These are DNA segments called transposons, which were transferred to mammals, including humans, from other species in a transverse manner. This finding, which was discovered by comparing the genes of 102 species of animals that have been sequenced so far, including humans, is of fundamental importance for understanding the mechanisms by which evolution works
Genetic biologist Cedric Pashcott and postdoctoral students Clement Gilbert and Sarah Schack found evidence of lateral transfer of genetic material - a transposon from a blood-sucking insect from South America, pond snails and their hosts. The transposon is a segment of DNA that is able to replicate itself and rotate itself in several directions within the genome. Transposon can cause mutations, change the amount of DNA in the cell and have a dramatic effect on the structure and function of the genome where they reside.
"Since these insects often feed on humans, it can be hypothesized that insects and humans may have exchanged DNA using the mechanism we uncovered. "Discovering recent transmissions in humans will require testing people who have been exposed to these insects for thousands of years, such as indigenous populations in South America," Pashcott said.
The data collected in the study on the insect and the snail provided solid evidence for the previously assumed role of the parasite-host interactions in regards to the lateral transfer of the genetic material. In addition, a large amount of DNA generated by the horizontally transferred transposons provides support for the idea that the exchange of genetic material between the parasites and their hosts has evolutionary effects on their genomes. "It's not a smoking gun, but it's the closest thing to it as you can get," Pashcott said.
The infected bloodsuckers cause Chagas disease by transferring the trypanosomes (parasitic protozoa) to its host. The researchers discovered that the insect shares transposon DNA with some of its hosts, mainly the opossum and squirrel monkeys. The transposons found in insects are 98% identical to those found in their mammalian hosts.
The accepted theory holds that mammals receive their genes vertically, meaning they are inherited from parents to their offspring. The bacteria can receive genes both vertically and horizontally from unrelated bacteria or even between different species such as bilateral gene transfer among bacteria which is essential for adapting to the environment and for physiological changes such as exposure to antibiotic substances.
Until recently, it was not known that horizontal transfer could drive the evolution of complex multicellular organisms such as mammals. In 2008, Pescott and his colleagues published the first unequivocal evidence of horizontal DNA transfer.
Millions of years ago, transposons jumped sideways into some mammalian species. The transposon integrated itself into the chromosomes of germ cells, ensuring that it would be passed on to future generations. Thus, parts of the DNA of these mammals was not inherited from their ancestors but acquired laterally from other species.
The ways in which transposons spread to many species still remain a mystery. "When you're trying to understand something that happened over thousands or millions of years, you can't set up a laboratory experiment that can reproduce what happened in nature," he said simply.
Instead, the researchers made their discovery using computer software designed to compare the distribution of mobile genetic elements among 102 animal species whose complete genome sequences are available. Paul Brindley of the University of Washington Medical Center, donated tissues and DNA fragments that were used to confirm the computer predictions of Pashcott's team.
When the human genome was sequenced a decade ago, researchers found that almost half of the human genome was derived from transposons, so the new knowledge could have important implications for understanding human genetics and that of other mammals.
According to the researchers from the University of Texas at Arlington
191 תגובות
ravine:
You probably don't understand this either, but everyone has already figured out what's going on here.
If someone ever tells me that a phenomenon like yours is impossible - I will direct them to this thread.
And after all the words, we are still left with no answers, no examples of serious scientists talking about it, not even articles.
Only you, your example and the brats.
post Scriptum:
Maybe offer your example to Michael Behey, he will be happy to know that there is an example of the nonsense he invented - maybe this will rescue him from the academic isolation to which he is entitled
ravine:
Even if you don't admit it, you've already mostly admitted it.
The term has meaning and the debate has point and there is no problem discussing it even with creationists.
In relation to the example - she is a bland detail that you cling to in order to save your honor and the one who has no real reasons in relation to her is you.
I explained the claim and explained its meaning.
After all, even the laws of gravitation cannot be proven mathematically and all the knowledge we have about them is a hypothesis validated by experience.
The impossibility of doing something - is something that cannot be demonstrated.
Everything you claim cannot be done is so and the only way to address a theory of this kind is by counter example.
When I say that it is not possible to exceed the speed of light (something that most physicists are convinced is true) - I do so without any proof.
If someone manages to exceed the speed of light - this claim will be disproved. Otherwise it will remain in exactly the same state as the non-discharge claim of the bottle structure.
In any case - I also told you that this is just an example meant to illustrate an idea and it fulfills this role well.
It's just a shame that later came someone with a huge ego who diverted the discussion.
ravine
You enter this discussion with the assumption that you bring knowledge that was hidden from the other commenters. Receiving many answers that should have made it clear to you that you burst into an open door.
I follow your discussion with Machel and others with wonder.
I have the impression that you manage your comments in ocd
As long as you are not talking about your "example" of "irreducible complexity" I have no problem.
This just shows that you have no real arguments. I hope you have at least been convinced of this, even if you don't admit it
ravine:
From what I've already managed to learn about you, the fact that you wouldn't do something is probably actually a good reason to think that it might be worth doing it.
In any case - my motive in arguing with you is not related to politics or carrying any flag.
I hate talking nonsense and you don't stop doing it.
If you have any political or public ambition to carry the flag of science and enlightenment in your place, I would think ten times before I would adopt creationist ideas and certainly not try to promote, justify them, or use them.
If the discussion was between me and you, I would have abandoned your quibbles a long time ago - this site is open to the general public, so it is important not to mislead them and to give a scientific appearance to nonsense that originates from ignorance.
ravine:
You keep rambling on but in my opinion the others are too smart for you to fool them.
You simply do not understand what is being explained to you very well but it is already hopeless.
You continue with the demagoguery (and in a wrong and misleading way).
What scientists talk about are possible evolutionary mechanisms for the formation of complex systems.
The term you are talking about is meaningless.
Why did this term come into the world from the mouths of creationists?
If there is indeed a distinction between "unbreakable" structures and "breakable" ones - whether this distinction is valid only in theory or practically - then it has scientific validity.
If this diagnosis has scientific validity - show me one scientific article that does not talk about "Baratanism" that uses this term.
If this definition is valid for abstract structures - then it has mathematical validity - for example, show me one article in combinatorics that gives a definition for an "indecomposable structure".
If this definition is related to structures found in nature - show me an article in physics/chemistry that uses this term.
If all the use of the term is in the wrong context I'm talking about - this should turn on a warning light for you.
Your insistence that this term has any validity misleads the public.
If indeed, as you claim, there is a place for this distinction between two types of structures - deconstructed and undeconstructed - then this is a scientific diagnosis. If it has scientific validity - then the inventor of the term or should we say its discoverer, should gain great prestige in the scientific community. This is not happening. What is the reason for this?
ravine:
You've been answered more than once and you just don't get it.
What is beautiful is that you call the scientists who proved that the eye was created by evolution and is not indestructible as "creationists" and that you do the same to those who proved the disintegration of the Shotton and those who proved the disintegration of all the other mechanisms proposed by the creationists as indestructible.
It's lucky that there are people who know how to give creationists serious answers, because if it were up to you, the supporters of evolution would look horribly ridiculous.
Too bad you call creationists by the name of scientists.
I did not receive an answer and this is because the term in question is not a scientific term.
ravine:
I really have already invested far too much in you - both words and sincere attempts to allow you to understand.
You received the answer in dozens of different wordings, and if - despite all the words - you still don't understand - then too bad.
Continue to believe that all scientists travel against the direction of traffic.
So many words, and I still haven't seen an answer to my simple question.
I don't know if you know this, but demagoguery does not provide answers in science
post Scriptum.
I'm glad you thought of me.
ravine:
I came back from a bike trip in Finland and I knew I would find your pearls again.
I don't know if this is known to you, but I repeat and clarify here more than once that there are no proofs in science.
Every theory is essentially a hypothesis and it remains so forever unless it is disproved by the findings.
The findings can be results of observation, results of an experiment, logical (mathematical) consideration and in this framework also thought experiments.
Therefore - even when it is claimed that a certain system is inextricable - it is a hypothesis.
You think it is a discharge - look at it - see how the laws of nature without the intervention of an intelligent factor create it.
I'm pretty sure you won't succeed, but even if you succeed - it won't empty the concept itself of its content and meaning, but will only disprove the claim that the structure of the three knives is endowed with the feature in question.
Anyway - the example fulfills its purpose. It was meant to give an answer to a reasonable person who asked a question and it did provide that person.
As you are told again and again - and recently also RH - the creationists bring up this reasoning time and time again - sometimes while demonstrating ignorance and raising the claim in relation to things whose explanation has already been demonstrated and sometimes while presenting a question that requires an answer - not only because the creationists raised it but because it is interesting.
When this happens - there is no scientist who listens to the voices coming out of the gayas and many of them do try to give an answer to the question.
They understand the question because the term is defined and therefore do not excuse themselves from an answer with nonsensical reasons like yours.
As mentioned, everyone travels in the opposite direction
Putting the cynicism aside for a moment, this is a really important point.
Modularity is the key to the formation of complex systems.
It is true in biology, it is true in engineering, it is true in physics, it is the key to the exponential development of technologies, it is true in mathematics, there is almost no field where modularity is not a central element.
This is the only way people are able to perceive complexity - modularity is a major part of our ability to interpret and understand the world. Without modularity our world would be a random sequence of events with infinite details.
Understanding a phenomenon means breaking it down into its components.
I don't know of an example where most of the components (modules) of a complex system did not exist in other contexts even before the system was created - this is true in evolution and it is true in technological developments.
R.H.:
I thank you for the refresher. For the benefit of readers who do not understand, here is the first sentence from the entry in Hebrew:
(http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/מודולריות)
"Modularity is a feature of a system that describes its degree of disassembly and the possibility of replacing parts in it. A modular system is a system built from sub-units"
This of course does not characterize any of the human systems I know but only biological systems as you helped me understand in response 172.
Thank you for the clarification
I suggest you refresh your memory on what modularity is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modularity
I thought about it a bit - you're actually right
A car is just a steering wheel, wheels, doors, engine, gearbox, fuel tank, trunk, brakes, spark plug, clutch, headlights...
No modularity
R.H.:
1) You are welcome to direct me to other terms - we are discussing the term "irreducible complexity"
2) The example you gave - the steering wheel, was not built in "one stroke".
This is exactly the wrong conception that the creationists rely on - this is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned the wrong conception of the principle of modularity - see response 164.
The steering wheel is for simplicity a circle with a rod. Circles and rods existed long before the invention of the automobile. When whoever decided to build the first car decided, these two objects received a new context (ie a new meaning). The new context is the car.
Surely the steering wheel has meaning without the car!!!
In addition to this, today's rudders are an evolutionary product of years of experiments and improvements of the original rudder!
No steering wheel was created at once - as well as any other technological product of mankind
ravine,
I have no example and I have already explained to you that I do not agree with the creationists at all.
But I have two comments to your words:
1) They do talk about an inextricable system and not about complexity.
2) In contrast to biological systems that are modular and composed of cells, human systems are built in "one stroke" in the sense that, for example, the steering wheel of a car has no meaning without the car.
R.H.:
"What the creationists are talking about is an inextricable system rather than complexity"
These are puns - system/complexity. What's more, the terminology is inextricable complexity - the argument specifically talks about complexity and not about simplicity or about elementary parts. The question of where an elementary particle was created is a separate question (interesting in itself but unrelated to the discussion).
Regarding your claim about "a system that can be built in one step":
Do you have an example? Describe to me a system whose discovery will prove to you that it was created by an intelligent creator because of its complexity!
I have already shown that very improbable structures can be created "at once" naturally.
I'll take you one step further - show me an example of one complex human system that wasn't built in stages.
What you're talking about is some superpowered entity that creates complexity out of nothing.
Sorry I'm not into mysticism.
I am caught up in the issue of complexity because this is the argument in which the creationists are caught - this is an argument without any foundation - if we have come to the understanding that this argument does not make any sense, we will condemn it.
goddess,
I loved your ideas especially the last sentence.
However, I still don't see how it is possible to prove to deny the existence of an indifferent planner. When I determine the fate of the bacteria in the laboratory by adding antibiotics or nutrients or even destroying them in an autoclave, could the bacteria (assuming they have consciousness and let's say science) learn something about me and my intentions?
ravine,
You are caught up in the matter of complexity. However, what the creationists are talking about is an inextricable system rather than complexity. That is, a system that can also be simple that could not have been created in steps will be defined as irreducible. This is actually the original definition of the atom by Democritus - a particle that cannot be disassembled.
If indeed they are right and a system like the Shotton can only be built in one step without building stages, then this would negate evolution. Of course, regarding the Shoton, it is relatively easy to deny their claim.
R.H. these:
This is indeed an interesting thought exercise.
When I think about the matter of complexity I try to think what kind of complexity can only be created by an intelligent agent.
If we stay on the level of intuitions:
I'm thinking about complex devices created by man - a computer, a car, an airplane, undoubtedly complex systems like no other. Until a few hundred years ago it was possible to think that the systems produced by man, nature could not come close to such complexity. Today we know that computers do not come close to the calculation capabilities of the human brain in many areas, for example in visual or audio analysis. Birds existed before airplanes. Cars also do not compare to the complexity of the movement of living creatures.
The key insight is that complexity can be created from simpler principles.
On the scientific level:
The main problem here is that there is no single agreed answer to "what is complexity?" As a result, there is a problem in comparing complex systems and saying which one is more complex and for that matter - there is a problem in saying that a system is "unbreakable". This term relies on ambiguity in the concept of complexity.
I am trying to compare the complexity of the atom to the complexity of a computer. how do I do it?
I believe by the way that all complexity - both the one seen in nature and the one seen in human society, is a product of simpler principles.
For those who are interested, I recently came across an article by Herbert Simon that talks about the "architecture of complexity" in which he points out similarities that exist between complex systems from many different fields (from companies and business organizations through biological systems to physical systems):
http://ecoplexity.org/files/uploads/Simon.pdf
ravine,
You are right, there is no example of an inextricable system in nature, the only place such a system exists is in our perception of complexity and your explanation attacks this perception in a satisfactory way...
RH - If I have more to answer..
If we assume that there was intelligent production, then one of two:
1. Or would he have left us any writings (the Bible? the New Testament?) that would have sounded like the words of an intelligent being and not like the words of a straight man who lived 2000 years ago
2. Or the universe would obey some "intelligent" law and not be based on complete randomness like the current universe (for example, evolution is based on interaction between 2 random forces: mistakes and environmental conditions. All the laws of physics of our universe are a closed system that affects and is affected by itself and could equally be replaced by a different set of rules and create a slightly different universe).
Additionally,
You do not have in the universe terms like goodness, justice, compassion (all are only human terms, not absolute) which indicates a lack of a planner or an evil/indifferent planner - an option that even the followers of rational planning completely deny.
And most importantly - if there was an intelligent planner, he would be revealed as we would understand the universe and not exactly the opposite (as we understand the laws of the universe, God will be pushed to the edges that have not yet been discovered - suspicious...)
ravine,
As mentioned, I am not a creationist advocate and you are convincing the convinced.
Just try a little thought exercise. Suppose the world was indeed created by an intelligent creator, how would you recognize this and how was it different from our world?
R.H.:
And that's why I allow myself to call "irreducible complexity" nonsense. How do you determine when complexity is only very complex and when it is "inextricable"? How do you measure complexity? How do you rule out all the possibilities that a natural process is what created atoms? How does an atom differ from other complex systems that are not "unbreakable"?
These are all questions that must be answered if this dubious term has any scientific meaning. Of course they are not asked, the term is based on appearance and lack of knowledge that exists regarding the natural production processes of some of these complex systems.
The fact that creationists think that an intelligent agent created it because of the Book of Genesis, let them enjoy - but that does not mean that their belief has any scientific logic.
After all, the moment when a system ceases to be "unbreakable" is the moment when we understand the natural process that created it - that is, it is a definition that takes advantage of a lack of knowledge and fills in the gaps with nonsense.
ravine,
You say: "Why is the atom not a system of "inextricable complexity"? Do you know a gradual process that creates atoms? An atom seems to me to be much more complex than the system of knives + bottles - does this mean that an intelligent agent created the atoms in the universe?"
And the answer is that according to creationists - yes, an intelligent agent created the universe. Read verse XNUMX in Genesis.
The term "inextricable complexity" is based on several incorrect assumptions/intuitions:
- that the parts that make up the complex system have meaning only in the context of the system itself. That is, without the whole system, the parts have no meaning
- that the system has some objective role or mission and that all parts of the system contribute exclusively to this mission
- that it is much more likely that an intelligent entity will create very complex systems and therefore very complex systems are necessarily the product of an intelligent entity
- that the system could not be created gradually - and therefore it had to be created by an intelligent agent
All the following points are based on a fundamentally wrong intuition.
Regarding the first and second points, they ignore a principle in the organization of complex systems, which is the principle of modularity. This principle means that complex systems tend to be built from subsystems, each relatively independent of the other and each of them can serve a large space of functions and not just the specific function of the complex system. In addition, the complex system as well as the modules that make it up have different meanings in different contexts - the meaning derives from the context and there is no objective function for the system.
Regarding the third point - there are many systems that are very unlikely to be seen just like that in nature - the system of bottles and knives is like that - but you don't have to go that far - the knives themselves are like that and so are the bottles, as well as planes, cars, etc. But in terms of the complexity of the systems - none of them is more complex than many other systems that can be seen in nature - the atom, the solar system, crystals, ant colonies and much more - that is, complexity is not the private property of humans - it turns out that complexity can be created from simpler laws (evolution for example ).
Regarding the gradualness - here again the main thing is the intuition of what we think is likely to happen in the world we know - when we walk down the street we don't see cars suddenly being created for us from their parts, but if we look at - and examine all the events that happen every second or fraction of a second Over a long period of time, very, very improbable events seem to happen all the time. Complex systems should not be created gradually - for example if I throw a pile of many stones on the floor - some of them will arrange themselves in very unlikely arrangements and this did not happen gradually
R.H.:
The examples you gave (a photon or an electron) are of elementary particles - that is, the most uncomplicated systems currently known to science.
goddess:
"You surely know what is meant by inextricable complexity"
I know that you mean what creationists mean - the wrong intuition that the concept evokes is exactly what creationists rely on - the one that says the human body is like this or the eye is like this or that a set of knives and bottles is like that.
You are welcome to bring an example of such a system, if there is no such example, discuss it - this is exactly my claim.
Why is the atom not a system with "inextricable complexity"? Do you know a gradual process that creates atoms? An atom seems to me to be much more complex than the system of knives + bottles - does this mean that an intelligent agent created the atoms in the universe?
This silly term leads straight to the brink of creationism.
Guy, you surely know what is meant by inextricable complexity.
It means a system whose constituent factors depend on other factors, and if you "remove" some of them, the system that will remain will be unstable/meaningless.
That is why such a system cannot be built up gradually because if there are only some of the factors the system will be "destroyed" and will not move to the next stage.
Hence all the factors had to be "constructed" at once, hence the intelligent planner.
The point is that there is no single system in nature that is inextricable, so the whole argument falls apart.
The definition is an object that cannot be decomposed or created in multiple steps. For example a photon or an electron as known today.
Creationists' claim is that Shoton is also such because if you remove each of its parts it will not be Shoton (and not anything else, according to them) and therefore it is not possible for it to have been created by building steps. Of course, this claim was refuted.
I dismissed it as gibberish and will continue to dismiss it as such because the concept of "irreducible complexity" is an ill-defined concept - it uses the vagueness and lack of understanding that the term "complexity" has in general and a lack of understanding of what it means for a certain system to perform some function.
It is a term that has no use in the scientific world even though its inventors pretend to treat it with the semblance of a scientific term. Therefore, whoever finds it appropriate to use this concept in a scientific/mathematical/algorithmic context should provide a more precise definition.
ravine,
I'm not a creationist advocate and unfortunately I don't have an example of such a system. What is being argued here and what Michael tried to explain to you is that the "inextricable complexity" is one of the frequent arguments of the creationists that you dismiss as "nonsense". I think that if you want to deal with an opposing argument, be it Palestinian, ultra-orthodox, creationist or anyone else, you have to understand what they want and start from the assumption that they are not complete idiots and they do believe what they say, and then find flaws and problems in their argument.
The problem is that these arguments do not stem from logic but from strong emotions so that no logical argument will be accepted.
The only examples I can think of for non-dischargeable systems are the elementary particles quarks, photons and others according to today's model. Also a point in Euclid's geometry and God by definition.
R.H.:
I thank you for your response, but we claim here that there is an example of complexity that is "unextractable" - would you be willing to take on the challenge of showing me such a system? Or are we entering another sequence of gossip?
Guy,
you are rambling The story is very simple. Evolution claims that systems developed in steps where each step had a relative advantage over the previous steps/steps.
On the other hand, creationists claim that things came into being in one step, in creation.
If a system is found that could not have been created by small steps and moreover, that small steps do not have any advantage will be proven, according to the creationists, they claimed. And such a system, which was created in one fell swoop, they call "unbreakable". The creationists try to show that the eye or the bacterial rod are such systems. Another common claim is that it is not possible for the DNA ==> RNA ==> protein ==> DNA system to have been formed in stages because they are cyclical and every organ in the system is necessary, hence the failure to discharge.
It doesn't matter what your opinion is (which we probably agree on) on the subject but at least try to understand what those we are arguing with say.
In order not to bore the readers with verbal arguments that do not lead to any intelligent discourse, I will shorten the discussion.
I will not get satisfactory answers to these questions and for good reason - the term "irreducible complexity" is creationist gibberish.
The knife example is no different in its complexity from countless more or less complex systems found in nature.
The justification of the example of the knives as "inextricable complexity" is the same as the justification of all the creationists' claims, and it should be rejected outright without verbal quibbles and entanglements
I try to extract answers to my basic questions, but to no avail. I'll repeat them, you probably didn't pay attention to my questions until now:
What is complexity?
When is complexity so complex that it is "unbreakable"
When does "unbreakable" complexity require an intelligent being.
Your answers really confuse me, I'll just answer these questions
By the way, I'm interested in how a person gets along with this kind of logic.
The term is undefined but there are many clock systems to define it.
For gays solutions
And in relation to Bihi's words - he is only one of those who used the term and his definition is not so successful, but all this passes you by, so I will not make any more effort on your behalf. I have to pack.
I will say goodbye to you with the blessing "Everyone travels against the direction of traffic"
ravine:
I was sure you would get confused again - even though I hinted to you what Wikipedia says.
It says there that the argument is not scientific, but not that the term is not defined. Capish?
They also explain how scientists deal with it, but why consider the whole picture when you can take a sentence out of context?
In order to deal with the argument, we must understand the term. Those who do not understand this are fooling themselves saying all kinds of nonsense like "the term is not defined" or "the term has no use in science".
In general, it is explained there that the argument is not scientific because it is an "argument from ignorance" - that is - the fact that I do not know how to show a natural process that will produce a certain structure is only proof that I do not know this but not proof that it is impossible.
The truth is that I don't think this is entirely true either, but I won't go into detail because I realized that much simpler things confuse you.
And here is the quote from the first sentence! Link from Wikipedia:
Irreducible complexity (IC) is a nonscientific argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors
Well, I went through the links, and my questions remained unanswered. For the readers' convenience, I brought the following quote from the first link:
According to the biochemist Michael Behe, who invented the phrase, a system displays irreducible complexity if it is:
A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
People who use the phrase are usually creationists who maintain that the existence of irreducibly complex biological systems could not be accounted for by means of evolution, and so use their existence as a form of the argument from design.
As mentioned - you brought the source (what does it say about who uses the term? Is it necessary for me to translate?). Nature is full!!!! In examples of such "inextricable complexity" - do you want me to start naming them?
Maybe you can explain to me what you mean? (And to answer the basic questions I posed to you - what is complexity, when is it inextricable, when is it so inextricable that an intelligent being had to create it).
ravine:
I answered your questions but probably in vain.
By the way, Guy, you might try to read how serious people treat the subject.
Or are you claiming that this site belongs to masked creationists?
http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/Creationist_Arguments
Look for the chapter on Irreducible complexity in it
In the link of these "masked creationists".
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217143838.htm
Use the search mechanism with the phrase Irreducible complexity and you will see a few more people who understand what a serious treatment of the subject is
If you are a subscriber you can also look here:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist
Of course also on this site
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
The issue is taken seriously.
And also on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
They take the issue seriously and talk about the fact that the argument is wrong and not about it being undefined or meaningless or any other nonsense.
It reminds me of a story about a man who is driving on the autostrada and his wife calls him on the cell phone and tells him that they announced on the radio that some crazy person is driving the autostrada in the opposite direction.
"One?", he answers her, "These women on the radio don't understand anything! Everyone is going in the opposite direction!”
I don't know if this man was called "My Haimka" or Guy
Again... lots and lots of words, where are the answers to my questions?
Have I offended you? Are you offended?
Try to rise above and answer the difficulties I put before you
ravine:
There are a lot of things you don't understand, among them:
1. You do not realize that you have been provided with a clear and inescapable definition of inextricable complexity.
2. You don't understand that terms don't need to be used in science to be meaningful. They are used by people for communication needs and to convey ideas. Sometimes they are not related to science at all (like a table), sometimes they are related to science (like gravitation) and sometimes they have a temporary role like the "ether" in the past and maybe the cosmological constant or dark energy nowadays.
3. You don't understand that the concept of "irreducible complexity" is well defined and its definition does not depend on whether you understand the definition or not. The creationists mean something when they use it and the stupidest way to deal with their claims is to base it on the fact that you didn't bother to understand the words they use. I can also define the term "Champori material", as a material that when water is added to it it turns into gold. It is a well-defined term that has no use in science, but nevertheless - if I claim to you that semolina porridge is a champori substance - you can argue with me about it and claim that the term "champori substance" is not defined or has no use in science would be really idiotic. The way to convince me of my mistake is to show me that when you take semolina porridge and add water to it, it does not turn into gold. The same should be done with the term inextricable complexity. When the creationists say that the eye has such complexity - they are shown that it is not true. When they claim that Shuton has such complexity - they are shown that it is not true. Do you think that all the scientists who went to the trouble of proving these things were working on something undefined without knowing about it?
4. You don't understand that those who seek the truth are not afraid to "give ammunition" to their opponents. He is looking for the truth and if his opponents manage to use what he said to convince him that the truth is different from what he thought in the first place, then he will only benefit.
You also don't understand much more basic things related to the conversation between and among people:
1. The use of the word "as mentioned" is intended to indicate things you have already said. When you say that "as mentioned" something has no use in the world of science, whether your claim is nonsense or not, you are implying that you said it before. In the current discussion you didn't say that before.
2. When you attack people personally without considering their words and in fact clearly contradicting their words - there is no way you will convince them.
3. When you suggest that others take criticism seriously, you'd better be able to claim that you yourself take criticism seriously. It is also better to have a basis for your claim regarding their non-serious treatment of criticism. Using this term in response to a criticism leveled at you that is not within these terms is a disrespectful reference to the criticism.
So here it is - I presented you with a partial list of the things you don't understand (or you didn't understand until you read the current comment - in the meantime I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that after reading it you did understand them).
I don't know if I will have time to answer you again before I fly abroad.
I very much hope that you will return to your place and there will be no need for this.
As mentioned, the term "inextricable complexity" has no use in the world of science, if there is one, please refer to it all those who pretend to attribute any importance or value to it. It's a term invented by creationists for obvious purposes. Those who wish to use this vague term should provide a clear definition without evasions - all the responses to which the advocate referred are also evasions of a clear definition for a worthless term.
Those who are interested in a serious discussion, who will treat the criticism seriously (even if they founded some secular party)
It was said that "I don't understand something" - indeed I don't - an explanation for those with difficulty understanding what exactly complexity is, what is inextricable complexity and when complexity requires an intelligent being to create it!
ravine:
You are too lazy to read what has already been written.
Otherwise you wouldn't have classified me as a creature in disguise and you wouldn't have come back and asked for a definition that was not only given but was even told to you that it had already been given.
I explained the issue in response 58.
It was in response to a question from a girl who was interested in the truth and therefore my answer doubted her.
As a jubilee after the whole discussion - suddenly Ella re-entered the matter.
I answered her. I don't know if the answers doubted her but she stopped arguing.
Then you came - and you already fit what the creationists describe as someone who holds to the "religion of evolution" and speaks in terms of "giving them ammunition" as if there is a problem with good reasons that the other side brings.
so that's it.
There is a definition in response 58.
There are clarifications of it here and there - some of them were given in the discussion with these - and mainly what was missing was the same definition given in response 58 that the small steps that are allowed to be used should be those that can occur naturally and without a planner.
If the definition does not satisfy you - please give me a definition of the word definition so that I can write something that meets your requirements.
incidentally:
I'm going on a week long vacation tonight where I won't have internet access.
Anyone who is waiting for my responses will wait another week.
Guy and Michael, enough fighting, you are both on the same side of the fence (and Guy, I know Michael, your creation would not go and participate in the establishment of a secular party). Save your efforts for our adversaries who have been waging a war of attrition against us for 150 years.
my father
ravine:
Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean others are dumb.
At least it says something about you.
If you define me as creation in disguise then you are so far from understanding what is happening around you that it might be really hopeless.
After all, here too - in the current debate - I waged a war of slander against creationists.
The thing is - and this is probably what bothers you - that I am simultaneously waging a war of attrition for the sake of truth and honesty and against lies, demagoguery and unfairness.
In any case, to get a picture of the person you decided to go down on, beyond the comments you can find in this discussion, I suggest you read some of the articles I wrote here on the site.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/author/michael_r/
By the way: when you start writing us something that is different from words - I will allow you to come to me with claims that I use words.
Until then, I suggest that you add to your use of words also a choice of the words you use.
My previous response is awaiting approval for some reason.
Please provide a precise definition of irreducible complexity. I would like to address the following issues:
What is complexity, what exactly is the difference between decomposable and indecomposable complexity (given a system that meets the definition "complex" is it possible to measure its level of complexity? If so, please explain how this is done and at what point complexity becomes indecomposable).
Until you did all of these - you invented a concept without any value that anyone can use as they wish and "prove" any claim they want
Michael Rothschild (Creation in disguise?):
Words, words, ... so many words, but where is the essence?
By the way, I heard creationists have a new concept. "Anti-clearing complexity".
It is clear that a watch has an "anti-clearing" complex, it is also clear that your bottles and knives have an "anti-clearing" complex. In fact, man himself has an "anti-clearance" complex. Evolution cannot under any circumstances produce "anti-clearing" complexity - everyone can draw their own conclusions.
(As a side note to the nagging skeptics, you are also invited to show how the "anti-slick" structure described by Michael Rothschild could be created by evolution that does not include an intelligent creature. Good luck!)
ravine:
You are wrong - both regarding the complexity of the problem, both regarding your approach to the subject and because of the strategy you propose.
Regarding the complexity of the problem:
First of all - I provided a definition and you are welcome to read it in the previous comments.
You are also welcome to show how the structure I described could be created by evolution that does not include an intelligent being
I don't think you will succeed.
You certainly won't be able to do that with a watch.
Your failure is evidence that the phrase has meaning.
If the creationists were to succeed in proving that something in nature has inextricable complexity - evolution would have a problem.
The point is that they have never been able to do this and their every attempt to do so has ended in disgrace when the structure whose indecomposable complexity they proposed has been shown to have completely decomposable complexity.
Regarding your approach to the subject:
The approach should be scientific. A truth-seeking approach. The goal is not to defeat the creationists but to reveal the truth and do it in such a way that even the creationists will understand.
That's why you need to understand what they say and what they mean when they use a certain phrase.
"Waving" the expression is easy, but it is not serious.
Even saying that I "provide them with ammunition" is not serious.
If they use correct facts and correct considerations as ammunition - this is another point that you have to deal with, but hiding the facts from them so that they cannot use them as ammunition is not a straight path and is not the path of science.
Regarding the strategy:
Even if there was an intention to "defeat" the creationists (and I am really ashamed to think that someone thought that was my intention, but I say this because it is implied from your words that this is definitely your intention) - the way to do this is not through ignoring their words. Understanding what they are talking about is part of what is called in combat "know the enemy".
Michael Rothschild:
All this "inextricable complexity" is bullshit.
If it has any value it will provide a formal and precise definition for such complexity. When does complexity become "inextricable"? When it is assembled? When it is very complex? When it is very, very complex?
These puns are an excellent tool used by creationists. Your example is exactly the kind of fallacious arguments these people use to justify their theories without any need for scientific rigor.
When complexity is inextricable - then do we reach a situation where there must have been an intelligent creator who built it?
The creationists provide enough nonsense by themselves, there is no need to help them.
I forgot to write that as I explained - building it with one auxiliary bottle is almost impossible.
If we use your nomenclature (and I don't know why you chose the number you chose because it could be misleading) - knife 2 should be put down first.
It should be placed with an upward slope because otherwise it is impossible to do it at all (which means that bottle 4 should be higher than others).
Then you have to place knife number 1 on it and hope that it doesn't slip despite the slope (this is already a disadvantage because knife 1 - not only is it likely to slip but there is also a chance that it will drop knife 2)
After that knife 3 should be placed. It should pass under knife 2 and over knife 1. There is no way this will happen by falling. Something had to bring him there and this is another auxiliary means that if it is natural and you claim to solve the problem without a planner - you have to describe it.
When knife 3 is placed on knife 1 and before the fourth bottle has disappeared - there is still no locking of the knives - the one that holds them together through the friction created by their weight - so it is likely that knife 3 will topple the entire structure.
In short - even with this simple example it is not easy to deal with.
If you saw a clock in the desert you wouldn't see that it doesn't have a mother.
You can't see the absence.
It is clear that evolution is a condition for evolution (and evolution is defined by the inheritance of traits and inheritance does not exist without parents) but those who believe in intelligent creation and deny evolution need other reasons.
If I saw a clock in the desert I would be sure that it did not make itself, but not because of its great complexity, but because it does not have a clock mother and its manufacturing instructions are not encoded within it.
After all, when I see a giraffe, for example, it looks much more complicated than a watch - its neck is long because it needs it to be long, but for that it needs a special and powerful vascular system so that the blood can reach its brain, and yet I have no problem understanding that it did develop gradually .
It's hard for me to imagine the separate steps that led to a creature as amazing as the giraffe, but your set of knives was an interesting thought exercise for me because I was able to imagine the separate steps that led to "inextricable complexity".
You wrote not to insert auxiliary factors because it confuses all the guys, but there is no reason for evolution not to use auxiliary tools (a misleading term, auxiliary means implies a definite direction. This is about genes/organs that were part of the production but degenerated over time), and there is not really here Probability problem - the fourth bottle is there for the same reason that the other three bottles are there - because they are simply there. They remain as long as they are needed and disappear when they are not needed - like all the proteins/DNA segments and organs in the evolutionary race
goddess:
I want to emphasize:
The parable is given as a demonstration of the principle.
As soon as you put too many missing auxiliary factors into it, you enter another area that these companies like, which is the area of probability.
In the simple example I gave - the problem of probability is not serious because instead of one more bottle - we can perhaps talk about three, or about other things that provided temporary support for each of the knives - and then disappeared.
This is because it is a simple example whose entire purpose is to serve as a parable while ignoring the issue of probability.
If you want to talk about a complex example - you really have to use the examples they give - like a clock found in the desert or a Boeing plane built by a tornado.
I am sure that if you come across a clock in the desert you will not think that it was created without a planner, so think for yourself why this is so and then you will understand what they mean and where they are wrong.
goddess:
This is not true.
Try to build such a system and you will argue the disadvantage.
In fact - because the bottle cannot be moved like the finger - it is almost impossible to build it.
You have to take the constraints of nature into account.
Nature on its own can at most make the knives fall from top to bottom (the advantage here comes from reducing the potential energy and thereby increasing stability) and it will never create a "woven" configuration.
Some of the steps that must be performed in the creation of the woven configuration are steps of lifting parts and these steps always create a disadvantage that manifests itself in the fact that as soon as the grip is released - everything that was lifted falls back down.
Well, I feel misunderstood... one last attempt is enough.
The knives are a slate system because they can be built in small steps, each step does not constitute an advantage (because the advantage depends on the environment and not the system) but it does not cause non-survivability (the knives will not fall at any stage) and therefore given an environment in which this situation would be an advantage the system will survive
goddess:
This is not an answer to creationists because they rightly mean something else.
After all, it is clear that a clock is also a freak and the fact is that they built it.
When they say "inextricable complexity" they mean, and rightly so, what I described - one in which each step gives an advantage over the previous situation.
Why do they define it that way?
Because they are not arguing with the ability of a watchmaker to create a watch, but with the ability of evolution to do so, and evolution does work in small steps, each of which gives an advantage.
Therefore - to say something like "Listen, friend, the definition you are using is not suitable because it also covers watches" is not an answer to their claim but just an argument about words.
All Beritan will do to answer a claim of the kind you make against him is to answer you something along the lines of "You know what? Although in my opinion there is nothing wrong with the phrase 'unbreakable' because I have defined what I mean - but I am ready - for you - so that the words I used do not confuse you - to change the nomenclature and talk about a 'bubble' system which I will define as I have so far defined the term 'unbreakable' '. With this definition - a clock is a 'whistling' system and so is the structure of the three knives, while processes created without planning are not whistling."
You're right, but you didn't really understand me, you said:
"That's why this arrangement of knives is an example of the kind of system that creationists define as having inextricable complexity."
Rather! It's a system that the creator will define as undischargeable and it is indeed a dischargeable system!
(Why is she a discharge:
Small and separate steps - (assuming we don't use a finger but an "auxiliary accessory") - you can put down one knife, wait a thousand years, put down a second, wait a million years, put down a third, etc.
A survival advantage at every stage - as long as the bottles and knives don't fall - then we have a system with a survival advantage - it continues to stand)
I just wanted to emphasize the point that if we look at the final structure we will see knives that are intertwined so that if there were only 2 everything would fall apart, which leads to the wrong assumption that the only way to build the structure is to put the three knives at once - (by analogy, creating a "ready-made" creature)
And "accessories" are by analogy organs/genes that degenerated/disappeared over the years when they were no longer needed. (As long as the fourth cup is needed, we will not move it, as soon as it is unnecessary, it "degenerates" out of the system)
We at Tal's agree with each other, this just seemed to me to be an excellent example of a system that at first glance *cannot* be built gradually because it will simply fall apart in the middle of the road - like all complex creatures, but if we looked at the whole process we would find that gradualism is absolutely possible.
goddess:
After all, this is exactly how it is built!
So instead of a bottle there is a finger but it's completely reasonable!
The goal was to demonstrate an idea related to what creationists call a system of inextricable complexity.
Using accessories that are later ignored, we build everything - including watches - and with such a definition, everything is crazy, but it is not aimed at what the creationists are talking about.
The creationists mean a situation where the system can be built step by step - in small steps - where each step confers an advantage over the previous state.
In the present case - the "weaving" of the knives so that one under the other would not occur - the knives were placed one on top of the other and that's it. If they took the bottle out, everything would fall.
Therefore, this arrangement of knives is an example of a system of the type that creationists define as having inextricable complexity.
To God
Sorry to stir up an old discussion, but I wanted to comment on your description of an inexhaustible system:
"You want to use the knives to create a structure that will allow a transition from the top of each bottle to the top of every other bottle.
If the bottles are not too far apart, this can be done by a structure where knife 1 is placed on bottle 1 and leads approximately to the middle of the triangle, knife 2 is placed at one end on bottle 2 and at its other end passes under knife 1 and supports it, knife 3 is placed on bottle 3 and its other end passes Under knife 2 and supports it, but then continues above knife 1 and is supported by it."
This is actually a discharge system!
You can place the three bottles and place a *fourth bottle* in the center, you place the first knife so that one end of it rests on the new bottle, then the second and finally you "thread" the third. Now the middle bottle becomes unnecessary and you pull it out, and ... whoops we got a system that looks unbreakable but was actually built in a gradual way.
If the Creator looked at the structure we created, he would say "here is a system in which all the parts depend on each other and therefore had to be created together at once", but actually if he saw the creation process he would be aware that it is not like that (just like the eye!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=IL&hl=en&v=JVRsWAjvQSg
M. I. K. A. L
I hope that the wrong procedure will stop: to automatically censor those who respond to you here, who enter your name in normal spelling...
The garbage you put in here smells bad...
This shows the nature of the "science" you are advocating...
Chest:
I'm not looking for trash here or anywhere else. It's only you who spills garbage about your palm and keyboard.
Indeed - I do not deserve another "explanation" from the seminary of the broken turntable.
In fact, no one deserves such a punishment as your "explanations" and that is why I asked you to stop and since it turns out that you are not able, I repeat and ask that they close the sign for you.
MICHAEL 122
didn't understand…
You don't deserve an explanation...
M. I. K. A. L
Look for the garbage elsewhere...
Chest:
Although I did not read response 106 when I wrote 107, my argument remains the same and may even be strengthened.
In response 106 you did not talk about mutations in an animal that harm itself, but about mutations in X that are intended to harm Y.
Who does not. You will add that because garbage does not spoil if you add more garbage to it.
What is clear is that, as I said - the result is random and there are more harmful mutations than useful ones and the question of why to import randomness from infinity remains the same.
You basically claim that randomness is not evidence of randomness but of thousands of conflicting designs that balance each other out to rule out randomness.
you are sane?
to my chest:
I really want, please show me. Are you ready to describe the results of your observation? Just in a little more detail. I wasn't able to glean much from the bits of information you scattered in the short responses.
L. M. K. A. L
107
You probably didn't have time to read my response on 106
Les. (Maybe you should still use a nickname of more than one letter?)
What I write is based on observing life on Earth for many years.
What I write has at least 10 times the support of the facts
than the theory of random evolution, which is done by itself...
I have already written here before that I have no interest in convincing.
I show, whoever wants to see,
Those who don't want, don't see...
THE CELL is a new incarnation of a float that was previously blocked in several incarnations. He repeats exactly the same patterns. Now he also returns in the name Hab Hab
Is it just me or is the cell commenter blocked here?
deer:
Unfortunately, I haven't found the time to delve into it yet either.
I came across it in an article written by Israel Benjamin in Galileo and saved the link for myself so I can read it in the future.
There was another link on the same topic and I saved it and still haven't read it in depth:
http://ccsl.mae.cornell.edu/eureqa
There you can also download the software itself.
deer:
This is done using regression methods to find indirect functions and relationships. The main problem is to delineate the error limits.
Schmidt has many articles on the subject on his site with various examples. The first article in the list describes this regression method.
Hahaha I think you all missed the genius of Hezi - the man developed a whole new theory of intelligent design!
How many intelligent planners are fighting each other by developing different species of life on Earth!
Amazing, how was this not thought of before (perhaps because it contradicts the monotheistic idea of the Christians who invented this idea...)
You managed to create a theory that is a thousand times more complicated, without any evidence to support you and even without any logical explanation for *why* these intelligences are fighting each other, and how exactly does it help them that they create different creatures on Earth. And of course, you impressively ignore the questions of who and what these creatures are, what they are made of, where they are, why they have to create new creatures specifically on Earth, and the question of the questions - how were they created?
But really, breathe! The funniest comment I've ever read on the science website goes to your comment number 106, the Nobel Prize is on its way to you.
I joined the discussion in order to express my impression of that impressive fourth link.
Michael or Ben Ami,
Unfortunately I will not be able to read it now (maybe another time), could you explain briefly how the algorithm works.
If not (because it's long or complicated), I'd appreciate it if you could just tell me whether the article itself explains it in simple, non-professional language (that is, is it worth reading).
Machel
What's interesting is that both of them are really young. And Schmidt, who is probably the algorithmic programmer, has no academic degree at all. He wrote a free downloadable software called Icarus that does automatic analysis on raw data regardless of its origin. Their article on noise analysis using stochastic means is also very impressive.
Chazi 106, and what exactly do you rely on that there are "wars" between the creators of evolution?
Machel
I wrote to retrieve these functions. Using an automaton that analyzed the givers without the software having any prior knowledge of how functions of this type look like.
Ben-Ami:
It turns out that I don't know how to count 🙂
No. Unfortunately I didn't come across.
It's really cool.
Machel
I was actually referring to the fourth link, the work of Lipson and Schmidt at Cornell. It's really cool.
They managed to extract the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian from raw data of harmonic oscillators with chaotic behavior, this is very impressive. Have you heard of anyone in Israel who works in the direction
Hello there,
Your theory sounds very interesting, could you expand on it and give more examples so we can all agree.
Ben-Ami:
Although I have come across works done in Israel using evolutionary algorithms (actually the first link in 84 is like this), but I have not seen in Israel anything similar to what is being done in the third link.
The broken chatterbox:
The mutations, as has been explained to you more than once, occur countless times and randomly.
A large part of them are neutral and do not cause any special phenomenon, but among those that cause change - the vast majority are harmful.
That is why we see many birth defects, some of which even significantly harm the survival of the organism.
Now tell me, lord of the chatterbox, why would the intelligent planner bother to act like an idiot and initiate many more harmful mutations than beneficial ones?
what? He's sitting up there flipping a coin to decide which mutation to initiate? That is - does he himself drive randomly?
Or - in other words - why do you have to go far away to stars that are impassable just to bring randomness here that is already here anyway.
Of course, it has already been explained to you that talking about panspermia does not solve the problem of the formation of life but only transfers it to another planet. Repeated this a thousand times in the past and s. She said it here too.
Of course, Noam's questions are also addressed to you for the thousandth time and I assume that if you even bother to answer them - you will answer - as you answered the same questions when others asked them - that you do not pretend to know everything.
The point is, Hazy, that you know nothing and you also refuse to learn.
You are redefining the term exhaustion.
R.H
In my opinion,
Not only does evolution continue nowadays,
But there are "wars" between the creators of evolution,
To create new species which are purposely built to eliminate species created by competing factors.
There are plenty of examples on Earth,
On creatures whose purpose is to eliminate certain creatures very...
pleasantness,
I am writing to you for the fourth time
that I am not only non-Orthodox,
I'm not even religious.
I don't bother to read 88...
Chazi the ultra-orthodox,
What about referring to my response 88?
Hezi, regarding the first cell, the possibility of panspermia (the arrival of the first cell from space) is possible and exists, although there are many other established theories and I see no need or way to prefer it over the others that claim the creation of life here.
But do you think the same mysterious guides continue to interfere with evolution even today in the creation of species? If so it's ridiculous in my opinion because I see evolution in action every day in the lab without any outside intervention.
R.H
You are looking for the "mechanism" on Earth.
I make a simple claim: there are many mechanisms in space,
who have deliberate intelligence,
which create new life.
All you need: to accept this option as reasonable…
It is agreed that the selection does not create anything new but only chooses between the existing options.
The process that creates the variation is mutagenesis and is, as far as we know today, random. Don't think you invented the above argument. This is one of the ongoing and fascinating debates in biology, which dates back to Lamarck vs. Darwin, and to this day there are groups (see for example Susan Rosenberg) trying to prove that mutagenesis (the process of creating mutations) is not always random, but despite many efforts no mechanism has been found that directs mutations. Not least evidence of some power/creator or something else that dictates mutations.
In fact the debate is not whether there are random mutations but whether there is at least one case, somewhere, where non-random mutations occur. Find it and I'll personally arrange a Nobel Prize for you.
And regarding your claim, where exactly do you see a perfect life?
R.H
It is agreed that the selection is not a random process.
But, and it's a big but, selection didn't create anything new,
She just destroys.
For there to be an evolution of life, there needs to be a new creation.
All I repeat and claim,
That the new creation did not create such a great variety of perfect lives in a random way...
Hesi, true in this case. But all our knowledge is based on what happens in nature in a random way and its application. Fire also appears in nature in a random way (lightning, etc.) and man learned to apply the understanding and use it.
Besides, I guess, it has already been said here and I will repeat both in nature and in the laboratory, the genetic change (the creation of the mutation) is a random process while the selection of the suitable ones (selection) is not a random process. In nature it will be derived from the conditions and in the laboratory by the researcher who provides the conditions for natural selection.
What is it similar to? A million people participate in the lottery - a random process. Only the one with the winning number gets the money - a dictated non-random selection process.
Same thing, a million bacteria growing in the shelter. Only the one who received the correct mutation (random) will survive the antibiotic treatment (selection).
R.H
This is indeed intelligent evolution and not random evolution...
On the subject of complexity, it is advisable to read to see and understand Stefan Wolfram's research (the Muppet from Wolfram's Mathematics)
http://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_wolfram_computing_a_theory_of_everything.html
And especially the topics focused on in his book A New Kind of Science
You can read it on the official website
http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/toc.html
Michal, I really don't understand your argument. All of molecular biology and genetic engineering is a technological application of evolution.
When we produce a change in a cell (let's say we insert a new gene), the percentage of cells that received the gene is zero in relation to the population. In the next step we activate a selection in favor of these cells and the other cells that did not perceive the change are eliminated. Isn't this evolution in action?
Machel
Thanks for the references in 84 especially the last one dealing with synthetic computing.
By the way, do you know anyone in Israel who works in this field?
Thanks in advance.
93 M. Y. K. A. L
You should be ashamed if you know what this is…
You are an opaque wall that is not ready to absorb anything new...
Year:
I didn't think for a moment that you were asking a question "ah la hazi"
I wrote that I did not understand the question because I did not feel that I understood it.
First of all, I'm interested to know if the answer I gave to your second question did refer to the second question as you intended it and if the answer is satisfactory from your point of view.
In relation to the question of passing additional information beyond the cell nucleus - this does exist - both in mitochondrial DNA and in epigenetic effects of various kinds.
I suggest you read the book by Chava Yavlonka and Marion Lamb"Evolution in four dimensions".
Rah:
This seems like a very strange argument to me.
I said that it is impossible that any genetic change - whether it is a mutation, whether it is a transposon or whether it is genetic engineering - will distance a creature that only reproduces sexually from its population of origin to such an extent that it will not be able to reproduce with you anymore - and still survive.
It seems obvious to me.
Do you disbelieve in this?
If not - there is no argument between us.
If so - you are welcome to explain to me how the genetic change is supposed to survive when its bearer cannot reproduce.
Michal:
you are rambling
I'm sure you didn't read any of the links I gave you because otherwise you wouldn't write such nonsense.
Chest:
Closing the cash register to the machine is a completely legitimate thing.
you are a machine
In fact you are a broken turntable that is a broken machine.
Almost never does anyone in the ruling establishment in Israel speak against education for the ultra-Orthodox, and to a certain extent even the state religious.
When such things are said, it is obligatory to support them without reservation.
The ultra-orthodox education is horrible.
As everyone knows, including Huldai, I am not one of his fans (and that's putting it mildly). But this time he finally stops being from the UN (as he tries to be in regards to the ultra-orthodox takeover of secular neighborhoods) and takes a position on the right side. Those who saw the warning sign from Jerusalem - that only one child out of eight in the first grade is secular - should understand what will happen in the future if the ultra-Orthodox do not learn math and English at a level that will allow them to work and not live on welfare.
For Michal,
You insist on applications - mathematical or technological - of the theory of evolution, and their absence allows you to continue to deny it.
This is a huge mistake. The quality of any theory is expressed in its explanatory value towards the things it claims to explain. In such an (essential) understanding, the theory of evolution has enormous explanatory value, (and it should be added that it also applies to the beginning of life).
Many important biologists have already said that nothing in biology is revealed except in the light of the theory of evolution. From this it becomes clear that what Machal wrote to you, that different medical applications are practical applications of the theory, is absolutely true.
religious,
I was commenting on things quoted from Khuldai on the radio, according to which ultra-Orthodox education teaches ignorance. That was the main thing. And according to this it is necessary for the state itself, not individuals, to rebel, to stop the education of ignorance that is often reflected in the comments on this website, and much more than is reflected in the entire social system of the country in the absence of the ultra-Orthodox from work. Your comment about outstanding religious soldiers is irrelevant.
I repeat my words, that since Huldai is a high-level public figure, he should now be strongly supported.
to Michael,
I asked a question not for the sake of arguments, and I am ready to hear reasons that will prove that my question is fundamentally wrong.
It's something I've thought about quite a bit. When a cell divides, proteins and RNA carry out the division, and they pass with the genes - which are not active at all - to the daughter cells. Since the proteins carry the history of their lives, for example, which can be easily demonstrated, vaccination processes that occurred during the life of the organism, heredity, the phenotype, is the result of a more complex system than the genetic information itself, as is accepted and as is evident from the image of the selfish gene. This is a presentation of the question in a broader way, and I certainly hope to hear an appeal (or agreement) to her claims.
Chazi the ultra-orthodox,
You support the idea of the formation of life here by extraterrestrial intelligent beings, because:
1) You do not believe in the creation of life by itself
2) You do not believe that such advanced life forms arose without intelligent design
Let's see if your argument really solves the above two problems:
1) You don't believe in the creation of life by itself - if so, how were the intelligent creatures created? by themselves?
2) You don't believe that such advanced life forms were created without intelligent planning - but your intelligent beings are much more sophisticated than ours, so if you want to be logically consistent, you must assume that those intelligent beings were created by even more intelligent beings - and so So on and so on
I'm sure you'll agree with me, that the two main problems you constantly raise (which stem from your lack of understanding of the mechanism of the theory of evolution), are not solved at all - on the contrary, if you are logically consistent, your argument only worsens the problems you intended to solve!
Your analogy to the computer is not relevant at all, try to deal honestly with the above arguments.
Michael 48, of course I don't think you disagree with evolution. Our argument is different. In my opinion, you underestimate the importance of lateral transfer of genes compared to point changes as the mechanism of change in evolution. It is true that spot mutations happen and there are always gradual changes, but at the same time we see big changes (evolutionary leaps) without the intermediate stages called in the above cases the "missing links". These major changes are applied by lateral transfer and recombination, with transposons being an important element in the process.
Machel
The term "evolutionary" attached to algorithms is simply because there is an analogy and a preference of the author of the algorithm to use an evolutionary description. You might as well call them astrological algorithms.
Outside of analogies, the theory has no actual mathematical products that describe the dynamics of processes that can be created in a laboratory procedure. Something like Schrödinger's wave equation and the like.
S.
In 80, see my last response to Yair...
You don't have to know who made the computer you're using,
To know that it was not randomly created "by itself".
There are those here who recommend "close the shutter for me"...
Another enlightened scientist…
Michal:
Not true.
Of course, animals are not part of industry and technology, but rather the theory of evolution plays an important role in industry and technology.
Have you heard of evolutionary algorithms?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm
and some examples:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-of-an-efficient-search-algorithm-bgu-2907079
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000292
http://ccsl.mae.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/Science09_Schmidt.pdf
From:
All these predictions have an interpretive meaning. But even in archeology or history, the scientific development is in new and interesting interpretations. But don't expect that a new interpretation in archeology will be the basis for a new technology and the high-tech industry that is based on it. Commentaries always strive to find analogies that fit the point of view of the commentator.
Evolution has no scientific and technological prediction at all. You can tell stories and interpret interpretations but not create technological industries from the prediction. Because the prediction is only based on facts that already exist. But not about the future in the sense of exploiting technological benefit. The theory of evolution is very beautiful but has no actual use for industry and technology.
lol I understood you Rothschild
dnftt
Avi:
Do you see the whole site in an endless loop around my chest?
Every new commenter who joins goes through the same frustrating experience of "talking to the wall" and tells him the same things that have been said to him dozens of times.
Maybe you'll finally close the door on him?
Geez, you still have to come up with a satisfactory explanation for where the rest of the life in the universe came from.
You are only complicating the matter.
And especially that evolution per se is not concerned with the origin of life, but with its development.
here only One of the examples that Liza would say no to them!!!!
Of course, the louder he shouted, the more convincing he was
Wow wow Lisa:
What statements!
It really seems to me like a matter of habit and not of thought, so I will not cooperate.
I wrote my words to S. She understood and that's enough for me.
It doesn't seem to me that you really read - neither my words nor Yair's words.
Year:
I didn't quite understand your first question.
can you rephrase it?
Regarding your second question:
The selfish gene is an image and no scientist attributes desire to the gene.
It's all a matter of natural selection.
Genes break down randomly and sometimes they break down for good. When that happens they do better.
Genes change place at random and change place changes luck.
Sometimes the change of luck is for the better and then they do better.
Michal:
Not true.
Evolution is a mathematical algorithm in itself.
It is true that it is an algorithm that incorporates "lotteries", but it is completely mathematical.
It is not surprising that there is a phenomenon of convergent evolution, for example.
It turns out that even if the way to reach the result is not known in advance and is not uniform - the result is actually predictable.
The domestication of animals made use of an (intuitive) understanding of evolution - even if this theory had not yet been formulated when it occurred.
Evolution provided the prediction that somewhere in the sex cells there should be the information about the type and characteristics of the animal and see it's a miracle - this information has been found and has already been put to many uses (as I have demonstrated) uses that no one would have thought of without the theory of evolution.
By the way - do you know this prediction?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMj_45epINM&feature=player_embedded
By the way, Yair
You know by chance how many religious people there are today in combat units as fighters and as commanders at all levels. Many of them studied in yeshiva.
Yair 68
If there is evidence that bodies from space contained living cells,
Why do you need "random evolution" to assume that they evolved here "on their own" and were not sent from space?
Yair
Do you agree with Huldai that there should be a rebellion of the majority in the country against the ultra-Orthodox? Right.
There is a small problem with this that there is no secular majority in the country.
The majority are traditionalists and religious to varying degrees. If you incite and act against the ultra-Orthodox, the government will fall and there will be elections. But in an atmosphere of incitement, the religious majority and traditionalists will be in one party and will not vote, as is the case today, for Kadima and Labor and Likud. We'll see what happens to the haters of religion and the ultra-Orthodox later.
I commented on the caveats that Dawkins prefaces his claims about the selfishness of genes, and the quoted passage as such.
And today the truth was told in public, bravo to Huldai
Mr. Machal,
None of the things you mentioned needed evolution as the mathematical algorithm that brought about those developments.
Because evolution does not contain any mathematical algorithm that derives from the predictions of the theory.
All developed methods were artificially grafted to evolution. Just to give these developments a broad framework and interpretation.
But you have to admit that the theory has no shortage of directly applicable predictions. As it is in the physics of fields or particles for example. There is no formula that makes it possible to carry out evolution in the laboratory. There is a lot of interpretation and analogies but it is still not in a purposeful practical configuration. As long as the technical detailed algorithm is not deciphered according to the apparent evolution works. If there was such an algorithm it would be possible to produce different technologies as it is done in the fields of physics. As long as there is no algorithm, it's all talk.
My father is 50
It is not necessary for intelligent beings to arrive here to develop life here.
It's enough that they send frozen life here via an asteroid...
Lair:
I would expect from those who chose to make such a substantial criticism of Dawkins' book, at least read it (you know what, not read it, at least read the introduction).
And here is a quote from the book:
It is important to realize that the above definitions of altruism and selfishness are behavioral, not subjective. I am not concerned here with the psychology of motives. I am not going to argue about whether people who behave altruistically are 'really' doing it for secret or subconscious selfish motives. Maybe they are and maybe they aren't, and maybe we can never know, but in any case that is not what this book is about. My definition is concerned only with whether the effect of an act is to lower or raise the survival prospects of the presumed altruist and the survival prospects of the presumed beneficiary...
Quarks and gluons do not decay.
Can they fall into the category of 'inextricable complexity'?
Before we go to sleep, we have to say a big bravo to Huldai.
Lisa,
Even if you put 300 exclamation marks your claim is worthless as long as you haven't proven it. And when there were suitable conditions, about 4 billion years ago, a gradual development of primitive life took place.
For all the enthusiasts of Dawkins and his theory, two questions.
Before I introduce them, I should say that he is a great author of evolutionary biology, and his books are more fascinating reads than thrillers.
A tiny first question: the question is true about single cells, but it was asked about the zygote cell: what passes from the parents to the first embryonic cell: genes of course, but are we forgetting the complete system of proteins and RNA? Without referring to genetics, heredity does not take place without the tools, which also carry memories from the mother.
The second question is big: despite repeated warnings in his books that one should be careful in perceiving the genes as having a will, nevertheless what emerges from Dawkins' teachings, as one of the participants here also wrote, the genes take care of themselves. In fact, the name of his most famous book "The Selfish Garden" is attributed to Genim Retzon. And the question, of course, is how is an evolutionary biological process presented as having a will, a purpose? Dawkins' theory is fundamentally flawed.
As usual, I would like to disagree with Mr. Roschild's learned words.
The apparent improbability or complexity of a structure does not necessarily indicate the existence of an intelligent designer. There are plenty of structures in nature that are complicated and are not the result of a gradual evolutionary process. For example the solar system.
The term "irreducible complexity" is an idle term with no scientific value. (It doesn't matter how many bottles and knives I have and what structure I will put together with them.)
Of course, this argument does not contradict the argument that says that if I see a watch in nature I have every reason in the world to believe that it is a human product (and this is because the hypothesis that a watchmaker is the one who made the watch is scientifically testable and is more likely than the alternative that this watch is the product of some non-human process)
In fact, the creation of life can only be explained by a very improbable event in which complex and complicated structures capable of self-replication were created naturally and suddenly. The formation of these buildings is not!!!! And I repeat again, no!!!! happened gradually. But from the moment such a structure was created - the way to the creation of even more complicated structures was paved (the moment when structures capable of replicating themselves were created is the moment when evolution began to exert its power - until that moment gradual development had no meaning and all complications and complexity were the product of scraping randomness!)
In short, "inextricable complexity" is an idle term invented for anti-Darwinist propaganda and nothing else! There is no point in looking for hidden logic in things.
THE CELL It seems that you suffer from the same problem that all members of Discovery suffer from and those affected by them - again an attempt to put the proof on the opponent. Instead of answering the simple question of how intelligent design can be disproved, you try to disprove evolution by force.
Michael, don't worry, you were clear, and I agree 🙂
S:
oops…
I read "I don't understand" instead of "I understand"
Sorry!
S.:
I think I've been pretty clear but since it's irrelevant let's leave it at that for now.
I will just point out that such a structure can be found in nature every time I build it.
Such a structure indeed indicates a planner, but there are no such structures in the animal and plant world.
the cell
Hahahaha you ripped me off with the "blind watchmaker". Are you referring me to this book? Come on, give some credit.
However, it seems you haven't read the book yourself, otherwise you wouldn't have brought up the clock example.
A watch is not a living thing. Clock does not duplicate. The clock has no genetic charge. A clock is neither born nor dies nor begets offspring. The clock has a purpose - to show people the time. What feature does it have that resembles a living creature? He probably did not undergo biological evolution.
A mousetrap is also not a living thing. It does not reproduce. and so'. It may be possible to create it in small steps, but it is of course not in an evolutionary way.
What did you try to say about that?
Only things in nature develop in an evolutionary way.
The closest non-"natural" thing that develops in a similar way is what Dawkins calls "memes". And that's only at the level of analogy.
The above chewed examples have been explained evolutionarily. And even if they do not have an evolutionary explanation, this is not evidence of intelligent design. For that you need evidence for the existence of a supernatural being, and evidence that it is intelligent. Like if I couldn't prove that the earth is flat, doesn't mean it's square just because that's my theory.
In any case, if you intend to ignore the facts and the accumulated scientific knowledge, this discussion is fruitless and in my opinion - unnecessary.
Michael,
I understand what you mean,
The thing is, when you start making up ridiculous phrases, it should turn on a red light for you, that something in your theory is wrong...
I assume that if such an example was found, or will be found, in nature, it would put much more than just the theory of evolution in trouble...
to "S"-
I hope you have knowledge of biochemistry-
And seriously: you are right, a theory should present a possible test to disprove it.
What you proposed, is to bring a theory that refutes.
I know this confuses you, but theory is not evidence. "-Theory in itself is indeed not evidence. On the other hand, Shoton is evidence for planning. It has clear rational characteristics, just like a clock.
"And every example you gave as "inextricable complexity" (something that is impossible from the very linguistic definition of the matter, to be honest) science explained exactly why and how it did unfold and how it could develop in an evolutionary way, without a guiding hand" - on the contrary - all the examples presented up to Thus, they have never been reversed. Whether it is the evolution of the eye (the Nielsen and Felger model if you have heard), or the eyespot (which apparently evolved from the ttss injection system). In fact, the most primitive eyespot found is composed of about 200 different proteins, so "simple" is a relative term.
I can go down with you to the level of the single protein, and show you that even a single protein cannot be created evolutionarily.
But first I would suggest that you look at the book "The Blind Watchmaker" and see why the complexity of the animal requires a real explanation, also according to Dawkins. And not for nothing. The biological complexity is much higher than man-made instruments. And the claim that this complexity can be created in a natural way requires real evidence After all, without evidence, there is an inference from clocks. What does a clock require to create, rather the biological complexity. Do you disagree with Dawkins in this section? Do you also think that the biological complexity is not higher than a clock?
Ken Miller, for example, one of the top evolutionists in the world today, tried to demonstrate the creation of a mousetrap in small steps. What he forgot was that he was using his hand, which itself is very complex. Therefore, he did not solve the problem, but made it worse.
Is it agreed so far?
S.:
What I'm saying now is really not important to the point, but I still wanted to point out that there are possible situations of what is commonly called "irreducible complexity".
This is not a literal interpretation of the words, but a phrase loaded with additional content.
The phrase "inextricable complexity" describes a situation that cannot be reached by small steps, each of which is an improvement over the previous situation.
Think, for example, of a situation where there are 3 bottles on the table arranged in an equilateral triangle whose side length is greater than the length of a knife, and there are also three knives.
You want to use the knives to create a structure that will allow a transition from the top of each bottle to the top of every other bottle.
If the bottles are not too far apart, this can be done by a structure where knife 1 is placed on bottle 1 and leads approximately to the middle of the triangle, knife 2 is placed at one end on bottle 2 and at its other end passes under knife 1 and supports it, knife 3 is placed on bottle 3 and its other end passes Under knife 2 and supports it but then continues above knife 1 and is supported by it.
I hope the picture is clear.
This is an example of what creationists call infinite complexity, and if such an example had been found in nature, evolution would have had a problem.
The point is that despite the replica efforts invested in the subject by the delusional of all kinds - an example of this type has never been found.
the cell
Caught in your mess!!!
"If they see how a complex system can be created, in small adaptive steps, the intelligent design will be disproved."
–> the theory of evolution.
I rest my case.
And seriously: you are right, a theory should present a possible test to disprove it.
What you proposed, is to bring a theory that refutes.
I know this confuses you, but theory is not evidence.
What does it mean "they will see how" - how they will see? There is already a theory, and every example you gave as "unbreakable complexity" (something impossible from the very linguistic definition of the matter, to be honest) science explained exactly why and how it did break down and how it could develop in an evolutionary way, without a guiding hand.
Offer possible evidence or a possible test to disprove your theory, or admit defeat!
So what should we understand? That the universe even sends parasites and ticks to upgrade with added intelligence some of the staunch evolutions that are stuck
Somewhere in the process? 😉
Michal:
Of course you're just rambling.
Not only did information from the field of evolution lead to the development of different types of antibiotics and not only were domestic animals developed - in practice - through evolution and natural selection - when people still behaved logically because they did not understand that there was a contradiction between evolution and religion - but today they have already used the information that came from evolution to open different varieties of Grain that is resistant to salinity and dryness and many other things.
And regarding the elephant, if a similar example is important to you - open mice that glow in the dark.
On the one hand, my chest annoys me. He doesn't listen and I have the feeling that in his head completely different characters from the writers on the website are talking about completely different topics than what is written on the website.
On the other hand, if Hazi wasn't here, everyone would be left with messages of "very interesting" and "you have a spelling mistake in the first word in line three, paragraph four."
I really don't know what I would prefer.
The cells:
You proved that there is an evolutionary process that turns a human being into a wall because talking to you is like talking to a wall.
After all, this argument of inextricable complexity is asserted about the eyes, about the shotton and what not, and time and time again it has been shown that the complex system - not only could have developed in small and useful steps, but that in many cases the intermediate forms are indeed found.
You are welcome, for example, to go here http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/search.html
and look for the phrase Irreducible complexity
You should do this because that way you will have many more facts that you can ignore.
So now after this sensational discovery it is to be expected that those researchers will actually carry out such a lateral transfer.
For example, from an elephant to a pepper, we will get peppers the size of an elephant. And maybe vice versa that we will get elephants of various colors.
Although, as with all revelations of this kind in the past, outside of a beautiful story and a nice interpretation, nothing was actually created.
That's how it is with the whole theory of evolution. Outside of interpretation and ideas it does not have any practical results that derive directly from the theory. There is no evolutionary formula or algorithm that allows us to intervene in the life processes in a systematic way as it is done, for example, in physics using electromagnetic fields. The first evolutionary transistor has not yet been invented. So that everything is actually talk and interpretations and a lot of spirit.
I was actually born blonde and at the age of 5 a mosquito stung me...
To my mind - there is a difference between the question of the existence of intelligent beings from us, the question of meeting them and these two questions with the question of whether they directed our evolution.
The answer to the first question is that there is a reasonable chance that the Earth is not special, to the second - there is no reliable evidence of such an encounter - and to the third, all the more, there is no evidence that aliens have conducted experiments on humans or on evolution in general. You probably saw about a decade ago the movie Journey to Mars - which is scientifically bad, but the effects in it were not bad.
to "S"-
There's always a first time.
Basically, if they see how a complex system can be created, in small adaptive steps, then the intelligent design will be disproved.
After all, intelligent design claims that a complex system was created in its entirety, whereas evolution claims for small steps, that is, a contradiction of one of the ways will be a refutation of one of the theories. So far so good?...
Rah:
You answer me as if I am an infidel in evolution when you know that I believe in it with all my heart.
It is clear to me that changes can accumulate, but I claim that their jumpiness is limited and I also explained why.
The fact that at the end of the chain a species is created that cannot breed with the other end - that is gradual enough for me.
The claim is only that at each stage the change is small enough to not prevent acculturation with the origin group.
The example of ring species In my opinion, it demonstrates everything that happens in sexually reproduced creatures
I agree with her reading S. – the cell Show us the strength and power of your scientific theory!
Avi,
There is no religion here.
You just have to accept the assumption that there is intelligent life more developed than us, in the wider universe.
The fact that every day new scientists are joining to accept this as a fact.
Everything else is very simple…
Thank you Avi,
I won't bore the readership with further answers to these ridiculous claims, but please, the cell, listen to us: what is the test for disproving your scientific theory?
I'm curious, I haven't heard that yet!
Michael 39,
It is true that an elephant was not made from a mouse. But tremendous phenotypic changes can occur that will eventually lead to the cessation of reproduction.
Take for example the improvement that man has made in dogs. Apparently a Great Dane and a Chihuahua can interbreed, but in fact without fertilization it will not happen. In nature this change would eventually lead to the creation of two distinct species.
You will also read about the bacterium Wolbachia that leads to the creation of species in insects. A similar thing can also happen with viruses and that's how the "jumps" happen.
Unbreakable systems?
Intelligent design is religion in disguise
Rah:
It should also be understood that the term "evolutionary leap" is not a term that you can use at will.
It was originally coined by paleontologists to describe changes that paleontologists can notice - changes that manifest in the creature's morphology.
the cell:
I congratulate the site for joining another blabbermouth to the ranks of its commenters.
R.H.:
I still agree with everything you said and I still claim that it has nothing to do with what I said.
I just wrote that I'm talking about complex creatures that reproduce sexually.
None of the examples you gave meet this criterion and I am not surprised by it.
You wrote that it is difficult to demonstrate this in complex creatures and I say that it is no wonder that it is difficult to demonstrate this in these creatures because it does not happen with them.
I also explained why.
If the change turns the creature into something of a completely different species, it will be the only one of its kind and will not be able to reproduce.
Any example you give that does not change the creature into something that cannot reproduce with members of its species of origin will not conflict with my argument.
I'm willing to bet any amount that you will never find an example where a creature was created that reproduces sexually (and only sexually! Not like yeast) and that is so different from members of its parent species that it cannot reproduce with them.
to "S"-
The theory of intelligent design asserts several basic assumptions:
A) Complex systems (such as ATP synthetase or bacterial flagellum) have distinct design characteristics.
b) that the chances of new proteins being created in evolution are too low, as can be proven in this study-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723
c) That it is a legitimate scientific alternative, since it offers a test to refute it, as is required in any scientific theory.
You claim that new species are born. But it is necessary to understand that there is no formation of new proteins here. A change in the color of a dog can occur by the formation of a new allele. But there is no formation of a new protein here and the dog remains a dog. No new mechanism is formed here.
This also applies to bacteria and antibiotics (plasmids are existing genes and not new ones) recombination, transposons, prime shift, point mutations and more...
Michael,
It is difficult to show such things in multicellular organisms due to technical problems. But, take yeast that reproduces sexually or bacteria (without sexual reproduction, but with lateral gene transfer) and in one fell swoop you can create, let's say the baker's yeast, a cell that contains resistance to the antibiotic neomycin, luminaries and is able to utilize a carbon source that its "brothers" cannot.
If this isn't an evolutionary leap then I don't know what is. In addition, the same cell will continue to reproduce sexually and asexually and spread the genetic load further.
R.H.:
I know everything you said (except for the claim that I'm wrong) and even agree with it.
It has nothing to do with what I said.
What I said is that there is a limit to the degree of phenotypic change that a change in the genome (and it doesn't matter how it happened) can cause a creature that reproduces sexually because if the change is too great it will become extinct because it will not find anyone to breed with and has nothing to do with how well it adapts to the environment in other aspects.
Michael, in my response I referred to your claim in 10 that transposons cannot explain jumps.
The cell, transposons are genetic elements that contain genes such as transposase that cause the entire transposon to "jump" to another place in the genome or to another genome. In many cases, they carry with them parts that have been "glued" or mixed, thus resulting in changes of destroying and building new genes.
It should be noted that the recombination mechanism can also lead to the construction of new genes by "mixing" existing genes.
I mean, the mutations, including the transposons, change, the selection chooses. A selection process is destructive but it leaves those who have changed.
Hey, the transfer of transposons is random. I suggest you read about Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock. Today it is easy to prove this and in fact thousands of experiments that I and others routinely perform in laboratories are based on this fact.
I will add one caveat, sometimes certain transposons have a "preference" for certain sequences and there is no complete randomness, but this is something mechanistic and clear without any intervention of higher powers. like a tilted cube.
Michael, I think you are wrong and the story of transposons and other elements including plasmids, phages, viruses and leader sequences are responsible during recombination for shuffling genes, building new genes in one fell swoop, large deficiencies, massive gene destruction and other phenomena that result in drastic changes in a much more significant way Point mutations. A transposon, for example, can transfer an entire gene for antibiotic resistance to a bacterium that did not contain it, thus "jumping" it much more than any point mutation.
I would like to agree with Yigal's words and add, for the sake of clarification:
Your assumption is completely wrong "it is that there is a gene that takes care of itself, so that its species will survive" soon you will also say that evolution claims that man descended from the monkey!
What Dawkins claims in his excellent and readable book (and there are researchers who disagree with his theory, and that's fine, as long as they offer an alternative theory that is scientific, and not the evasive idea of "intelligent design") - is that *each* gene "takes care of itself". Surely the garden does not care about the survival of its species, because then again we are talking about the survival of the species!
Dawkins suggests that living things, or species more broadly, are the survival machines of genes. This theory, not only helps to explain the development of new species, but also helps to understand the development of life itself from the stage of replicating molecules.
Furthermore, did you know that the first objections to Darwin's theory were due to the idea that at all there were extinct species and not because of those that evolved? (After all, if God created the animals, they should be perfect and not extinct...)
Therefore, the extinction of species is one of the easiest facts to prove (you don't even need ancient fossils, you can take for example animals that became extinct in recent times, such as the well-known cases of the dodo bird or the Tasmanian wolf).
Also, species exist today that did not exist before. I guess you will agree with me on this too.
The theory of evolution explains how this happens, how new species develop. What value does the theory of intelligent design have, which basically says - yes, what Darwin says is true, only that "someone" "planned" it? And who planned who you planned? I'm back to Ockham's razor, maybe I'm talking to myself...
Finally, I have to agree with Hazi that there aren't many women here on the site, especially not in talkbacks. For certain reasons, which I can only speculate, there are more men who suffer from the "compulsive bothering" syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)
And skeptics, for other reasons, there are more men than women, and the combination of these two creates the Tokabakist discourse on this site, which only a few times does not slide into debates of the kind that can be seen here.
And finally, Chazi, and I hope my father will forgive me for my language - I will choose some derogatory nickname. My.
And one more thing, I guess: evolution is not done by random changes but through a directional (non-directed) filtering of those random changes.
There are women, and some even write on the website, so don't be fooled!
The result of the filtering is only partial extinction and the meaning is that there are those who do not become extinct and in them the creation of the new species that you deny is embodied. Partial extinction creates the survival of those who are not extinct, that is, those who are more suitable to the new conditions.
I understand very well what you are trying to say, and on my part and on the part of everyone who understands this, you can't accept the fact that development can be made with tiny changes and you are like that to someone who doesn't accept the fact that the earth revolves around the sun (prove it!).
You should say explicitly what you are implying all the time: you believe in intelligent planning and cannot prove it because it is impossible to prove superstitions. So maybe you are not religious because you do not belong to any religion, but you are a person of faith.
Igal,
"Chavinism"? The fact that you won't be able to deny it that there are no women here...who are you making an impression on?
Just putting vile phrases in here, which is not their place...
Igal,
"Filtering" is extinction. Extinction creates nothing…
Vote for what does create new species...
I'm afraid you still haven't understood what I'm writing.
I accept the idea of evolution as fact.
What I don't accept is that evolution was made by tiny random changes...
Hezi,
First, the chauvinism you expressed deserves all contempt.
Second, Dawkins does not suggest that the gene takes care of itself, because the gene does nothing conscious.
As a result of the long-term and one-way filtering (no randomness) of natural selection, those genes survived, the creatures that were created according to their plan (and in whose bodies those genes resided) survived best in the conditions that existed. As the conditions changed, slightly different creatures adapted to the environment (within a given group of creatures there are variations) and they, and the genes within them (which contained the "plan" for their breeding) survived longer and produced more offspring. When the difference of these creatures rose beyond the ability to breed with their source group (one of the definitions for different species) a new species was created.
As per your mantra - survival is survival is (oops...) a new species.
And hence the idea of evolution as a whole and also the idea of the selfish gene do explain the possibility of the appearance of new species!
S. I'm glad there's a woman peeking in here too,
But at least use a real nickname...
Response to both you and Legal:
What Dawkins suggests,
That there is a gene that takes care of itself, so that its species will continue to survive.
It sounds nice but if it explains anything,
He explains how creatures like ants survive by social cooperation.
As I have already written here several times:
Survival is survival. It does not create anything new.
The question that a theory should answer:
How do new species form?
Dawkins cannot answer this with the "selfish gene" method.
For him, evolution remains "random changes" that are not directed by reason...
To Noam:
I'm not even religious, how can I be Haredi?
Unfortunately, she still didn't understand what I explained about "randomness".
Try to find someone who will explain to you...
The "origin of the species" of course and not the "sexual origin"...
thanks o. for the assistance.
I did mean to support Dawkins' beautiful theory, but I don't think Darwin was wrong on this point: when Darwin published the "Origin of the Species" they didn't know about the existence of genes and he only talked about the mechanism of natural selection and the evolution to which it leads. There is no contradiction (nor a mistake) between these two and Dawkins' selfish garden matter. I don't think that Darwin's theory will be disproved (just like Newton's laws were not really disproved but rather limited to a narrow range of speeds) but rather it will undergo adjustments and refinements according to new discoveries.
And as for Ockham's and Hezi's razor - not understanding the idea of the razor or not knowing it is inherent to the idea of intelligent planning.
Avi,
My comment was regarding the use of the word "in order" in the article, which introduces the meaning of purpose into biology and evolution, which many people think is, purpose drives evolution, and you should avoid using it,
Every phenomenon in biology is the result of coincidences.
The cells:
Dawkins talks there about a misunderstanding that many people have and you are a great example of this.
Chazi the ultra-orthodox,
You are about as orthodox as evolution is random...
Some order in the chaos-
a) Transposons are actually existing genes that were apparently also found in other species. There is no evidence of evolution from this since the genes are the same genes and have the same activity.
b) There is a problem here specifically for evolution, since usually distant species are supposed to have genes that are distant and not similar.
c) Evolution does not have "millions of evidence", as can be proven from the mouth of Dawkins himself-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g
Revealed:
You prove your ignorance of the facts also in your words here.
After all, confirmations for evolution have been found in abundance and not a single refutation has been found.
At the moment we think we will find another confirmation.
If it turns out (which I don't think so) that it is not a confirmation - there will still be millions of other confirmations and therefore talking about a "coffin of the theory" is stupid nonsense and nothing more - even if you see it as words of wisdom.
Of course, Hazi also always bothers to talk about "Darwin style random evolution" - a phrase that is nonsense in itself as it has been explained to him many times but, as mentioned - Hazi (and probably you too), will not let the facts destroy his own stupid belief he is anxious.
Avi Blizovsky:
Germ cells are the cells of origin of the sex cells. Although they are called germ cells in Hebrew, they are not embryonic stem cells.
Yair:
In relation to the last sentence in your response - the interpretation that my father added to the translation confused you.
The researchers' conclusion is that the transposons did indeed move (also to) the gametes because as mentioned - the germ cells are the cells from which the gametes are formed.
To Yair, this is a quote from the original article (not from the scientific article, but from the press release of the same university that quoted the researcher). If the researcher says that the transposon integrated into the germ cells, then he probably tested it. I guess it was impossible to write too much in the message because it is too loaded with scientific details anyway.
To a person from the settlement - thank you.
To Eyal - I tried to correct and inserted your comment so that it would be available and that I would not have to change screens at any moment, sorry again for the mess. I hope everything is sorted out now.
my father
Thank you Avi Blizovsky, we appreciate you for working day and night without profit in order to enrich our lives.
If you were religious I would also bless you.
Thanks
Quote “Transposons have jumped sideways into some mammalian species. The transposon integrated itself into the chromosomes of germ cells (embryonic stem cells), to ensure that it would be passed on to future generations" - whether this sentence is from the translation or the original article, in any case it is clear that the transfer of transposons to the cells of other organisms was not "to ensure that it would be passed on to generations" , but because the new biochemical environment suited their existence.
It is also not clear, at least to me, whether there was a combination of the transposon in the germ cells.
Hezi,
Yigal did not speak to you and did not say that the "selfish garden" creates jumps.
Science is not meant to "confuse the enemy". Only religions do that.
What Schiegel meant, I suppose, is that the present discovery fits with Dawkins' beautiful theory of evolution whose basic unit is the single gene rather than entire species.
Darwin's theory is not the Bible, and Darwin is not the prophet. It's okay if Darwin the man was wrong, or inaccurate. You know what, it's perfectly fine even if the whole theory of evolution is disproved - someone else will get a Nobel Prize for such a discovery! But the main points of the theory are correct and confirmed all the time, since Darwin "come up" with it. New discoveries complement Darwin's theory. All this is just so that you understand that it is perfectly fine to use new terms that are not from Darwin's theory, as opposed to it being wrong to use the terms of Christianity within Judaism. Science is not religion.
And intelligence - Intelligence has not yet been observed outside the animal world. There is no reason to think that intelligence is required to "direct" evolution. Does Ockham's Razor mean anything to you?
pleasantness,
I'm an infidel, so how can I be ultra-Orthodox?
Luke,
I'm talking about wisdom that you don't have...
But is in the universe…
Igal,
The "selfish gene" does not create "jumps".
This is another concept designed to "confuse the enemy"
He is not at all in Darwin's theory...
Evolution at the kindergarten (selfish) level.
Michael
The facts do not confuse anyone. Maybe the researchers who discover a tap and are still missing a million taps? For those who are interested in the facts and interpret them a little differently, can you call them stupid? Nevertheless, we will wait and see what the studies will prove. This is still a work in its infancy.
Hezi, what intelligence are you talking about?
I have not yet come across any wisdom on the face of KDA and I have been here for several decades.
Chazi the ultra-orthodox,
There is no random evolution - except for you.
Instead of trying to understand neo-Drowinian evolution, you get stuck backwards, therefore interpreting confirmations of evolution as refutations.
Who told you that according to conventional evolution, there can't be a transition of whole segments?
Response to 8,9
A- There is no debate between us that there was evolution, therefore it is not required to "confirm" evolution.
B - The debate between us, whether evolution was random according to Darwin, or evolution that was intended by reason.
C- Passage of whole sections, is proof that these are not random tiny changes, as Darwin thought.
Rah:
I suggest that we stop using the term "missing vertebrae" and switch to the term "additional vertebrae" because the idiots get caught up in every word and think something like "Here! Now they themselves admit that there was a missing link and only because they discovered it do they allow themselves to admit that before we were deceived and there was no confirmation of evolution."
They are stupid but that's what they are and you don't need to provide them with words to be caught in in order to articulate their nonsense.
In my opinion - although this is an extremely important mechanism - it is not a mechanism that can explain evolutionary "jumps" in complex organisms and in my opinion there really are no such "jumps".
By the term "complex organisms" I mean mainly those that carry out sexual reproduction and by the term "jumps" I mean changes that are so extensive that the creature appears to belong to a completely different species.
The reason for this is of course that a complex creature in which a "leap" mutation occurred will become extinct because it will not find a mate.
Chest:
This is another wonderful confirmation of evolution as Darwin and scientists always understood it but why let the facts confuse you.
Hezi, on the contrary. The transposons are a very strong confirmation of Darwinian evolution and are probably the cause of the great evolutionary leaps in which small building steps are not found (the so-called "missing links").
The religious finally accepted the fact that they are relatives of the monkeys
What now should be explained to them that they are also relatives of bloodsuckers.
Another nail in the coffin of Darwinian random evolution...
Avi,
If you are not yet using the good services of Google's Chrome browser,
It is recommended to do so.
The old version 2 does spell check very efficiently.
to the stag,
I recommend that you send my father a message by email, if there are any technical comments,
Not everyone should read. It is much more aesthetic…
Avi - First of all, thank you very much for the investment, indeed information that is worth publishing in any situation!
(I saw that it was published late, I didn't know that the work of translation was done just a short time ago)
I'm afraid I have to draw your attention again to the beginning of the article, in a vague way, part of my response bragged there 🙂
What is the difference between this software and the software for skipping letters that create meaningful sequences.
Or between it and the deciphering of the texts of Nostradamus.
The equal side between them: that they decipher something that has already happened and adapt it to the theory.
What a beautiful eye catch.
to the elk I hesitated between translating while tired and between waiting another day to publish this important news.
Stunning
Very interesting, but some spelling mistakes and awkward wording make it really difficult to read.
"With some of his hosts"
"Data on the insect and snail provide evidence"
"such as reciprocal gene transfer among bacteria"
"It was not known that horizontal transfer could drive the".
I'll stop here, and say thanks again for fascinating reading material!