaluate all areas of science but forced to comply with current scientific orthodoxy then we are operating in a mode completely antithetical to the very nature of science.”
Dr. Rebecca Keller, Biophysical Chemistry
The clip about genetics - not brought by their creation but by the subject of another theory
Intervention Theory Intervention by living and breathing beings like you and me who are not from Earth.
Now if you want to call it a spaghetti monster - I can always refer you to an article about UFOs and extraterrestrials - the testimonies of over 400 people in classified positions in the security and intelligence forces or the statements of astronauts and cosmonauts as an example
Dr. Edgar Mitchell, Brian O'Leary, Gordon Cooper and Victor Afsnaib
and to historical sources such as the information from ancient Sumer
Therefore (thanks for the correction) Ockham's Razor is also relevant
For the case of the unnatural fusion in the chromosomes
But that is not the subject of the article here.
Summary:
I have no problem with you not agreeing with me and siding with evolution - but evolution will not be shoved down my throat or my children's throat - when I see the agenda and the manipulations.
By the way, it's nice to read a comment without the stupid rubbish words..isn't it?
ok
I see that a new post has appeared on the subject, here I am done
Goodbye
reader:
I don't have the strength for nonsense anymore.
You try not to understand and no wonder you succeed in doing so.
Ron:
This.
I'm done trying for you.
If you look for links to his name as I did, I will also find some that mention the matter at hand. I didn't bring them because they require payment.
The religious man is a Christian fanatic and anti-Semitic and his words are not serious.
Your words are not serious either, but as mentioned - a fool can throw a stone into the water that a thousand wise men will not remove and you stand on the edge of the lake and do not stop throwing stones.
It's just fed up.
I did not ignore the document with the 700 creationists.
On the other hand, I have no intention of trying to answer you for any nonsense that is mentioned there. You chose an example document and I showed you that there is nothing serious in it, but there is a limit to every prank.
Is it that you call Ockham Octam because you are confusing him with another anti-Semitic creationist named Octar (Yahia)?
In the link you provided (which is a real joke) they do a nice exercise.
They take something they found in nature and say that such a thing is only found in laboratories and then draw the conclusion that it was also not created in nature but in a laboratory.
This is a great way to argue that nothing is created in nature. You simply take a natural phenomenon, claim that it can only be found in laboratories, decide that it was also created in a laboratory, and thus you are left with the basic, unfounded claim that the phenomenon is only created in laboratories.
This of course does not prevent those very people from claiming that life could not have arisen naturally because they have not yet succeeded in creating it in the laboratory.
Simply, when there is religion and no logic, anything goes.
We know how to cut genes and not mix them with the telomeres and not insert an unnecessary centromere but the intelligent designer is so intelligent that he cannot do this.
He also had to take a chimpanzee in order to develop us (but those people who claim this of course also continuously claim that we are not descendants of the chimpanzee) and could not have planned and built us without all the unnecessary nonsense.
And that's also Ockham's Razor?
Instead of using an explanation based on nature - let's invent a flying spaghetti monster and claim that it did the things.
Ockham's Razor speaks of the fact that entities without which the phenomenon can be explained should not be included in the explanation, and especially not entities whose entire role is summed up in this "explanation", but of course a creature that claims not to be a creature can also turn Ockham's Razor on its face and call it Octam's Razor.
I must point out that I disagree with what you have to say about my writing style.
To the reader (99):
Your concern for scientists is admirable. If you are worried that the scientists will run out of questions soon then in my opinion it is a misplaced worry. As science develops, so its questions deepen, what is more, age-old questions have not yet been satisfied. A sufficiently curious person always knew how to ask and investigate in places where there is still no light.
Lisa:
Why do you need an alternative? Is an explanation even necessary?
In my opinion, when there is no satisfactory explanation, it is a source of asking questions and looking for more.
Once you have an explanation then you already know everything and you won't look any further.
From:
It is true that there are beautiful prophecies, so what will you do with a lecture at the community center.
The explanations and prophecies that exist are sinful for the purpose of moving forward and achieving real results.
Because that's how you stay with explanations and prevent yourself from asking and looking for explanations that have results.
The link you mentioned is so reminiscent of the corny examples on the other side like the clock etc.
This is all speculation of interpretation not prediction.
For this example a prediction is only possible to do an experiment that demonstrates such a development in the laboratory.
And not on comparing one type of data, but on thousands of such, so it will be called prophecy.
But one case is not a prediction because it happened.
Michael, thanks for the effort.
But Annie agrees with you
Especially with the attempt to discredit him (saluting in the upper hand? Come on, I read the entire context for the judgment, yes he wrote that Jews lived in isolation in Europe [communalities] and there is no racial change for others, but of course there are biological changes.. Gewald!) - it is not new that those who disagree if The establishment's ideas are accepted
I am an expert in the specific field, but I remember
In the story of the bacteria and mutations - among the great experts on the subject is Dr. Henry Neiman
Maricombinomics says that mutations in bacteria are extremely rare - and only happen under the influence of radiation - the main change is recombination
The document of the 700 scientists + (which you "elegantly" ignored) is strong evidence in my view that what you say is not based - but wishful thinking and manipulation
The clip you like so much about human genetics - not only did I not ignore it
My third clip talks only about this!!
And if we are going to shave Octam, he is also right.
I must point out that if you clean your writing style of bluntness and disrespect and use of words like nonsense or stupid, etc.
Overall
Your writing will be received with more attention by me and may even change my opinion on certain issues
(And it seems to me to other readers as well).
Continue to 96:
Regarding the creation of the watch:
It is indeed interesting to look at how man creates such a wonderful instrument as a watch. I claim that the creation process of a watch parallels the evolutionary process in many ways.
Could the ancient man make a clock? Could he create a computer?
I guess the answer to these questions is: of course not! why?
This is because technology evolves evolutionarily! And much less intelligent than it seems at first.
The first human to create a clock had thousands of years of cultural development ahead of him. The watch didn't appear out of nowhere. There is a lot of trial and error and only finally did they arrive at the finished product which we call a watch today!
For bioinformatics (91):
"We have a very complex structure in front of us" agrees with the claim.
"We have no idea how it was created" this is indeed the problem we are trying to solve.
Now to the conclusion:
"After all, we have an inference from the complexity of watches or practical products of human engineering."
I ask for an extension that will explain this conclusion.
Does the fact that we don't know how something was created necessarily lead to this conclusion?
Let's look at the question of how rain is formed.
Many years ago (and maybe even today) people thought that if they danced a certain dance it would bring rain.
The logic is clear: we don't know how it rains (we have no clue). The conclusion: let's dance because there must be something intelligent that brings rain and maybe he will see how much we invest for him and pay us a tribute.
Since that time science has developed. We learned about temperatures and atmospheres and water vapor and here people are not pinning their hopes on dancing.
Regarding your explanation that the creator is intelligent. Who is this genius? If I ask him, will he be able to produce for me (I will provide him with a laboratory if he needs) life from raw products? Have you ever seen him? did you hear him
To explain especially for everyone who bothers to ignore the context of things, I say for the thousandth time:
As soon as someone expresses disdain for others - whether it's by consciously making false claims or it's unfounded slander or disdain for the words of a scientist just because he's a scientist - I think the right attitude towards him is to express disdain for him.
There is no other way to deal with the phenomenon.
Lisa:
You can store as many things as you want and display them out of context.
It's called demagoguery.
Bioinformatics:
You really don't understand.
Evolution has predictions.
For example, she predicts that bacteria will develop resistance to antibiotics, and they do.
For example, she predicts that it will be possible to find a tree of evolution, and indeed they do.
For example, she predicts that software that implements an evolutionary algorithm will create better and better solutions, and this is exactly what is happening.
Regarding nylon digestion I have already addressed your incorrect reference.
What you "know" about the snake is not true.
The synthetic bacteria is not an animal genome.
Where did you wink that from?!
I never claimed that the clock was created by evolution, so your offer of rebuttal has no validity.
Regarding the watch, I accept the claim of intelligent creation (therefore it is not surprising that it appeared in our world only after there were intelligent beings in it and no fossils of watches created by the intelligent creator were found)
To Mr. Roschild (90):
I have collected a few pearls from your comments that indicate your attitude towards those who do not see eye to eye with you (and this is only in this article):
"idiot", "idiots", "you have a basic difficulty in understanding", "nonsense", "nonsense" and more and more...
Do you feel that your opinions are so vulnerable that you have to stoop to such lines?
Is it not possible to have a discussion without this distribution of compliments?
Michael, I don't understand you. So suddenly evolution has no predictions? Okay. So how can we test the claim of common descent?
Regarding the digestion of the nylon I have already commented.
Regarding the ostrich wings. Degeneration is definitely possible from neutral mutations. There is no evidence here of the formation of new systems, just the opposite. Also regarding the snake, as far as I know, it is a structure that belongs to the breed.
Even in the synthetic bacteria it is an animal genome.
I've given you a way to disprove the creationists' claim. Can you make a clock with hands in super small steps?
to lisa-
The alternative explanation for the formation of the first cell is intelligent. After all, if we have a very complex structure in front of us and we have no clue how it was created, then we have an inference from the complexity of clocks or practical products of human engineering.
Lisa:
What slime exactly?
Does it come close to being a verbal pronoun in a slime adjective?
Does this justify unsubstantiated accusations of unsubstantiated claims?
Will I never be able to shake you off my back?
reads (and does not understand):
Of course there are many prophecies, but one of the most beautiful of them is this one (ugh! How many times do you have to show this to those who refuse to understand?!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMj_45epINM&feature=player_embedded
So we don't have?
Actually there are and there are, but they don't pass the eye-brain barrier of some people.
reads (87):
Suppose I accept your claims. Please share with me what you have to offer as an alternative?
Liza: From:
It is true that there are theories that have received a lot of publicity and we will soon see the results.
such as string theory. which, as is known, helped to develop completely new mathematical areas.
The Yoke result test has no results and there is no prediction of the results that can be performed in the laboratory.
What there is is words and a lot of posting and fruitless debates like you are trying to talk so much here.
About something that is merely an interpretation without actual predictions.
I'm not asking you to do an experiment in a laboratory, which you certainly won't be able to do.
But to provide a number of real predictions as the theory of relativity for example provided immediately when it was created.
Yuck you have nothing but chatter until you're green.
To the reader (84):
Your claim about the inability to reproduce in the laboratory a process that creates living cells from basic raw materials is indeed a problem that scientists are trying to deal with. This certainly indicates that science still has a long way to go before it can claim to have "cracked" the problem. Do you have an alternative scientific explanation for the origin of life? Are you aware of another process where it is possible to "for example create living cells, strains of new creatures by order"?
To Mr. Roschild (85):
Pay attention to the slime that comes out of your keyboard. Are you talking about personal slander against you?
Bioinformatics:
There is a difference (and it is surprising that you do not understand this even though I have explained it many times) between the theory of evolution and the tree of evolution.
While the theory of evolution is a combination of a proven mathematical principle with a number of simple facts that are easy to test experimentally that exist in our world (the existence of replicators and the existence of competition for resources), the tree of evolution is a completely different subject which is mainly a historical study regarding the exact course of evolution in our world.
Therefore, the exact structure of the evolutionary tree is much less established than evolution itself.
Roughly there are actually two types of science: the mapping sciences and the process sciences.
The process sciences are actually concerned with discovering the laws of nature. Mapping sciences deal with mapping in the broadest sense of the word - whether it's geographic mapping, whether it's mapping the genome, whether it's space mapping, whether it's mapping the evolutionary tree.
Astronomy belongs to the mapping sciences. Cosmology for the process sciences.
The tree of evolution belongs to the mapping sciences. Evolution belongs to the process sciences.
To disprove the theory of evolution one must find an error in the mathematical theorems in which to either disprove the existence of replicators or the existence of competition for resources.
To disprove the theory on the tree of evolution you have to find a person who lived with dinosaurs. This will not disprove evolution, but only the tree of evolution - just as a new island discovered in the ocean will not disprove the theory that explains how planets are formed in general, but only the map that is supposed to describe the Earth.
In relation to nylon digestion - I don't care what you read in which place.
It was copied from some bacteria and you can't find the bacteria? what is this rant And why doesn't this bacteria digest nylon?
Are you talking about an intelligent creator?
Dahil Rabak! What intelligence is there in the wings of the ostrich or the remains of the legs in the skeleton of snakes? What intelligence was there in extinct species? What exactly is he trying to achieve? The good of man or the good of bacteria? What intelligence is there in creating creatures that kill each other?
There is nothing in the human body (but nothing!) whose complexity is inextricable.
I conclude from your words that you haven't read any of the things I suggested you read and I don't know why I should continue to read your words.
reads (and does not understand):
In an internet debate, public opinion is really appealed to, but the practice of evolution does not appeal to public opinion at all, and the incredible ignorance of all evolution fools proves this.
Of course, for you it is not only about ignorance but also about an agenda. You just don't want to understand that the facts disprove your delusions.
For your information, from a historical point of view, the evolutionary algorithms are not just algorithms that decided to give them such a name, but rather algorithms that were clearly developed on the basis of understanding evolution.
But, as mentioned, the facts are not of interest to you, so there is no point in arguing with you.
Regarding a living creature in the laboratory it is always an interesting story.
Creationists of all kinds specialize in twisting every fact and presenting it as if it supports their claim.
As soon as someone creates life in a laboratory (and significant steps have already been taken in that direction. Micoplasma Laboratorium for example is a bacterium whose entire DNA is produced synthetically without being based on any living being) they will claim that this is proof that there is an intelligent creation. But as long as it didn't happen, they say that the fact that it didn't happen is proof of intelligent creation.
Dan Shamir:
Who do you think the Darwinists appeal to instead of public opinion? For cats and dogs?
After all, apart from interpretations and practical stories, there is no practical technological result for this theory.
Although some argue that certain algorithmic methods are evolutionary. But there isn't much to it other than that.
Equally they can be given other names.
After all, no one claims that there is a technology based on the Darwinists because that would be considered Darwinism.
Eye work.
There is no laboratory experiment capable of creating living cells from basic materials.
All the experiments that exist take advantage of the ability to change that already exists in living cells.
But there is no experiment capable of creating, for example, living cells, strains of new creatures on demand.
On the scientific level, the creationists have suffered a complete failure and they know that they will not be able to win this campaign and therefore have turned to the way of war on public opinion while relying on the fact that the public does not understand anything, does not make an effort to check and is attracted to cheap demagoguery.
Apparently they succeed.
Michael-
First, then you claim that no hidden prophecy can contradict the evolutionary tree? So even if a rabbit fossil is found in the Precambrian, it will not contradict evolution. So how do we disprove it? To remind you, a scientific theory is one that can be disproved.
Secondly-
You brought up some beautiful evidence: the example of the digestion of nylon, for example. It turns out, according to research I've seen, that it is a plasmid, that is, a gene that existed in another bacterium and was transferred to it. The evolutionary counterargument is that nylon is a relatively new product. But of course, if an intelligent creator created it, he knew in advance that nylon would be A future invention, so he planted a gene for nylon digestion in it. In addition, it is not certain that the bacteria uses the decomposed nylon product. And another thing - it is possible that this change is due to the acidity of a certain amino acid that caused it. There is no evidence of the formation of a new system, which includes hundreds of mutations. To prove mathematically that the formation of a biological system is possible? I will use human engineering where there is inexhaustible complexity - describe to me how you can create a clock with hands, in the way of changes (mutations), in small functional steps. Only then, in my opinion, will you be able to show that evolution is possible (different from biogenesis of course) .Successfully…
And one more thing regarding Polish:
You could have guessed it but he is really religious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maciej_Giertych
Ron:
I turned to read the article to which you referred in response 46.
He begins with the following claim:
"I know of no biological data relevant to tree genetics that would require evolutionary explanations."
That is, he relies on his private ignorance as an argument in the debate.
Why is this his private ignorance?
Because other people did come across such facts a lot.
I will mention in this regard for the umpteenth time the following link that you specialize in ignoring:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMj_45epINM&feature=player_embedded
It is hard for me to believe that the man has not even come across the adaptation of bacteria to antibiotics and has no idea about the controlled experiments that have been done on the subject, such as the ones shown here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-speciation.pdf
One of the problems is, of course, that he can't answer what he said, but since you decided to represent him, the job of defending the nonsense he said falls on you.
The article continues and relies on a lack of paleontological evidence.
It is interesting how much a person is willing to humiliate himself just to promote a religious idea.
Lack of evidence?
There are many thousands!
The room of Yoel Rak - a world-renowned paleontologist who sits at Tel Aviv University is full of such evidence that the celebrated geneticist was careful not to see.
He continues with some nonsense about microevolution and claims that it is always caused by the reduction of the genome:
Clothing clothed.
Even the mutation that creates mongoloid is the addition of an entire chromosome.
The formation of a gene for nylon digestion in bacteria - out of nowhere - cannot be a reduction of the genome and the situations are also known (observed) where different bacteria literally mix and "steal" whole genome sections of one bacterium from another.
He repeats the same nonsense about grooming.
He claims it is based on the elimination of unwanted genes.
Great sage!
Selection of the desirable is by definition the elimination of the undesirable, but this does not mean that the desirable are not created.
Evolution has two mechanisms - the mechanism of mutation which creates without criticism and the mechanism of natural selection which criticizes without creativity.
The Pole decided to ignore the existence of the first mechanism and talk only about the second.
The chapter on "positive mutations" also derives its reasoning from the fact that the esteemed professor does not know (or chooses to claim that he does not know) positive mutations.
Do I need to mention again the ability to digest nylon? After all, even if I mention it, it won't help this professor to know anything.
Then he compares the similarity found between a human hand and a frog's hand to the similarity found in the genetic code and proves to us that he had never even heard of convergent evolution.
Oh that shame.
He opens the last chapter with the sentence:
Many hoped that molecular genetics would confirm evolution. It didn't.
Beauty! If it was not clear to anyone that all his opinions were the result of prejudice, then in this sentence he explicitly said so.
By the way, it is interesting to read in the following link what scientists think about this Polish and its clones:
http://194.94.44.150/repository/docs/issue9_stevejones.pdf
And what does his direct manager think of him:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7120/full/444679b.html
It is also interesting to read about the fact that he is a known anti-Semitic who usually salutes with his hand raised.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/827423.html
These are just some of the links that are obtained when searching for his name and downloading from the findings the articles he himself wrote.
So that's it, Ron:
There was absolutely no point in reading the anti-Semitic idiot's words and I did it just for you.
You can brag that you personally wasted half an hour of my life.
And by the way - Ron:
The fact that the comments were published after IP manipulation actually proves that the censorship was directed against you and not against the opinions - the so-called - you came to curse and left to bless.
Ron:
You are blocked because you are a troll who floods the site with garbage.
It's not about the nonsense of your opinions.
Bioinformatics:
I read the links and there is no contradiction to evolution.
By the way - even if they pointed to a change in the evolutionary tree, they would not contradict evolution. Your claim in this matter is similar to the claim that the discovery of a new and unknown island in the ocean contradicts the sphericity of the earth.
The irony of fate - we'll see if the comment will be published
Well, enough with the hypocrisy - I've been blocked here many times
When the content of the response was matter-of-fact and canceled the material of the article - or a good answer to another commenter.
Well, even Michael remembers how he told me that he did see my response to his question (which was not published)
And he claimed that I didn't answer his question... - that the fact was that my answer was not what he "wanted" to hear - that would have made him evil.
Also in this article - if it weren't for IP manipulation, my comments would not have been published or would be published in a few days, as in the Mor Segmon case
https://www.hayadan.org.il/the-lancet-retracts-study-linking-mmr-vaccine-autism-0502101/#comment-261452
So yes, Lisa, you're right - and that's it.
Next, back to the content of the article...
Apart from the test I proposed. Here is a finding that should disprove the claim of the evolutionary tree and in fact constitutes a contradictory prediction. Even the researchers were in the market-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8306060.stm
And also the snail that does photosynthesis is supposed to be a prediction that contradicts the known tree-
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3833673,00.html
That is, here are predictions that are not compatible and according to evolution there should be a serious contradiction. So why does it actually still exist? (By the way, I have more examples)
Lisa:
I agree with the matter of prediction and even presented it many times in the discussion, but it does not seem to belong to the discussion between us.
In discussions with creationists I brought exactly the predictions you are talking about and of course also predictions in the field of genetics such as the matter of the fusion of the chromosomes in the transition between ape and man.
I also don't think anyone should be immune to criticism and I don't think my father thinks so either.
To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever been censored here because of the opinions they expressed in the fields of science.
Of course, if someone chose to express opinions about my mother, their words were censored.
By the way, here is a little more about the mathematical research in the field of evolution:
Professor (emeritus) Ilan Eshel - a mathematician from Tel Aviv University - dedicated his entire professional career to mathematical research in the field of evolution.
I also remember a heated debate I had with him (via email) about the mathematical validity of the "honoring principle" devised by Amots Zahavi.
I argued that the idea is fundamentally flawed and he brought me all kinds of mathematical theorems that in the end I had to admit that even though they are true - they do not speak of the principle that Amots Zahavi was talking about.
A list of other researchers dealing with the subject will probably include his student - Lilach Hadani, Avner Shaked, Guy Sela and Professor (Nobel Prize winner) Oman.
And some links on the subject:
http://www.wiwi.uni-bonn.de/shaked/papers/altruists.pdf
http://www.wiwi.uni-bonn.de/shaked/papers/partnership.pdf
http://www.wiwi.uni-bonn.de/shaked/papers/emergence.pdf
http://www.wiwi.uni-bonn.de/shaked/papers/sienna.pdf
Hadany, L. and Feldman, MW 2005. Evolutionary traction: the cost of adaptation and the evolution of sex. J. Evol. Biol. 18, 309-314.
Hadany, L., Eshel, I., and Motro, U. 2004. No place like home: Competition, dispersal, and complex adaptation. J. Evol. Biol. 17, 1328-1336.
Hadany, L. and Beker, T. 2003. On the evolutionary advantage of fitness associated recombination. Genetics 165, 2167-2179.
Hadany, L. 2003. Adaptive peak shifts in a heterogeneous environment. Theor. Pop. Biol. 63, 41-51.
Hadany, L. 2001. A conflict between two evolutionary levels in trees. J. Theor. Biol. 208, 507-521.
http://www-evo.stanford.edu/FeldmanCV.pdf
http://www.bio.huji.ac.il/eng/staff_in.asp?staff_id=50&chapter_id=68
I saw Ken Miller's presentation. He doesn't answer the question of how the rod was created gradually. He just found a system with similar parts (homologous) and for him that's enough. Refutation - both cars and planes have wheels. It doesn't mean that planes can open from cars (if they had the ability to reproduce).
Do you want to prove mathematically that the formation of a biological system is possible? I will use human engineering where there is inextricable complexity - describe to me how you can create a clockwork, in the way of changes (mutations), in small functional steps. Only then, in my opinion, will you be able to show that evolution is possible (different from biogenesis of course ).
To Mr. Roschild (69):
I would add another element to how a scientific theory can be disproved:
An established scientific theory predicts certain observations (for example if we look at Darwin's theory of evolution it predicts that for each species that evolved there was a chain of previous species that led to its formation. Therefore the discovery of skeletons or fossils that fit this chain of species development are confirmation of the theory. If a deviant skeleton is discovered From the gradual development of species (the example I gave previously was a human skeleton that dates back to 100 million years ago), this will be significant evidence to disprove Darwin's theory - for all opponents of the theory, here is the recipe for refutation. Good luck!)
My intention is not to make personal claims against anyone but to ensure that the discussion is free (I don't think anyone should be immune to criticism. Except me of course).
Dear Noam
In Hebrew
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/about_isr.php
By the way, I counted - there are over 700 signed doctorates with a relevant profession
Why?
It is easy to recognize the truth, you just need a little courage
Lisa:
You were indeed wrong about this before.
The words have meaning and the links (which are a sample of many thousands) speak for themselves.
don't you understand I can't help you.
You pointed out a deception that was never in my words.
I always say that a scientific theory cannot be proven.
The point is that a mathematical theory can actually be proven and the sentences about evolution are mathematical.
To link a mathematical theory to science - all that needs to be done is to show that its basic assumptions exist in reality.
In the case of evolution, the basic assumptions are the existence of "replicators" and the existence of competition for resources necessary for survival.
Therefore the refutation of the theory can be based - either on finding an error in the mathematical consideration or on refuting the claim that the basic conditions are met - that is - presenting evidence that there are no "replicators" and that the fact that we think that genes or living things are replicators is a mistake, or by refuting the claim that there is competition for the necessary resources for survival
Therefore it seems (of course, only to those who understand what I said) that of all scientific theories - evolution is the safest against refutation.
There is of course a difference between the claim that evolution exists and the claim that evolution is the entire explanation for the development of species and what is proven is of course only the fact that evolution exists and not the claim that it explains everything.
The claim that it explains everything receives many confirmations from the findings, but it cannot be claimed that it is proven.
In addition to all of the above - even if the claim you made in response 66 were true (and it is not) it would not justify or substantiate your claim in response 59. Even if there is a disagreement between us - my claims are well-founded. You can claim that they are wrong, but that is a different matter completely.
And beyond all of the above - there is a big difference between making claims in the scientific field and making claims about others and for some reason you allow yourself to make unfounded claims about other people.
It does not belong to the topic of the discussion and it is simply disgusting.
Ron,
Which statement describes you better:
1) If the majority thinks so - it must not be true
2) If the majority thinks so - I think the opposite
Please, an honest answer please
Ron,
Nevertheless, please explain:
You won't find even one opinion, which cannot be found on the Internet supporters and opponents of it.
What then motivates you to accept the words of the Polish professor, and reject the position of thousands of scientists who support evolution? (You must have found their links too, right?)
To Mr. Roschild (60):
I refer you, for example, to response 37. It has a bunch of meaningless words. There are references there to what should be
"A complete collection of theorems that prove various aspects of evolution".
I have already pointed out here before the deception in your words that the correctness of a scientific theory can be proven.
As those who throw a collection of links are attacked (and rightfully so) when they attack the theory of evolution without justifying their content - so I would expect from the supporters of evolution.
Bioinformatics:
It is very nice that a claim that has a mathematical proof seems illogical to you, but I inform you with responsibility that the problem is in your logic.
As I have already shown you - this "illogical" principle serves us well in other areas as well.
I skimmed the list of articles you brought.
It's interesting that you don't mention the nature of the criticism these articles received from peers.
Behe's words for example have already become an example and wit.
I really suggest you start learning things from the ground up instead of making claims of a beginner's creation.
Read, for example, in these places:
http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/Creationist_Arguments
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217143838.htm
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
Then, watch this video:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1777,Eugenie-Scott-on-Intelligent-Design-and-Young-Earth-Creationism,Eugenie-Scott-AAI-07
Then, tell me what you think the information shown here means:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMj_45epINM&feature=player_embedded
Bio
It's a waste of energy - you will get a very irrelevant answer to the material you brought
See the case of the genetics professor.
Too bad.. but this is the reality here at the moment.
So here is the list, which also includes biologists, biochemists, zoologists and more. They all just signed it with their eyes closed? How many geologists claim that the earth is flat?
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
And if that's not enough, the supporters of evolution always claim that there is no scientific material that passes peer review on the side of intelligent design. Here is the proof that they are wrong-
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
I always hear commenters claim "thousands of evidences supporting evolution". In my opinion, this is a matter of personal interpretation or point mutations, and not the creation of new systems.
Evolution as a principle defies logic. It claims that very complex structures are created by natural processes, contrary to everything we know. That is, the basic premise should be that man was designed and not the other way around. Fact - the only way we know that enzymes are created is by intelligent protein engineering in the laboratory. That is, there is evidence for this that enzymes need a planner.
Ron:
Approving responses that were not previously approved can only increase the response buffer and not decrease it from 48 to 46.
Anyway - people can say incorrect things for religious reasons and that too without saying a single religious thing.
By the way - Lisa:
Your last comment is also, in my opinion, just a pointless personal attack and as mentioned - baseless.
Lisa:
I do not usually admit things that are not true and I did not admit the existence of censorship on opinions either.
My father only rejects comments based on profanity and personal attacks. nothing else.
I am definitely in favor of criticism of my words, but let it be about my words and not about anything else in me, and such criticism has never been blocked.
Since you said that sometimes my words are not at least (!!!) as well-founded as the words of others, I suggest you substantiate these words of yours which are not based at all.
To Mr. Roschild (55):
As you are an Indian yourself, there is censorship which I think harms the ability to debate. This is of course the right of the site administrator to do so, but in my opinion it achieves the opposite result to the one intended.
Science does not need censorship and gagging. Criticism builds science, contrary to idle beliefs that criticism can destroy.
In my opinion, this censorship is unnecessary (even if this means criticizing Mr. Roschild, His Majesty. I see a lot of point in criticizing your words, which are sometimes not at least as well-founded as the words of the people you attack).
Ron,
After all, you always try to be "anti-establishment" first you identify the target, something in the consensus and then you look for those bizarre few who supposedly bring counter-proofs.
If you lived in Darwin's time, you would certainly attack all the religious on the grounds that there is another explanation and everything they say is wrong.
The problem is that now it is different, you are attacking a scientific "establishment" based on hundreds of thousands of observations and experiments. An establishment with an open mind and flexible that if evidence against evolution was received it would adopt it as the current theory.
I don't know how many top scientists you know but let me tell you that despite your feeling that most of them are just as open-minded and radical curious people as you are, the difference is that they also make sense. When they are presented with evidence in both directions, they weigh it, perform the correct experiments and observations, and draw conclusions.
By the way, have you read that polish of yours? Do you even understand what he is saying? After all, this is all nonsense that means nothing. I would appreciate it if you could clarify one of his proofs against evolution.
Ron,
Let me understand: you found a professor from Poland who believes in creationism and denies evolution, and from there you concluded that evolution is wrong ??? she is a dead body???
Say, are you serious?
Why don't you listen to thousands of scientists who think that evolution is an excellent theory??
Disagreements always exist, and that's legitimate, but how exactly do you form your opinion - I couldn't understand that.
It seems to me that the only thing that leads you is to decide that the establishment, most of the scientists, are always wrong and misleading.
Read my recommendations again in the previous comment - maybe you will make some progress.
Well, the numbers are changing for me (due to responses from earlier that were not approved but are still on my page in the count)
So here is the response
Read and enjoy (one page) - the words of the professor of genetics.
You too, Noam, read it - sorry, it's only the Internet...
https://www.hayadan.org.il/the-importance-of-honoring-darwin-1202101/#comment-261472
Ron:
I don't know what you are talking about. Comment 48 is mine.
Lisa:
No censorship.
There are all kinds of reasons for the automatic delay of responses.
Like the many links - the use of my name has also become a component of the automatic system and this is due to the fact that many commenters do not like to be confronted with the facts and attack me personally, so my father decided to check comments addressed to me before he releases them - not to check the position expressed in them but - as mentioned - to check if They comply with the website's terms of use.
I repeat - your impression has no factual basis and the "confirmation" you received - beyond the fact that it is not confirmation - could not have been part of your considerations either because it is based on a response that you had not yet responded to when you wrote the words.
No one is suppressing the discussions here so I see no point in preaching not to suppress them.
Ron,
If you continue to drink your knowledge on internet clips, you will remain an intellectual corpse.
The level of your arguments is appallingly childish. So what about in a certain laboratory falsified data?? Is this proof to disprove the theory of evolution??
The theory of evolution is stronger than ever, it has thousands of confirmations, and since Darwin it has only gotten stronger following the deepening of knowledge in molecular biology.
It's really pathetic to hear you confidently state without content that evolution is dead, and all this just because you saw three clips on the Internet.
I can understand that it is much easier for you to skim through the websites and find out all the nonsense and turn it into an important matter in a moment.
It is much more difficult to sit still and study, and study a lot to understand the world around you.
Buy yourself some serious books, study them thoroughly and that way you will wait.
Go on your way - and you will remain a mindless prattle who wastes the time of serious people.
Well... I received confirmation of my claim about censorship
For Michael (50):
I rely on the testimonies of some of the commenters, and again my claims are with a limited guarantee and if Abi Bolobazsky denies it, I accept it.
Regarding the belief - I did not claim for a moment that there is no abysmal difference between what stands behind the beliefs. On the contrary. I argue that discussions such as the ones taking place here can reveal exactly these differences on the one hand. On the other hand, they reveal the nakedness of those who take for granted many of the things they believe in (and from what I see, this happens for both sides of the fence). This is why these discussions should be encouraged instead of suppressed.
Please read response #48 - what is religious in what he says?
The evidence does not support evolution. point
Or is he not serious either... (smile)?
I tried to clarify that it is also possible to argue and enter into a dispute with the scientists who do not accept this theory.
However, your very attempt to delegitimize them demonstrates your inability to defend the theory.
If you have solid material - put it on the table
What is not understood in the first clips? They manipulated the findings - this is a fact.
So now the evolutionists are trying to find evidence in DNA
that the third clip is deceiving - and what's more, read what the professor of genetics has to say.
Darwinian evolution is a dead corpse that for some reason refuses to bury.
Why? because there is some kind of (non-scientific) agenda
Ron:
It is very interesting that after you came to me with allegations about what I did not say regarding creationism - you brought a list of creationists to support your nonsense.
Lisa:
What is your claim based on in response 39 as if there is censorship here? Can you point to any fact that led you to this conclusion?
I think this is just a baseless accusation.
There are, indeed, comments that are automatically blocked for various reasons (such as multiple links), but these comments are checked by the system and if they do not violate the site's terms of use (and if the commenter who sent them did not find a way to reinsert them without being blocked - for example - by splitting the links into several comments) they are released
In any case - you don't have any information about such comments because you don't see them until after they are released, so your words cannot rely even on this innocent and justified mechanism and they remain an accusation without any basis.
And as for your words about faith - it is true that most people simply believe in scientific theories, but this makes sense because they rationally choose the people whose claims they believe.
Those who accept the scientific approach - logically in a field in which they are not an expert - will believe the scientists who are experts in the field. There is nothing wrong with that.
On the other hand - believing in just a book from thousands of years ago without any rational reason but only as a result of brainwashing is a completely different thing.
That is why there is an abysmal difference between the beliefs and it is not at all correct to try to hide this difference by claiming that they are both beliefs.
To me, this is similar to comparing the hallucinations of a mentally ill person with the thoughts of a healthy person on the grounds that in both cases they are thoughts.
Ron,
The list you brought is a list of religious people, who think that everything described in the Bible is the truth.
The field of specialization of most of them is not at all related to evolution (dentist, magnetism expert, psychologist, philosopher, singer, sculptor, atmosphere expert, plastic surgeon, computer expert, language expert, etc.) and therefore their opinion on the subject of evolution is not considered any more than that of an ordinary person.
There is nothing new in the fact that religious people abhor evolution, and you as usual use links instead of brains, and don't even bother to read the same links you bombard us with.
Instead of talking, start thinking, make an effort to learn.
What to do, evolution cannot be understood in a minute and a half of a YouTube video.
Ron (38):
You have a basic difficulty in understanding my words.
Did I talk about global warming?!
All in all, I told those who tried to get hung up on it that it was irrelevant!
Did I talk about creationism?
This is what is called - "the hat burns on the thief's head"! You claim you haven't talked about it but it plays in your head non-stop. Read my words again to prove that I didn't say anything about it.
I guess despite the obvious attempted fraud in your words I won't see an apology for them here.
The two videos you show include mostly lies and misunderstandings and all that can be learned from them is how stupid the evolution fools are.
Maybe you don't know (although I've already explained it a thousand times) but in science - there is never a proof of a theory.
There are only theories, confirmations of theories, and refutations of theories.
For example - there is a false theory that many biologists deny evolution and there is a refutation of this theory by the document signed by all academic institutions.
It is clear that those who prefer to ignore the facts will find an excuse (like the stupid sentence "I prefer a list of individuals - and not the names of institutions" - as if the institutions are not made up of people - and especially the most serious ones) to also ignore the facts that disprove his theory.
What's beautiful is that after you say (to me! To someone who never talked about the warming!) that it's not about the warming at all, you suddenly talk again about.... the warming up.
Well - warming is not an axiom and neither is evolution.
These are scientific theories.
Regarding evolution - there is almost no debate between scientists.
As for the warming - there is still.
Those who try to compare the state of warming with the state of evolution simply do not understand what it is about and it turns out that this is true for you as well - bullshitter.
Bioinformatics:
You just don't get the point!
In both computer evolution and biological evolution, the replicators themselves have no purpose. There are only environmental laws that determine who will breed more successfully.
In biological evolution environmental laws are created just like that - without any purpose.
In computer evolution - we determine the laws of the environment so that the replicators that will be created will serve us.
In terms of the principle of operation there is no difference here and both work because evolution is a mathematical necessity.
Besides - what does the matter of conditions for the functionality of an enzyme have to do with our case?!
Also for a change in the software to be functional it has to meet a thousand and one conditions.
Ron (44):
Since "Bioinformatics" did as many of you often do and did not provide any list of scientists, I responded referring to a list that one of your duplicates once presented and my words referred to this list.
In any case - the list you present also means nothing because their motivation is clear - they are all religious and religion - as we know - cancels judgment and allows people of this type to also say - at the same time that they oppose the discoveries of science - that there is no contradiction between religion and science.
This is what is called "not serious" and indeed - in the context we are discussing these are not serious people.
To Avi Bulobazsky (42):
I am of the opinion that behind the position of people "from the street" on the most established theories of science are beliefs. I don't mean that the theories are unfounded. What I mean by this is that a simple person will often accept the theories as presented to him without a deep understanding of the reasons for the formation of the theories. Discussions like those that take place on the site encourage people to go a little deeper into the matter.
I will be extreme and give the following example:
When a small child in school learns about evolution, he will usually accept it "as it is" without in-depth investigation, this is because children do not have the proper tools for a true understanding of the theory and the background for its creation. A child whose scientific occupation is not at the top of his mind will grow up with complete belief that the theory is correct, without any ability to justify it. Discussions such as the ones taking place here stimulate deep thought on these matters.
I bring here again a link to an excellent book written by Professor Gil Kalai and dealing with this very subject. The book presents discussions held in blogs between scientists on the subject of a physical theory called string theory (you can see there that belief in the theory is sometimes not only the property of people from the street but also of respected scientists):
http://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/my-book-gina-says-adventures-in-the-blogsphere-string-war/
(All of the above does not detract in the slightest from my belief that Darwin's theory of evolution is the only scientific explanation that exists for the formation of species and that there is abundant evidence to support it)
In order to sharpen
Here, I picked one example of a genetics professor who doesn't get the whole story of evolution,
This is a beautiful example since he explains in an honest and eloquent way regarding his field of expertise his disapproval of evolution
When he summarizes his explanations in:
The teachers of evolution are beginning to speak in less convincing words. The offensive in support of evolution is so intensive and so well financed that it appears evolutionists are very worried.
They should be.
http://creation.com/professor-of-genetics-says-no-to-evolution
As a person from the settlement, it seems bad, very bad to even try to erase the fact that there is a dispute and the use of gagging - it reminds of dark times in the past under the rule of the church.
In my opinion, the only interest here is that of religious people of all kinds who would be very happy if someone disproved the theory of evolution... science has no interest.
Father, enough with the empty passwords!
It's like the previous sentence regarding the list of scientists who do not agree with the theory of evolution, as we say -
"This is a list from the threshing floor and from the winery of non-serious people"
This is a hollow, false statement, irrelevant and certainly weakens the credibility of the writer of the judgment and his supporters.
Does everything you say need to be checked with 7 eyes?
Here are examples of very serious scientists and their credentials -
http://creation.com/creation-scientists
You are blocking Avi's comments (this comment was already blocked this morning).
Please stop this.
flower crow,
You wrote: "The idea of evolution is supported by interests who made it a convention without proper coverage"
What interests? What interests?
It would be nice if you stop talking in stupid clichés and substantiate your words more.
LITZA
Debates on global warming and evolution are fruitless because on one side there are facts and on the other side there are beliefs and the two things can never reach the same valley. There are enough topics to talk about without repeating the false arguments as if the lie has never been proven on a million other sites.
Evolutionary mathematical algorithms have a predetermined goal. Contrary to what happens in nature. In order for an enzyme to be functional, a series of hundreds of mutations is required, only if most of them are given as they are biologically meaningful. That's all the difference in my opinion.
From:
Global warming became a media convention because the "experts" had an interest in it.
Just as a political party has an interest in selling itself and becoming a convention.
And similarly to Africa, Israel has become a convention for the pension funds to buy its bonds.
This is despite the fact that they have no coverage.
The idea of evolution is supported by vested interests who have made it a convention without proper coverage.
There is no point in arguing because when there are interests to support the matter there are apparent "proofs".
Just like the alleged evidence of global warming.
Repeat a lie long enough to enough people and it will become the truth.
So it's nice that they also managed to convince you of this nonsense, you became a loyal party member of the supporters of evolution.
To Avi Blizovsky:
I must express my disappointment at what appears to be censorship (please correct me if I'm wrong, if so I apologize) of opinions that do not fit the mindset of the site.
In my opinion, publishing any comment is appropriate as long as it does not harm this or that person.
Publishing opinions that contradict the scientific theories are important to me for several reasons:
1. When I see criticism of a theory I believe in without a shadow of a doubt, the first instinct is disdain. But I think it would be helpful for readers to also think about what's behind the theories they believe in, and there's nothing like criticism to make them do that.
2. Some of the responses weaken the argument of the commenter because they are ridiculous and thus serve the other side (this can be seen in some of the responses from opponents of evolution but unfortunately also in some of its supporters).
3. The discussions become more interesting
Michael, you have a misunderstanding, whether on purpose or not, regarding the main point of the dispute here.
There is no creationist debate here about the age of the earth and so on
The main discussion is about the origin of man
And the evidence does not point to evolutionary development from primates
As demonstrated in the three short videos I brought
In the first two clips - the false manipulation of the findings is shown
And the baseless propaganda of the evolutionists
And in the third clip - the difference in DNA and more, excludes any link of gradual natural development from the primates.
In addition, some of the interesting links you included do not talk about proofs but about theories.
And the PDF link if I started quoting from the book of Genesis - surprised even me.
I prefer a list of individuals - not names of institutions
I have already mentioned before that the theory of evolution is rooted in power in the establishment but not in science
This is where the strong bond comes in
Regarding global warming -
Although there is no connection between the two - this is an example of how a false "axiom" can
To appear so respectable and so suitable for the desire of a certain worldview - this is the connection that the commenter tried to illustrate.
Also, Mr. Yehirosh, the responder did understand the scripture correctly
http://tinyurl.com/NoGlobalWarming
His lawyer:
When I talk about a "mathematical theorem" I'm actually talking about a whole collection of theorems that prove different aspects of evolution.
A lot (but really a lot!) of research has been conducted around this topic and just for example, you are welcome to take a look HERE
And here
And here
The basis of all these sentences is a very simple thing - so simple that it really goes without saying:
If you have entities that are capable of replicating themselves and the replication is not completely faithful but includes here and there "mistakes" that change this or that feature and if these entities compete for the resources they need for the purpose of replication and excessive success in the competition for resources leads to excessive success in reproduction - there will be evolution.
This mathematical principle is used successfully in many fields such as, for example, in computer programs such as, for example, the program for playing chess:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-of-an-efficient-search-algorithm-bgu-2907079
You can find a general description of the topic of using the sentence in computer programs here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming
And here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm
ghost moon
Now it is not clear to me what the connection is between your response 13 and response 33.
There is no connection, by the way, between madness, evil, apathy, empathy, kindness and a desire to help and being smart, stupid or educated people.
The professorship is usually not achieved by memorization, it is not a criterion for the degree.
Michael, could you direct me to a mathematical proof of the theory of evolution?
Crow Flower:
Maybe you can explain to me the connection between global warming and evolution?
Although I didn't hear the program you mentioned regarding the warming and although I guess you didn't understand what they said there, I assure you that it really doesn't matter what they say about global warming - there is no chance that it will have any impact on the result of the calculation one and one more and this calculation came out two whether there is global warming and whether there is not.
The same goes for evolution.
It is possible to prove mathematically that it must exist in our world, there are endless proofs that it does exist, and its fallacies are proof that mutations exist and they are not always beneficial.
Bioinformatics:
As my father said - this is a list from the threshing floor and from the winery of non-serious people, some of whom died a long time ago.
If you want to know what all the academic institutions think (and if you're going to depend on tall trees, then this is the tree to depend on) you are welcome to read here:
http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf
It is known that the distance between insanity and genius is not far sometimes..
his lawyer
I was talking about strange people, like, for example, the one they showed today on the news of the professor
In the USA she served 3 of her colleagues to death.
Such cases make me think of people who are scientists at the level of a professor
who educate people but can also do crazy things.
This means that even scientists can be stupid people even if they have memorized well
all the study material they needed to get the title of professor.
For bioinformatics:
(I am he and not she, I understand the confusion...)
My claim, which is also your claim (if I understand it correctly) is that similarity between cars is evidence of their common origin (note: this is evidence and not proof). In the case of cars, the common origin is an idea or "Meme".
(In the case of the species in nature these are the genes - "Genes")
In both cases, these are information units that undergo an evolutionary process
Father, there is nothing to do. These are also respectable biologists with advanced degrees (phd). I can give a link if you want.
to lisa-
If I understand correctly, then you claim that if I find simple cars in low layers and complex cars in high layers, from here I will conclude that the cars were created by a natural process? Do I understand correctly?
For bioinformatics:
You are right that similar cars are evidence of their common origin. The theory of "mematics" is based on this idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics
It turns out that you may also support the idea of evolution after all.
for bioinformatics
I read somewhere that someone checked the list and looked for who those experts are, some of them lawyers and jurists, and others wrote the university where they studied for a bachelor's degree as their place while they really belong to Protestant universities that are not really universities.
crow,
What kind of reasoning is this? If X is not true then maybe Y is not true? Maybe, maybe not.
Laron and Protostom-
There is a list of hundreds of scientists (including biologists) who oppose evolution. For comparison - how many geologists do you know who claim that the earth is flat? Exactly zero. This shows that a scientific debate does exist here. There is no black and white. And regarding the chromosomal fusion - it allegedly occurred after the split. So there is no evidence to find a commonality here. If similarity is evidence of a common origin then similar cars are also evidence of their common origin.
Orva Farah: The 'story' of Darwinism is not a finger-sucking, but is at the basis of every scientific study. From the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria to the prevalence of sickle cell anemia in Africa. Do you and your colleagues think differently? Publish an article with evidence.
News 2 (or any other 'popular' press where the science reporter is also a commentator on Arab affairs) is a poor source of scientific information. As the Earth heats up with the highest probability (note that in science it is impossible to reach absolute probability). The debate in the scientific community revolves around the claim that man is responsible for that warming. This claim is not based on one or two studies, but on a worldwide survey involving huge research bodies such as NASA, etc.
Protostome: from:
It is possible that the whole Darwinism story is just as far-fetched as the global warming story below:
News 2 | Published 14/02/10 14:32
global warming? They worked on you all these years
After years in which we blamed all the world's problems on global warming, the scientist who published the original data reveals: the studies were based on incorrect data, the world has not warmed at all in the last 15 years. The researcher's colleagues claim that the data are the result of disorder in the studies he conducted. Jones admits he's scattered, but not scattered enough to warm the whole world
————————————————————————–
Are we heading for a U-turn in global warming research where we have hung most of the world's problems in recent years? Scientists who claimed in the past that the world is warming because of us,
Admit it now: there has been no global warming since 1995.
————————————————————————–
Proteasome:
The Windmill has heard it many times before.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMj_45epINM&feature=player_embedded
Ron, you don't see a monkey turning into a man for the simple reason that transparent doesn't turn into a man 🙂
Monkey and man had common ancestors, the reason you don't see this change happening is the same reason you don't see the continents moving. - It happens very slowly.
A "forceful attempt" to connect us with the chimpanzee?.. Forgive me, but you have no idea what you are talking about.. The genetic similarity between us and the chimpanzee goes beyond the limits of chance.
Before deciphering the chimpanzee genome, we knew that the chimpanzee genome is organized in 48 chromosomes, while ours is 46.
If indeed we and the chimpanzee have a common ancestor, we would expect to see somewhere in our genome a union of two chromosomes (since, losing an entire chromosome in such a short period of time, it would usually be Talley).
Indeed, the fusion point of two chromosomes that are found separately in the chimpanzee and other primates was found with remarkable precision in chromosome #2.
I invite you to read the article in Nature and argue with the researchers (if you disagree with them)
Hi Prostostom
Everything you described is adaptation - you don't see a monkey turning into a human and the like.
The forceful attempt to connect us with the chimpanzee is not only infantile,
Rather, it goes against the facts about DNA
How much do you know about human DNA and its "strangeness"?
(8 minute clip)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgvqZixAzm4
Evolution is rooted in the establishment not in science.
If you don't want to watch - that's your right, of course.
Avi:
Ron is right about one thing.
Arguing with him is fighting windmills and talking to him is talking to the wall.
Branesh who regularly ignores reality, brings movies of idiots like him who invent a fictitious "reality" for him so that he has somewhere to bring "proofs" and calls people who try to put him in error "Don Quixote" does not deserve a serious response.
Ron, you are talking nonsense, YouTube videos are not scientific evidence - you are embarrassing yourself
Think evolution is wrong? Write a peer-reviewed article and publish it in a journal of your choice.
Evolution is so deeply rooted in science, so much so that today there are algorithms that know how to calculate, given two DNA / protein sequences, the ancestor of the two sequences and when they split.
Evolution = adaptation over a long period of time. It can also be seen in the short term when the conditions allow it.
For example - the moth butterflies in Britain, (there was a strong preference for the color black, due to the pollution that was in the air), remains of pelvic bones in whales (something that suggests a terrestrial ancestor) and on and on and on.
Ron
If the existence of an agenda cancels for you the fact that the man is a scientist, as it is implied from your words
So I'm very sorry, you bring videos of mostly just people and call them "Scientist"
Stop and think for a moment what the coincidences mean in that the word Christ appears in the name of the academic institution where most of them work.
Beyond that, I'm sorry to tell you, scientific discussion is not conducted with YouTube evidence.
On YouTube I can also prove the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Beyond that, considering that every "k" on the site you shout conspiracy, I'm just interested to know which of all your claims you do believe
Look at the short video I brought, Don Quixote, my father.
You fight windmills - I'm not trying to shove creationism down your throat,
Because as I already stated in response 16:
"Just to be clear - I'm not on the side of creationism - the truth is that, right now,
I just don't know."
But evolution/man's descent from ape is a wrong theory
And worse - scientists fabricate and manipulate findings in order to do so
Give legs to this theory as demonstrated in part 2 of the video.
If you have an agenda - ignore my comments
If you are a scientist - receive the information with love
Ron, if you don't understand that you are ridiculous, please watch the next series - note 32 episodes of about ten minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY&feature=channel
You answer like a child whose pacifier was taken away by an adult
Just to be clear - I am not on the side of creationism - the truth is that, right now,
I just don't know.
But this short and exhaustive video exposes the deception of the "fact" of evolution
and restores scientific fairness to us and opens up the possibility of exploring new directions.
Below is part 2 of the same video - here you will see the manipulations they did
In the apparently screaming findings - evolution evolution!
As the archeopteryx example, Lucy and the other friends...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4ylfLqiyRo
Today we do not see evolution of living things but adaptation
And that is something else entirely.
ghost moon
I don't understand the connection between the things.
There are a total of 4 types of people in this context, I'm not clear why the one you chose is weirder than the one who doesn't believe in both things or does believe in them.
Ron, the movie you brought here could have been shortened to one minute:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8asQkegV_wk
This is the level of your knowledge in science and evolution in particular..
What is even more strange is people who believe in aliens and deny creationism.
Ron:
Only for general education (and forgive me - I know you object to the very word education, but still):
It makes a lot of sense to mark the target and then shoot the arrow.
What doesn't make sense is what you do - shoot the arrow and then mark the target around it.
Wow!
I saw the movie Sharon Shelah.
It's just unbelievable!
The "facts" there are so wrong.
Ron,
Internet is not a substitute for intelligence!!!
Why do you think the collection of links you bombard us with proves anything?
Start using what you should have between your ears, and stop referring us to any nonsense that appears somewhere on the internet (and there is a great deal of all kinds).
If you don't understand the difference between religion and science, go learn - and don't bother us with your nonsense.
Ron, I admire you for a long time, I have not seen such devotion to the goal!
And if so, I would recommend that you see a psychiatrist, as soon as possible... or alternatively, help the State of Israel's outreach effort.
Hello to all believers of the new religion - evolution
Next we will get into the facts... without unnecessary stuttering
If you are scientists who do not mark the target and then shoot the arrow
You will get off this respectable nonsense very quickly
Scientists: The Theory of Evolution is wrong
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWDRz5cSziQ
Anyone, have you thought about the fact that we are here *because* of Kdhua's proximity to the sun (and not the other way around...)?
If the world was somewhere else, there would be no one to ask the questions you are asking now.
How is it possible to ignore dozens of transitional species (take for example the archeopteryx, and Lucy, read about them on wiki and wait a bit) that have been found so far, conclusive evidence in the DNA sequence of each and every creature (yes, ours and the chimpanzees too) and say that there is a creature that made hocus pocus Focus, sometime 5000 years ago, created all the creatures in the world (which, by the way, according to the story of creation was created before the sun and the stars in general, something that is already known to be impossible - there are stars much older than XNUMX, their light is far away reaching us after a journey of several billion years) and requires All of his believers should put a cow's skin on their heads every morning, pray in an extinct language and cut the genitals of their sons.
Believe what you want, but know that evolution is not a 'belief' but a proven scientific fact much more than the existence of any flying unicorn that orders you not to light a fire on the Sabbath.
As my name is such you^
A religious fool, there is no fool than you^
Only a fool believes in the spirit and says it is impossible to escape^
Does not understand like the majority, that man evolved from the monkey
In the Torah and in the mind of a religious person, God is nothing, you know that
A believing fool is the one who runs away from the truth, because he does not perceive it!^
Don't try to be smart because in the end, the children will be ignorant because they will believe in God^
It is enough to deny reality and science, in the end humans will have a problem
Don't preach like a fool, if you want to come out smart^
Lisa:
As "someone" demonstrates, morons have no problem dealing with it.
The cartoon in the movie says exactly the nonsense they think about evolution and they can't understand what's funny about it.
You will not be able to escape from God. Only an idiot (or one who is trying to escape) would invent that something as vast as the world with all its systems that fit together in an amazing way arrived at the speed of evolution. After all, only if we were a few kilometers close to the sun or far away would we burn or freeze.
Secondly, if this theory were correct, we should have seen different levels of development in the same species in each species.
Thirdly, it is wrong to present anyone who does not believe in Darwin's theory as someone who is against science. In the US, they are just starting to understand that there is no way to run away from God..
Straw man(2):
Excellent!
Let's see the creationists deal with it!
Evolution according to Ms. Garrison, the teacher from South Park, who demonstrates in the best way
How creationists think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8asQkegV_wk
Must watch!
Darwin's theory is the real thing, compared to the religious theory that proves nothing.