Scientists from the University of California looked deeply into evolutionary history, and discovered the origin of animals' ability to sense light
[Editor's note: If the talkbacks at YNET teach anything, it is that the anti-evolution talkbackists cut and paste the mantra that there is no half an eye or something like that, and that traits are inseparable. The proof of this discharge came from a small and common creature - the hydra.]
Hydras are marine animals that have existed for hundreds of millions of years. The researchers are the first scientists in the world who were able to see the light-receiving genes in these animals belonging to the stingray system, which also includes corals, jellyfish of various kinds and sea anemones.
"We are the first to test the opsins - the vision genes - in these ancient animals, but that's not all," said David S. Plechatsky, the paper's lead author and a research student at the University of California, Santa Barbara, "because we don't find these genes in animals that evolved at an earlier stage, like sponges, we can put a date on the point at which the ability to sense light evolved in animals." The research was conducted with the help of a thesis improvement grant from the US National Science Institute.
"Now we have an estimate of the time when the ability to sense light developed in animals. "The study shows us that the first genes used for this function existed about 600 million years ago," said Plechatsky.
Todd H. Oakley, senior author of the paper and assistant professor of biology at the University of Santa Barbara, explained that there are few cases in which scientists have been able to document the specific mutations that led to the creation of new traits during evolution.
Oakley said opponents of evolution often argue that mutations, which are necessary for evolution, cannot actually lead to the creation of new traits. The opponents of evolution claim that mutations are only able to bring about the degeneration of existing traits. He added that, "Our research shows that such claims are simply not true. We show very clearly that mutations caused specific changes in a certain duplicated gene (opsin), thus allowing the new genes to work with other proteins in new ways. Today, these different modes of action form the genetic basis of vision."
Hydras are known to be carnivorous, and researchers speculate that they use their sensitivity to light to find prey. The hydras show the opsin proteins all over their body, but their concentration increases in the mouth area, near the tip of the animal. Hydras do not have eyes or light-receiving organs, but they do have the genetic pathways that allow them to sense light.
The findings were published in the Public Library of Science. The bioinformatics tools, which were necessary to complete the study, were provided by co-author Bernie M. Dagnan, from the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia.
73 תגובות
To my shepherd, my father and all the Magi", especially the last one that led me: to 1-8
I read the article and the summary of the comments, in order to lighten my gravitational load a little for your sake of course,
And what if not for me>0>*8 and for your dreams to play..for the North's desire...yes..hahaha???
Even if there seems to be a contradiction between all the approaches, when the time comes to tick the "code, the macro-genetic", we
We combine to summarize the principles of all times, and with the whole filtered basket we move on...
Good Day
And laugh to the sky..or my laptop..(Lev-Tov)...it helps me-and you for the "bio-Lev-Zionist" flight..the spontaneity that is woven into me-in-you. This is what I found the nickname for the continuity of the "evolution "..if a little faith in the spirit and no less in yourselves, in your names (and blessed is he who fears himself-as his name and respects to his heart the existence of his lineage, I already said.?..well...for a brief reminder).
Yes, I recommend paying attention to the "encryption" that you receive from me - it will help you now and in the future.
All the best.. Regards to Doctor Higgs in the accelerator-axle.. to the brake.. from a higher conscience.. and we'll see how it turns out..
Hugin: In your name... contained in my name.. to my great worlds.. and wonderful galaxies.
Leo Mitzna-light repair-
"What he did not take into account, and here is his critical mistake, is that he did not take into account the reproduction of the organism."
Do you think that the "I think he resembles a rabbit" simulation was invented for nothing?
to New York and at the same time to Gil and Roy Tsezana:
Everyone here is wrong somewhere else...
Gil is indeed right that the chance of a beneficial sequence of "accidents" should be checked, which is indeed random, and this is where you and Roy were wrong.
What he did not take into account, and here is his critical mistake, is that he did not take into account the reproduction of the organism. That is, he calculated the probability that a snail's egg would hatch into a frog's tadpole...
If you are interested in the real formula then it is as follows:
Product(1-(1-p_n)^m_n),n=1:N)
Where N is the number of stages for the development of some organ, p_n is the chance of stage number n, and m_n is the expected number of offspring of the first organism that reaches stage n (and this is where natural selection is).
Since p_n can be in the order of 10^-40 and m_n can be in the order of thousands to hundreds of thousands (my non-expert estimate) then no one here (on this planet...) can really estimate what the chance of an organ developing in a way -A priori, so please stop throwing numbers and estimates :).
Despite this, it is still possible to provide empirical evidence of feasibility. Genetic algorithms etc. are not analogous to biological evolution, and there is not much point in comparing them, but I remember that several articles appeared on the site about experiments that showed the plausibility of evolution; I would look for them, but the fact that all the news in biological science tends to boil down to the science of "evolution in action" makes it difficult for me (ahem ahem).
Indeed, the words of sages are heard with ease. Kudos to the quality of the debates and the mutual respect of the debaters. Greetings! I am very impressed and appreciate this culture of discussion that I lack in Israel to a great extent
Asaf -
I agree with you and thank you for the addition regarding the validity of the idea of evolution for all fields of science.
As for the writer 'Gil', he is apparently also Subzero, L. from the North, Chen, Danny and many others. A well-known problem in the scientific talkbacks on Ynet is that there is a creationist there who constantly repeats the same arguments, in exactly the same language and in the same words.
Why does he keep changing names?
Good question. He may want to make people think that there are many who think like him. It may be that it is easy for him to express support for himself. i don't know
In any case, we will try to refer here to the issue of evolution itself, and not to people who deny it or support it.
'age' -
According to my father's request, I continued the discussion on the new page of the article, on the main page of Hidan.
Roy, after countless pointless talkbacks on YNET, this is an instructive and successful attempt at addressing the claims of creationists. In fact, Gil's comments seem overly similar (homologous) to the comments of "Chen", "Danny", etc. on YNET, which makes me wonder why the writer needs to disguise himself.
There is no point in contributing to the discussion by adding new evidence - you did that very nicely and with rare patience.
I have only one addition that the creationists may not have bothered to think about - a theory based on a "creator" is not scientific because it cannot provide predictions, which does not allow for scientific progress at all.
Amusing that opponents of theories always use their fruits without knowing and without complaining. In this case, a wide range of biological research, which also includes drugs and enzymes in washing powders, is based on evolutionary models, (example - matrices PAM1-PAM250)
Therefore, if someone wants innovative drugs and treatments, creationism is not really for them (unless they go with it to the end and refuse to use such products as the Amish cult)
Gil and others who referred to probability thoughts - on both sides!
The numbers thrown here are based on the assumption that a gene is the product of a sequence of independent, equally probable random events.
First, it is not clear that the probability of the bases is the same - although this does not add or detract from the argument, it only shows a carelessness in the approach.
Second, although the mutations are random, the selection of the spouses (which determines which genes will be replaced), and natural selection (which determines which genes will survive to produce offspring) are not random processes.
From experience in difficult optimization problems, processes that imitate evolution arrive very quickly relative to solutions that cannot be reached even in millions of years of random lotteries without natural selection.
Of course, this also does not prove evolution ("the world was created exactly 20 seconds ago as long as it looks old") but again shows mathematical negligence.
Please - debate as you wish on the (non-kneeling) question of whether or not there is a creator - but show some respect for mathematics.
I hope you will respond to my request and move to a new page, because for some reason, the talkback system has crashed and each response is wider than the previous one.
I would be happy to receive suggestions, perhaps from those who know Warpers, how to settle this matter.
Oh Roy..." Regarding the nervous system, you forget that there are also electrical synapses, and not just chemical ones. The electrical synapses do not need a large part of the components you mentioned" - but in humans, all the components I mentioned are needed!
Come describe to me how we got to the current situation. Step by step. Which part appeared first and what was it used for.
"Regarding the circulatory system, you don't even try to argue seriously. I'm not talking about a person here, but you keep sticking to the human circulatory system and claiming that - 'a person cannot live without a heart'. There's no arguing about that. The debate is about the blood systems that preceded the human system" - not true. The debate here is about whether man could develop evolutionarily. And the very fact that you cannot explain what preceded what until the complete system arrived, only proves the exhaustion of evolutionary arguments. (Be aware that neither biologists could give me an answer).
"You ask a lot of questions, but they are stupid and provocative questions." - Not stupid at all. Provocative? No. Thought provoking perhaps." Some of them distort what I said, and the rest are questions unrelated to the discussion, or questions to which you can find the answer with a little thought"-thought?
Are we dealing with delusions or rational empirical science?
"so what happened? You lost interest in the statistics with the exaggerated and unrelated numbers that scared everyone" - I didn't lose interest at all. I just saw that you don't have the knowledge required for that.
By the way...what do you mean scared? How can scientists be afraid of questions about evolution? I thought it was proven in your opinion, no?
"They have an answer, but they are not related to evolution at all"-
So what are they related to?...Margarine?
My friend Roy, I used to be a prisoner like you and depended on the words of the "scientists". Expect surprises in life. Yours, Gil...
Age –
Regarding the nervous system, you forget that there are also electrical synapses, not just chemical ones. The electrical synapses do not need a large part of the components you mentioned.
Regarding the myelin - it is important in the long term to help transport the voltage, but in very small structures it is less needed.
As for the circulatory system, you're not even trying to argue seriously. I'm not talking about a person here, but you keep sticking to the human circulatory system and claiming that - 'a person cannot live without a heart'. There's no arguing about that. The debate is about the blood systems that preceded the human system.
You ask a lot of questions, but they are stupid and provocative questions. Some of them distort what I said, and the rest are questions unrelated to the discussion, or questions that you can find the answer to with a little thought. You remind me of a sentence by Ronald Payne, a creationist researcher in the state of Illinois: "A creationist can tell more lies in half an hour than a scientist can tell in a whole week."
so what happened? Did you lose interest in statistics with the exaggerated and unrelated numbers that scared everyone, and moved on to asking dozens of unrelated questions, simply to give the impression that you are flooding evolution with unanswerable questions?
They have an answer, but they are not related to evolution at all. To the extent that you ask "Can man live without blood vessels?" You can ask "Who took the margarine out of my fridge?" The degree of connection to evolution is the same.
Enough of the teasing. If you have something real to say about evolution in an attempt to undermine its validity, feel free to present it. But you have already filled the siam. Worse than that, since you display some knowledge of biology, my feeling is that you are distorting facts (which you know exist in the field) on purpose.
Inaccuracies-1-"They will also encourage the development of some kind of heart, which will flow the blood more efficiently in the internal spaces that become narrower."-What does encourage? How was the blood flowed before the creation of the heart? Was the heart and its special function (pump) created at once? Can man live without a heart? Can man live without separation in the chambers of the heart? Can man live without blood vessels? Can man live without one-way valves in the blood vessels? At the same time as the creature without blood vessels becomes a human, know vessels The blood was also quarantined at the same time? Was the blood created at the same time as the mechanisms that let it flow? How did the creature live until some kind of blood system was created? And if it could live without blood at the time, then why can't it live like this now? What has changed? You know what Let's leave even that..come explain to me about the nervous system-
"The nervous system has definitely been discharged, and you can see this in the variety of organisms in which the nervous system is less complex than ours." - You claim this again? There is no point in a neuron without a signal. Breakdown to the receptor and also without there being a muscle that would receive a response from the receptor. So how did it gradually develop in humans? At least try to tell me what came before what of all the parts I mentioned above and we'll try to see if your explanation can happen in reality...try..
PS - by the way, myelin - once the axon was formed, it would have caused a serious failure without this insulating layer. Was the myelin formed at the same time as the axon or what?
With pleasure, Gil. Here is a possible scenario, backed up by observations from nature. Note - not from fossils. Simply from creatures that are less sophisticated than man, and are the stages of evolution.
A blood system can be improved from an open system by the development of membranes surrounding internal spaces, as seen in the development of organisms in nature. These membranes provide, among other things, protection of internal organs and more efficient blood flow, so they are advantageous in themselves. They will also encourage development of any heart, which will circulate the blood more efficiently in the internal cavities that become narrower.
Even more developed organisms already contain an active heart, and in them the membranes have already been formed and turned into real blood vessels. They still have an internal cavity into which the blood pours and drains back into the blood vessels, and to reach maximum efficiency, it is understandable why the circulatory system closes at the end, after millions of years of evolution. And here we have the elaborate human circulatory system.
And now to the nervous system.
You know, of course, that not all organisms have a nervous system as sophisticated as that of humans, right? These are stages in evolution. We can find evidence of parts of our brains that developed in primitive organisms. We can find primitive brains already in the worms, and already there we find very primitive synapses. Pay attention to this point. There are parts of the nervous system that do not exist in primitive creatures. Not all creatures have appendages like Myelin, for example. As another example, there are creatures whose nervous system is completely involuntary, and is based more on instincts without connection to the brain. The nervous system is definitely unloaded, and you can see this in the variety of organisms whose nervous system is less complex than ours.
My guess is that the beginning of the evolution of the nervous system is in jellyfish and the like, and from there it simply continues in the direction of increasing complexity.
You can keep asking about all body systems, age, but that would be a waste of my time and yours. I don't know all the animals in the world, or all the proposed mechanisms of evolution. If you want really detailed answers, I suggest you take a zoology / evolution course at university, or search the net. The answers are all around you, if you are only willing to listen.
Not true. If there was such a system in man, he would be dead!
So how did it develop for him? Please explain the steps in your opinion.
Maybe you will also explain to me how the nervous system was formed? You know that in order to move your hand you need the following steps - brain + neuron + sent signal + axon + insulating layer (myelin) + response to the sent signal + formation of a nerve conductor in response to the signal (neurotransmitter) + receptor for the conductor + precise synapse + muscle and its adaptation to the conductor + decomposition enzymes for the conductor. If you take out any of the above parts you will not be able to move a centimeter!
So what came before what and how could something here come before something else?
Indeed, this is the case with the person in whom the system has been highly refined. But the fact is that in less sophisticated blood systems (the blood systems that developed along the way), for example some of the blood vessels are missing and in their place there is a large cavity in the center of the body into which the blood is poured and from which it is drained.
That is, the system can be simplified into its separate parts, and there are countless living examples in nature that illustrate this point.
Quote - "You are playing with definitions. An inexhaustible system is a system that cannot be simplified." - True! And the human milk system cannot be simplified! Remove even one component from it in a person, and it will cease to function. Remove the blood vessels from the person and he will die Take the human heart out of the circulatory system and there will be nothing to circulate the blood. Take the hemoglobin out of the blood and the person will die from lack of oxygen and so on." But it is an existing fact that with the hedgehog the human milk system is present in a more simplified state.
Therefore, the human milk system is discharged" - absolutely not and I explained above.
Age –
You are playing with the settings. An irreducible system is a system that cannot be simplified. But it is an existing fact that with the hedgehog the human milk system is present in a more simplified state.
Thus, the human milk system is discharged, and there is no problem here for evolution through natural selection. It simply went through a large number of changes and was perfected until it reached the improved milk system that humans have. Because the descendants of the creature called the hedgehog have evolved and become more sophisticated mammals - including humans.
Regarding the circulatory system, I will not explain to you for the human, because as you probably know, the human circulatory system is very similar to that of the other developed mammals. If you follow the creatures in nature today, you will be able to see a gradual transition from open blood systems (as in some insects) to semi-open blood systems with very primitive hearts, to closed blood systems with a sophisticated heart like ours.
I'm not a professor of zoology, but information about the development of circulatory systems is information you can find yourself more than easily on the Internet or in university studies. In the zoology course at the Technion, the variety of living systems is presented, and then you can get a very clear view of the way in which the blood systems become more and more efficient from creature to creature.
It has become a bit of a deaf dialogue, and not from now on.
"How do you explain the hedgehog's primitive lactation system, which works perfectly without nipples or mutualisms, for example? This is a good example of the system being definitely discharged." Unloading, so how did it gradually become non-unloading today? Let's hear your explanation...
And I would also be happy if you could explain to me how the human blood system came into being. Did the heart precede the blood vessels? Or maybe the blood fluid? How did man exist without all three? Did the open blood systems in the animal world change at the same time into closed blood systems, with the process of man's formation from simple creatures ?how exactly?
Age –
I am aware that with man it is not like that. In humans, the system is more complex. The ant hedgehog is one of the primitive stages that the lactating system went through before developing into the more complex system that humans have.
You claim that if we remove one of the parts from the system, it will cease to function. How do you explain the hedgehog's primitive breastfeeding system, which works great without nipples or mutuals, for example? This is a good example that the system is definitely being discharged.
"By the way, if we are talking about non-decomposable systems and an intelligent creator. Here is a link to a nice entry on the Hebrew Wikipedia, about the ant hedgehog. This is a mammal living in Australia, which lays eggs. After the pup hatches from the egg, it attaches itself to a special area in the mother's abdomen that secretes milk. It is important to emphasize that the mother has no nipples.
Interesting, isn't it? Apparently the breastfeeding system is not as inexhaustible as people like to claim. And as for the intelligent creator"-
This is not the case with humans. The breastfeeding system consists of a mammary gland + milk duct + milk protein + a receptor only in the breasts + a hormone for the receptor, only when the baby touches the friction sensors in the nipple is a signal transmitted to the pituitary gland which causes the release of the hormone and only then is the milk expressed. One of the above parts and the system will cease to function. Therefore it cannot be created evolutionarily. Neither can the blood system. Although there are open blood systems, but they are deadly for humans and therefore the blood system cannot really be created evolutionarily either. And regarding the so-called nausea in animals. This is what That bothers you? Imaginary awkwardness?
By the way, if we are talking about non-degradable systems and an intelligent creator...
Here is a link to a nice entry in the Hebrew Wikipedia, about the ant hedgehog. This is a mammal living in Australia, which lays eggs. After the pup hatches from the egg, it attaches itself to a special area in the mother's abdomen that secretes milk. It is important to emphasize that the mother has no nipples.
Interesting, isn't it? Apparently the breastfeeding system is not as inexhaustible as people like to claim. And as for an intelligent creator... it is hard to understand why he created such a clumsy animal like the ant hedgehog, which lays eggs, waits for them to hatch, and then nurses the young. Her urinary system, feces and sex are also all contained in one 'hole' and are considered particularly primitive.
So it's probably not worth just looking at the most sophisticated systems, but also at all the steps we went through on the way to them.
Wikipedia
Jonathan -
Your previous response was six Word pages long. This time you only reached five. we are getting better. In the end you will just say "yes", and I will answer "no".
I must admit that I did not read the chapter you quoted in the Open University. I don't have the time for that this week, so in order not to stall the discussion, I simply read online about the theory in question, and I will respond according to what you quoted. At the same time, I assume (accidentally?) that you also did not read the three articles I brought in my last response.
I will mark your responses with == at the beginning and at the end, and I will mark my responses this time with @@@ at the beginning and at the end.
==A. When I argue with you about evolution yes or no, I am arguing about True/False values and not about utility. Moreover, I am not even debating True/False evolution but rather the "evidence" and "beliefs" of the theory of evolution. Is her evidence evidence and are there any logical/mathematical errors in her reasoning, yes or no.==
@@@ In science, a theory is often also measured by the usefulness it brings in testing other evidence, and how it can explain it. The theory is constantly measured and its value is determined with each new article that comes out and tries to explain its results using it. After all, if a paper came out that contradicted the unequivocal theory of evolution, it could nullify its existence for the scientific world. This is why I emphasize the fact that thousands of articles have used the theory of evolution to strengthen their findings - thereby strengthening the theory of evolution themselves.
In simpler terms: Researcher A finds a finding, and explains it through the theory of evolution in a way that is consistent with the Torah. Researcher B finds another finding, and explains it also through the theory of evolution. As above with researcher C, D, H and so on. Thousands of researchers have found thousands of findings that can be explained through evolution. Don't you think this also indicates the strength of the theory of evolution? @@@
==B.1 - There is, did not grow, and will not grow, any benefit from the belief that mammals evolved from reptiles, that a leg evolved from a fin, that our ancestors were fish and their ancestors were molluscs... and their ancestors were bacteria, etc. Show me one benefit that grew out of these beliefs. ==
@@@happily. You can also look at my previous paragraph, where I explained to you how any article that benefits and uses the theory of evolution to explain its findings, actually benefits through the theory of evolution.
But beyond that: you probably know the mitochondria - those tiny organelles inside cells that create energy from oxygen. Inside all cells, by the way - from plant and worm cells to the cells of humans and elephants. It is a known fact in biology that mitochondria have their own set of genes, and that they have a double membrane. These and other facts established the theory that the mitochondria is actually an ancient bacterium that was swallowed by a more basic cell, hundreds of millions of years ago. It is interesting that the same ancient bacterium (whose genes also contain remnants of a bacterial genome) has evolved in order to integrate better with the cell. To this day, you can find many studies that deal with the study of mitochondria while reaching conclusions from the theory of evolution. These studies, based on the theory of evolution in their understanding, can help us in the field of discovering new antibiotics, in genetic engineering designed to affect the mitochondria (as in de Gray's vision for extending human life) and in many other areas.
And if we are dealing with mitochondria: isn't it interesting that the mitochondria, which is clearly an ancient bacterium, is found in all the complex creatures alive today? Isn't this a nice supporting evidence that at the beginning of evolution all multicellulars had one ancestor, which swallowed the primitive mitochondria? And from there he of course evolved and a billion years later... welcome to our diverse world. @@@
==B.2 - Natural selection, genetic drift, bottlenecks, extinction of alleles, methods of acquiring resistance to antibiotics by point mutations in bacteria, etc. - these are existing phenomena, it is good that they are studied, it is good that they are studied, and no one disputes them . Do you want to call these phenomena "evolution" as well? Read, with respect, and I tell you that I have no argument about this "evolution". The dispute is about the development of systems and organs from other systems and organs. The debate is about systems with inextricable complexity, at least those that look like that "at first sight", is it so, or only at first sight they are only at first sight indecipherable. And this debate has nothing to do with the aforementioned phenomena that are useful in their research.==
@@@ I'm glad that you were convinced of the existence of mutations that give new properties to bacteria (and it should also be added to fungi and protozoa). This is actually evolution through natural selection, and as you said yourself - it does exist. As for our argument about nondecomposable systems, I don't see how we can settle it well. I've already shown you that researchers were able to prove that two seemingly inseparable systems are in fact separable (the immune system and the toxin of the bacteria. And believe me - both are extremely complicated systems). I cited in your view an experiment in a computer algorithm that created an inexhaustible system - but managed to reach it through evolution with the help of natural selection. More than that, I cannot do, but I believe that this evidence strongly strengthens the fact that evolution through natural selection can indeed reach indecomposable systems. @@@
==B.3 - I have already pointed out to you at least one benefit, which would have grown from the assumption of an intelligent creation - if they had not assumed junk DNA, many parts of it would have been deciphered a long time ago. ==
@@@ Alma hypothesis. And an interesting point - many researchers also worked on the DNA junk even at a time when they believed it had no meaning or meaning. From this we know about him what we know today.
And if we follow the same speculative spirit that you demonstrate here, then if the existing scientific theory was that there is an intelligent creation, then there were also studies that show that the Jews are evil by birth. The reason is that the intelligent creation is in total a disguise of the creationists, guided by the Catholic Church - and woe to us if science is guided by religion. @@@
==If you think about it, you will see that rather, research that is led out of religious fervor, from the assumption that there is no end to the wisdom that can be explored in the wonders of creation, from infinite admiration for the wisdom that shines from every protein and every mechanism, could have yielded more than research that assumes that everything is garbage, until proven otherwise. Newton, Kepler, Maxwell, Mendel, and many other giants, were devout believers, their research stemmed from religious fervor, and they contributed and promoted science more than seventy thousand evolutionists, of whom you may be named.==
@@@Richard Feynman was not bad at all. Gould was an excellent researcher. Einstein did not engage in his research out of religious zeal. Millions of successful researchers today are not engaged in research out of religious zeal, but out of a love for science that comes from within, and not from without - from some supreme god. They engage in science for the same reason people become priests - because they want to know how things happen and why. The scientific method is more complicated than God, but I can say with certainty that the one who chooses to follow its path and become a scientist, benefits more than the one who chooses to answer with the short and succinct answer - "God". The religious fervor of Newton, Kepler, Maxwell, Mendel and Co. is in total the scientific fervor that exists today, in accordance with the spirit of the time. @@@
==But if so, then there is no point in waving any X:0 in favor of evolution, since 0 is placed next to creation *by definition*, for philosophical reasons.==
@@@ It makes sense to wave the same 0 of creationism, because it is a threat to the scientific method in different countries. And the reasoning is not -=just=- philosophical, but also practical and practical. @@@
==d. Between us, and outside of this debate, which is not about religion or theology, oh how wrong you are. Broadly speaking, I would say that there is nothing more useful in the world, a real benefit, than the understanding that the Creator created, if it is followed by a search for the purpose of creation, but that is outside the context of this debate.==
@@@ Certainly in connection with this debate - which deals largely with religion versus science - there is nothing more useful in the world than the understanding that one should not rely on a creator who created. There is nothing more helpful to humanity than the understanding that there is no creator whose laws are fluid and he is ready to change them whenever it is convenient for him to change them. This understanding led to the creation of the scientific method, which requires proof of the correctness of theories, and beyond that, their repeated correctness in many laboratories all over the world. The fickle creator, who always watches over the world and changes the results of experiments that please the church, belongs to a world of witches and superstitions, whose time has passed.
I am happy for you that you have found your destiny in life, but I am sorry that you chose an intelligent creator as a way to explain it. @@@
----------
== The possible summation space for a simple 10-gene system is 10000^20 summations. It can be described as a matrix with 10000 dimensions, about 20 possible values for each dimension. Every existing biological system is a point in this matrix, which is a meeting of 10000 scalars, which are adapted to each other and constitute a functional system. Around each such point, you will be able to define a small island, of displacements that can be moved here or there, in this and that scalars, and get similar systems. For example, from the point that constitutes the sweat system of a dog, by exchanging the values of several scalars, you will get the sweat system of a cat. Another point in its vicinity will give you an elephant's sweat system and many other points will give a sweat system that will be effective in other created or uncreated creatures. But the lactation systems of sorts, are a small island, around some point, which is a galactic distance away from the sweat systems, in the pure matrix. And the immune system is another point, a galactic distance away from both of them. And the blood system, the bone, the feather of the wings, the kidney, the brain, etc., each of them is an isolated system in a frightening ocean of the size of garbage cans.==
@@@ One of the problems with your combination space is that it only refers to possible proteins and genes, and the end result, which is actually a very complicated system, which has been perfected over the years. I notice you don't refer to more primitive 'sweating' systems than those of a cat or dog. However, such gradual sweating systems - which have undergone evolution - exist even between different mammals (http://www.springerlink.com/content/r25946621680811l/).
From the moment there are a number of initial and primitive systems - which can be very simple - your space of combinations already consists of a meeting of many more reasonable possibilities. Each such system already contains the possibilities for further development, so that instead of referring to a combination space consisting of 20^10000 genes, one can actually refer to a much smaller combination space, which results from the combination of many primitive systems to create a more efficient and sophisticated system.
In other words, not every trait (eg, milk production) needs to be reinvented. There is no need to go over the one possibility out of 20^10000 combinations that will result in the birth of a new creature that will say to its dinosaur mother, "Mother, mother, come quickly! I need a bra and feel a strong urge to breastfeed!" Sound ridiculous? Well, that's what you're actually saying.
What is the other option? Well, we have a sweat system in marsupials as early as 120 million years ago. The claim today is that these marsupials gave birth to their offspring at a very early age, and transferred them to a pouch that had enlarged sweat glands that were modified to secrete a primitive type of sweat/milk. In this way, one primitive system leads to the formation of another primitive system - and slowly over the generations, the systems become more and more sophisticated until the high level we witness today.
By the way, the combination space you described of 10 genes actually describes a relatively simple metabolic pathway. A metabolic pathway like the one you already admitted can be created in the laboratory in bacteria to break down antibiotics, for example. Have you refuted your own argument? @@@
==From a study I saw, on behalf of linguistics experts, it appears that out of 100^26 possible sentences of 100 letters in length in the English language, only about 25^10 are meaningful sentences. Do you understand what a zero percent that is? And why would you think that in genetic simplifiers, the percentage of biological systems, that have meaning, the situation is different? And if the situation is not different, and the useful meeting points in the matrix of possibilities, are diluted in an ocean full of garbage, how will it be possible to move from one to the other in small steps?==
@@@Alas for metaphors! Linguists have a hard tendency to accept only correct and complete sentences as possible sentences. Biology has a great tendency to 'make do with what is'. Even if there is only half a system active, there are other systems that can cover it. This is true not only in metabolic pathways but also in body systems. @@@
==Even if we were to assume that the space of shards is saturated and overflowing with good possibilities, what is good for one is not good for another. An electric flashlight growing from the forehead, good for deep-sea fish, but not for cows. Therefore, the probabilistic encounter between some successful path, a creature in which those mutations are supposed to be useful, in the habitat where that creature lives, is zero among zeros. Did the fish of the depths scan the entire possible space until they came across the shroff that brought an electric flashlight to the forehead anyway, and it turned out to be shrunk with them by natural selection anyway? ==
@@@ says again. Indeed it is hard to believe that one fish from the depths got up in the morning, looked at his young son and asked him "What is that traffic light on your forehead?". The process is gradual, and based on systems that were already there. In the case of the fish of the deep, it is a symbiosis between light-emitting bacteria and an organ on the head of the fish. That is, we already have here a combination of a complicated system that you admit could have formed (the bacteria spreading the light) and a very simple system - the area on the head of the fish where the bacteria can sit. From here on the system can only be perfected - moving away from the head of the fish, for example, like on a fishing rod. But the initial system can be created too easily from previous systems. There is no need to assume that one day a fish was born in which all the genetic mutations necessary to create the system from scratch occurred. @@@
==Evolution is random, and probability is everything:
I recommend that you consult the book "From Mendelism to Genetic Engineering" published by the OP, Unit 8, in the chapter entitled - "The Appeal to Classical Darwinism", where the reason for the existence of the "Neutralist Evolution" school of thought is explained, which is that the Darwinist theory of evolution predicts a certain picture that we were supposed to see in the comparison Genomes of different creatures along the evolutionary tree, and in practice the emerging picture is completely different. Darwinist evolution, because of *clear probabilistic calculations*, which Dawkins explains in his book "The Blind Watchmaker" in the third chapter "Accumulation of small changes", believes that evolution can only progress by small adaptive steps. Evolution of small adaptive steps predicts a certain molecular picture and it is said there - "If only selection was responsible for the evolution of DNA and proteins, then we would have to expect that the molecular distance between the shark and the gram fish, for example, would be much smaller than the distance between the shark and the eagle in the sky... But the findings contradict this prediction." And later there - "These and other findings and calculations formed the basis for the neutralist theory of molecular evolution. Its main claim - in contrast to that of the selectionist (Darwinian) theory is that the vast majority of mutations in DNA have no adaptive value" - are you following? Due to a molecular comparison between genomes, as well as due to Kimura's genetic calculations, it appears that evolution often progresses by the accumulation of *neutral* mutations. And at the end of one of his articles, Kimura wrote - "... after all, at the basic level of the genetic material - most of the evolutionary changes are driven by the power of random drift."
did you hear But please say again "not random", at least not according to the more modern currents in the world of evolution belief.==
@@@ Not pretty. Regarding the message, please refer to the whole thing. And I quote: "... after all, at the basic level of the genetic material". Basic. Basic. Basic. Not at the level of metabolic pathways, not at the level of systems. Kimura's conclusion is that it is a random drift at the most basic level of the genetic material. And, to Tommy, I thought that you had already agreed on the evolution of simple metabolic pathways in bacteria, and we had already moved on to talk about complete systems. @@@
==and fossil finds. Check out this article – http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_9.htm
Regarding Gold's findings from Makar Fossils. See there the continuous graph that predicts Darwinian evolution, and compare it to the fragmented graph emerging from Gould's research.
So how did Gold solve the problem? No problem. If not continuous gradual evolution, then "evolution of jumps". That is, no more advantageous small steps.
And what is the probability of this evolution? And what about all of Dawkins's just arguments, *on probabilistic grounds*, regarding the necessity of continuous gradation and small steps? Gold and Kimura have solutions. And at the end of his aforementioned article, Kimura, who felt the probabilistic problem, wrote as follows: "And although this *random* process seems slow and meaningless during the short days of man's life, on the scale of geological time, this process causes a change of huge dimensions."
Well, such mantras are only good for those whose definition "Creator created" is out of the question, but not in a school setting, and not in the context of a debate about X:Y in favor of any party. The scale of geologic time is zero and laughable compared to the spaces of possible combinations for this "random" process, which is driven "mainly by random genetic drift". ==
@@@ I answered you about the problem of possible combinations, which was presented by you in an oversimplified manner. Geological time does allow the creation of complex systems from less complex systems. @@@
==I believe in this regard as Dawkins, that *probability scales*, evolution cannot be driven *mainly* by random drift and the accumulation of neutral mutations into giant steps or leaps, but I of course accept Gold's fossil findings and Kimura's molecular studies, which cannot be disagreed On them, and as a result, both schools of thought are disproven. And the profit I gain from the fact that "Creator created" is not a forbidden conclusion for me, among other things, is that I don't have to believe in mantras, let alone call them "science". ==
@@@ Let me tell you a parable, to demonstrate the logic of your conclusion.
Two women came to King Solomon, with one baby.
One of them said "He's mine!"
The other said "He is mine!"
What did Solomon do?
"Kill the two women," he ordered his servants, "and throw the baby to the dogs."
Two theories can live side by side, with the help of minor changes. There is no need to 'kill' the two theories because they do not agree with each other on several points, and as a result decide that another theory, which is not reasonable at all, is the correct one.
But that's exactly what you do.
I'm glad you're happy with your belief, but I'd rather you find a more logical way to convince us.
Good Day. @@@
Yonatani, it's a waste of the readers' time and Roy's time. This is not the place to convince someone that the existence of a creator is part of a scientific argument, for that there are sites that do not need to volunteer like the participants of this site, because unfortunately they are slyly funded with the tax money I pay. With all due respect to every missionary, Jewish, Christian, Chinese, Indian. Please thank you for your argument, leave us alone.
It is certainly impossible to distort the words of Dawkins, who is trying to describe the other side, and take these things out without bringing his reactions. This is called taking things out of context.
If those with whom the definition of "Creator created" is out of the question, does not enter his school, please leave our school and be satisfied with religious websites, then you will not demand from this website to side with those who believe in astrology, numerology, and other things, why by force to convince that there is a God?
Roy,
I will address a few points in your words.
First, a philosophical, principled point:
"++ There is no doubt that the design is indeed excellent, but let's not forget that God is the 'zero solution' - that is, a solution that does not lead us anywhere. On the other hand, the evolution solution has already produced thousands of studies that use the theory of evolution to better understand the processes of life, history and science"
A. When I argue with you about evolution yes or no, I am arguing about True/False values and not about utility. Moreover, I am not even debating True/False evolution but rather the "evidence" and "beliefs" of the theory of evolution. Is her evidence evidence and are there logical/mathematical errors in her reasoning, yes or no.
Therefore, the reasoning of utilitarianism does not play here. In many respects, for example, for many practical calculation purposes, it is convenient and useful for us to look at the Earth as stationary. Is that why you will claim that the Earth is stationary?
B. You are also wrong from a utilitarian point of view.
B.1 - There is, has not grown, and will not grow, any benefit from the belief that mammals evolved from reptiles, that a leg evolved from a fin, that our ancestors were fish and their ancestors were molluscs... and their ancestors were germs, etc. Show me one benefit that grew out of these beliefs.
B.2 - Natural selection, genetic drift, bottlenecks, extinction of alleles, methods of acquiring resistance to antibiotics by point mutations in bacteria, etc. - these are existing phenomena, it is good that they are studied, it is good that they are studied, and no one disputes them. Do you want to call these phenomena "evolution" as well? Read, with respect, and I tell you that I have no argument about this "evolution". The dispute is about the development of systems and organs from other systems and organs. The debate is about systems with inextricable complexity, at least those that look like that "at first sight", is it so, or only at first sight they are only at first sight indecipherable. And this debate has nothing to do with the aforementioned phenomena that are useful in their research.
B.3 - I have already pointed out to you at least one benefit, which would have grown from an intelligent healthy assumption - if they had not assumed junk DNA, many parts of it would have been decoded long ago.
If you think about it, you will see that on the contrary, research that is led out of religious fervor, from the assumption that there is no end to the wisdom that can be explored in the wonders of creation, from infinite admiration for the wisdom that shines from every protein and every mechanism, could have yielded more than research that assumes that everything is garbage, until proven otherwise. Newton, Kepler, Maxwell, Mendel, and many other giants, were devout believers, their research stemmed from religious fervor, and they contributed and promoted science more than seventy thousand evolutionists, you name it.
third. Your words about the "creator in creation" solution as the "zero solution" - that is, a solution that does not lead us anywhere", remind me of a scientist I spoke with who claimed that even he, let's assume, hypothetically, will be proven tomorrow, in some way, that a week after the creation of the , it already had elephants and whales and humans, and it will be proven, let's say, that it is impossible that they came from space, even then, even though we don't have any evolutionary mechanism that explains their creation within a week, he, as a scientist, will believe that they were created by some unknown evolutionary process. Because, he said, "Creator created" is a statement outside the scientific paradigm.
But if so, then there is no point in waving any X:0 in favor of evolution, since 0 is placed next to creation *by definition*, for philosophical reasons.
Well, whoever thinks so, I have no argument with him. I am not debating philosophies or beliefs and concepts. His science is not scientific and his paradigm is not paradigmatic. The science I am familiar with contains the theory of probability. And if, let's say hypothetically, the probability of creating life through natural processes, and the probability of the development of life mechanisms from other life mechanisms, in the evolutionary mechanism proposed by the existing theories of evolution, tends to zero, then the probability that life was created by an intelligent creation, tends to 1. Scientifically. point. And without any connection to benefit or unnecessary assumptions - until proven otherwise.
d. Between us, and outside of this debate, which is not about religion or theology, oh how wrong you are. By and large, I would say that there is nothing more useful in the world, a real benefit, than the understanding that the Creator created, if it is followed by a search for the purpose of creation, but that is outside the context of this debate.
=============================================
Two other recurring points in your words are:
1. Evolution is not random.
2. “No. No, no and no. Probability is not the issue here"
Well, evolution is random, and yes. Yes, yes and once again yes, probability is everything.
And it would be very useful in my opinion, if you would give me just a little bit of credit, and assume that I know the claims of evolution, about natural selection, cumulative selection, and about "evolution is not random". And as a result, you will try to understand why I still claim that evolution is indeed random, and that the probability of its scenarios is zero, and then we will cease to be a dialogue of the deaf.
Evolution is random:
Natural selection does not create any mechanism. As her name is, she is just an arbiter. It is nothing but a missing force.
The abundance of mechanisms and developments, which are supposedly presented to natural selection to sort out, are supposed to be produced by the mutations. And the mutations are random.
In which case would I agree with you that random mutations + natural selection can lead to the development of organs and mechanisms, in a non-random way?
In case the space of possible combinations was small, relative to the scanning space covered by the mutations.
Or alternatively, if the space of combinations was as large as we wanted, but it was a given that a very high percentage of it are combinations that can constitute effective biological mechanisms.
In such a space, saturated and overflowing with good possibilities, with miraculous mechanisms, it was possible to believe that functional systems could develop from other functional systems, in intermediate paths of small advantageous steps, the probability of which is not zero.
But this is not the reality.
The possible concatenation space for a simple 10-gene system is 10000^20 concatenations. It can be described as a matrix with 10000 dimensions, about 20 possible values for each dimension. Every existing biological system is a point in this matrix, which is a meeting of 10000 scalars, which are adapted to each other and constitute a functional system. Around each such point, you will be able to define a small island, of displacements that can be moved here or there, in this and that scalars, and get similar systems. For example, from the point that constitutes the sweat system of a dog, by exchanging the values of several scalars, you will get the sweat system of a cat. Another point in its vicinity will give you an elephant's sweat system and many other points will give a sweat system that will be effective in other created or uncreated creatures. But the lactation systems of sorts, are a small island, around some point, which is a galactic distance away from the sweat systems, in the pure matrix. And the immune system is another point, a galactic distance away from both of them. And the blood system, the bone, the feather of the wings, the kidney, the brain, etc., each of them is an isolated system in a frightening ocean of the size of garbage cans.
According to the belief of evolution, all the various and varied systems that exist today in the world of organisms, all evolved from some ancient systems. The existing systems are scattered throughout space, and the belief that it was possible to reach from a small set of systems, to all the existing systems, through intermediate routes of small advantageous steps, is actually equivalent to the belief that the entire space is saturated and replete with such systems, and therefore it was possible to jump, in small steps from system to system.
It's a belief, in my opinion, but I don't argue with beliefs. The question is what *evidence* does the theory of evolution have that this is the case?
From a study I saw, on behalf of linguistics experts, it appears that out of 100^26 possible sentences of 100 letters in the English language, only about 25^10 are meaningful sentences. Do you understand what a zero percent that is? And why would you think that in genetic simplifiers, the percentage of biological systems, that have meaning, the situation is different? And if the situation is not different, and the useful meeting points in the matrix of possibilities, are diluted in an ocean full of garbage, how will it be possible to move from one to the other in small steps?
Evolution is random:
Even if we were to assume that the space of shards is saturated and overflowing with good possibilities, what is good for one is not good for another. An electric flashlight growing from the forehead, good for deep-sea fish, but not for cows. Therefore, the probabilistic encounter between some successful path, a creature in which those mutations are supposed to be useful, in the habitat where that creature lives, is zero among zeros. Did the fish of the depths scan the entire possible space until they came across the shroff that brought an electric flashlight to the forehead anyway, and it turned out to be shrunk with them by natural selection anyway?
Evolution is random:
Genes that jumped and duplicated, and mutated in them, in the right places and at the right times, which adapted them into new systems - all of this is completely random and there are endless probabilities of zeros. I am forced to repeat this again, because you called my words "rhetoric", unjustly, and missed the point. You claimed that the genome is full and overflowing with such pseudo-genes and gene remnants, which in your opinion is sufficient raw material for creating new clusters.
A. I'm not sure that the genome is indeed full and overflowing with such, and most of what is called junk DNA is repeated sequences that have a role in gene control and so on, but let's assume as you said.
But this multiple raw material is exactly like a liter of ink, and the distance between it and the creation of new systems, operating in new organs, under new control, is exactly like the distance from a liter of ink to the Encyclopedia Britannica. what are you saying? It's not the same. Evolution does not speak of a random scattering of ink (mutations) that creates a script (new genes). Right. But what you talked about is not a gradual evolution of small steps. Just as (Derwinian) evolution does not believe in the accumulation of neutral mutations into large steps, because of the zero probability of this, it also cannot believe in the successful combination of 10 genes that have changed, to close a new circle that constitutes a new system. If there is a gene for a key, which opens a specific lock, and if you are given an abundance of key halves, what is the probability that connecting two such halves will open a random lock that happens to be in front of you? What is the probability that connecting two key halves + a few small changes in the right places will open a random lock that happens to be in front of you? And what is the probability that 5 genes that formed one system and jumped to a random place in the genome, with another 5 genes that jumped from another system to a random place in the genome, and some random changes occurred in them, will together form a new system, a new circuit, whose parts are adapted to each other, and that there will also be a new control system, which routes the The new genes for a specific target organ? Isn't it a matter of probability?
Evolution is random, and probability is everything:
I recommend that you consult the book "From Mendelism to Genetic Engineering" published by the OP, Unit 8, in the chapter entitled - "The Appeal to Classical Darwinism", where the reason for the existence of the "Neutralist Evolution" school of thought is explained, which is that the Darwinist theory of evolution predicts a certain picture that we were supposed to see in the comparison Genomes of different creatures along the evolutionary tree, and in practice the emerging picture is completely different. Darwinist evolution, because of *clear probabilistic calculations*, which Dawkins explains in his book "The Blind Watchmaker" in the third chapter "Accumulation of small changes", believes that evolution can only progress by small adaptive steps. Evolution of small adaptive steps predicts a certain molecular picture and it is said there - "If only selection was responsible for the evolution of DNA and proteins, then we would have to expect that the molecular distance between the shark and the gram fish, for example, would be much smaller than the distance between the shark and the eagle in the sky... But the findings contradict this prediction." And later there - "These and other findings and calculations formed the basis for the neutralist theory of molecular evolution. Its main claim - in contrast to that of the selectionist (Darwinian) theory is that the vast majority of mutations in DNA have no adaptive value" - are you following? Due to a molecular comparison between genomes, as well as due to Kimura's genetic calculations, it appears that evolution often progresses by the accumulation of *neutral* mutations. And at the end of one of his articles, Kimura wrote - "... after all, at the basic level of the genetic material - most of the evolutionary changes are driven by the power of random drift."
did you hear But please say again "not random", at least not according to the more modern currents in the world of evolution belief.
Dawkins, who advocates Darwinian evolution, the development of "advantageous small steps", does not agree with this approach. But what to do if studies of molecular comparison between genes contradict the prediction of Darwinian evolution?
and fossil findings. Check out this article – http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_9.htm
Regarding Gold's findings from Makar Fossils. See there the continuous graph that predicts Darwinian evolution, and compare it to the fragmented graph emerging from Gould's research.
So how did Gold solve the problem? No problem. If not continuous gradual evolution, then "evolution of jumps". That is, no more advantageous small steps.
And what is the probability of this evolution? And what about all of Dawkins's just arguments, *on probabilistic grounds*, regarding the necessity of continuous gradation and small steps? Gold and Kimura have solutions. And at the end of his aforementioned article, Kimura, who felt the probabilistic problem, wrote as follows: "And although this *random* process seems slow and meaningless during the short days of man's life, on the scale of geological time, this process causes a change of huge dimensions."
Well, such mantras are only good for those whose definition "Creator created" is out of the question, but not in a school setting, and not in the context of a debate about X:Y in favor of any party. The scale of geologic time is zero and laughable compared to the spaces of possible combinations for this "random" process, which is driven "mainly by random genetic drift". I believe in this matter as Dawkins, that *probability scales*, evolution cannot be driven *mainly* by random drift and the accumulation of neutral mutations into giant steps or leaps, but I of course accept Gold's fossil findings and Kimura's molecular studies, which cannot be disputed, And as a result, both schools of thought are disproved. And the profit I gain from the fact that "Creator created" is not a forbidden conclusion for me, among other things, is that I don't have to believe in mantras, let alone call them "science".
Age –
Science has already disproved the 'non-freak tracks' claim that you endlessly use in your comments.
Science has already disproved the claim that evolution is based on randomness, which is based on a misunderstanding of the theory, and on which all your astronomical calculations are based, which don't really show anything.
Science has already disproved your claim that new species cannot be created - both in bacteria, in fungi and in fish and flies.
Your claims at this point simply miss the point, and try to address secondary details that we didn't specifically touch on. Certainly and certainly when you put forward a delusional argument such as "new features do not lead to the formation of a new animal, certainly not in organisms larger than bacteria. Their bacteria have different and different patents. (stabilizing genes, enzymes that break down nylon, exchange of plasmids, etc.). This is not evidence of the formation of a new gene with a new active site A fortress that reproduces at the edge of human failure."
I won't even bother responding to that. Use your mind. think Try to understand for yourself how things can be created, instead of sticking to an example. Until you do that, I see no point in debating with you in a real discussion, because you just repeat your claims over and over again.
New traits do not lead to the formation of a new animal, certainly not in creatures larger than bacteria. Their microbes have different and different patents. In full I participated in it and refuted all the evolutionary claims. (also in relation to cytochrome) Please read starting with commenter number 2 this season nicknamed "Mike". And continue with my messages regarding the creation of genes in evolution. Also in bacteria.
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3458861,00.html
Nice-nice, my people.
I am now reading the link that Ofer brought, which contains ten examples of articles in which new traits were created in the laboratory, and four examples of studies in which new metabolic pathways were created in the laboratory.
It is hard to think of a better answer to the requests of the creationists, regarding the creation of genes or new metabolic pathways.
Thank you, Ofer.
I want to go off-topic to say that I am thrilled by the lively and deep discussion that took place following the announcement. Also, hats off to Roy the writer who invests in in-depth and very thoughtful answers to talkbackists. Kudos also to the respondents who participate in the interesting and infringing public debate. We are with the book and we see it in this article and in the talkback thread that follows it. Well done to all of you
Ami Bachar
I have one request for you, Yonatani. I hope you will agree with me that I took the arguments you raised with due seriousness. In places where I wasn't sure of the answer, I took my time, thought, delved deeper, read a little further and arrived at the answer.
I ask that you treat my answers with the same seriousness that will lead to a fruitful scientific discussion. If you don't understand something I said, think about it before you respond. If I included links to articles in my response (and I did include three - by Lenski, Metzka and Inlay), please review them before responding, just as I reviewed the links you added in your response.
Without these rules, it will be difficult to reach a real scientific discussion, which will progress beyond "dialogue of the deaf".
with gratitude,
Roy.
Jonathan -
I marked the abbreviations of your arguments with == at the beginning and end of each argument. I marked my responses with ++ at the beginning and end of each response. We have already reached 6 Word pages of overflowing text here, and I can only hope that we find a more convenient way to argue.
=="As you probably know, there is a very large amount of 'junk' in DNA..."
A. not known to me. Please see here: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3245601,00.html And personal information - there is a company in Israel that is their entire business, to say the least, they decipher sections of so-called "junk DNA", register patents on them, and laugh all the way to the bank, about the junk DNA joke. These things are said mainly towards repeated sequences that were once called junk by junk scientists, because they did not understand what their role was, and today they have been found to have critical purposes in gene control, and uses in cancer research and medical research in general. And the day of so-called pseudo-genes, so-called residual genes and the like will come and someone will laugh at them on the way to the bank. The concept of junk DNA is a good example of the loss of science, from a proper scientific point of view, which resulted directly from the evolutionary philosophy and paradigm, because if the working assumption was that creation is divine, already 30 years ago the functions of junk DNA would have been deciphered, because they would not have assumed that they were junk.==
++If you read my response in full, you will see that by 'garbage' I meant all former genes, pseudo-genes, duplicated genes, etc., and that all of these can help create complex mechanisms from an almost zero base.++
==c. "These genes can store a large amount of information that a number of random mutations occurring at the right times and in the right places can 'open' at once, thus creating a new function and a whole new pathway at once. "
Where do you draw such faith strength from? "At the right times and in the right places" is a matter of probability. See, in the section you responded to, I emphasized the distinction between improving an existing system and evolving from a system to a system with a different functionality. ==
++No. No, no and no. Probability is not the issue here. We are not talking about probability but about a principle of natural selection that works in different forms in different periods.++
==Dawkins yrj and wrote a whole chapter in his book called "accumulation of small changes", in which he emphasizes the fact that evolution can only progress along the path of small advantageous steps. So if we are talking about a small system X, which is encoded by let's say about 10 genes, and which evolution claims it developed from a system Y that has about 10 genes, then what do you propose? Are we to believe that the 10 genes of Y randomly jumped and duplicated? Or two genes from Y, and one from system Z, and three from W and four from M, jumped, and some changes took place in them "at the right times and in the right places" and a new circle was closed and we got a new system X, with new functionality, coded by about 10 new genes, that are operated with a new target organ, with a new special control, etc.? forget about it. This is not a Darwinian evolution of "advantageous small steps".
++You forget that "advantageous small steps" can also be non-advantageous given the limitations of natural selection. In times of rapid change in conditions (for example, in times of catastrophes, or extreme climate changes), natural selection can "decide" that a particular step is advantageous at this moment, even though it will be a failure in future generations. And see it's a miracle - future generations use this 'failure' and exploit it to develop a more complex route. I don't see any problem at this point. ++
== And to summarize this point - "There is a very large amount of 'junk' in DNA - duplicated genes, genes that are not active" —— a large amount of junk DNA, if there is such a thing, is likened to a liter of ink. A liter of ink *enables* writing the Encyclopedia Britannica, but this possibility is not enough. Encyclopaedia Britannica will not write from a liter of junk ink. ==
++My friend, again you are using rhetoric here. Encyclopaedia Britannica will not be written from a liter of junk ink, but it can be written from a liter of junk ink, most of which is already in the correct configuration of the sentences and letters. If all that is needed is steering and rearranging - things that happen all the time with the help of evolution and natural selection - then the Britannica will indeed be written. Indeed, as you wrote yourself - this liter of junk ink is actually a huge amount of pseudo-genes, duplicated genes, inactive genes and who knows what else - and they are all waiting for the small mutation that will allow them to work and open new pathways.++
==No problem, I can find more points in favor of evolution. But I tried in my previous long message, to suggest that you do not forget the starting point - 1000000000:0 to the detriment of evolution, because the intelligent design, at least "apparently" found in every protein and every mechanism, and because it is as simple as a clock, and because of Dawkins's decisive statement that it does not raise On his opinion, how can one be an atheist before the publication of the theory of evolution, that is, if we have two scales here, and if we are not blind about one side, then the starting point, before discussing the plausibility of evolution, is that a huge weight rests on the balance of intelligent design. But you seem to forget this anyway and still, the weight of evidence in favor of intelligent design, in your eyes, is 0. ==
++ There is no doubt that the design is indeed excellent, but let's not forget that God is the 'zero solution' - that is, a solution that does not lead us anywhere. In contrast, the evolution solution has already produced thousands of studies that use the theory of evolution to better understand the processes of life, history and science.
And although the design is indeed excellent, one must ask: Is God the only solution? And the answer is no. Evolution provides another solution, and equally acceptable - and even testable and provable.++
==”such as the fact that new species are definitely created (for example a fly of a new species created in the laboratory)”
Has one new functional gene been created in the lab? Has a new functional system been created?==
++You are asking for the creation of things that take thousands of years to be created, and this is difficult to achieve in a few decades of work. I hope you will be content with the fact that three new species of animals were created that cannot interbreed with the early species, and as a result are primary ancestors of the new lineage that will be created for that species and will in fact form a new branch in the phylogenetic tree. ++
==”Or maybe the fact that an amazing similarity can be found in the non-influencing parts of the genome of different organisms”
If you mean "junk DNA", see above.==
++I mean the similarity in the genes of different organisms. Cytochrome C, for example, as I have already written to Gil, is present in all living organisms, but it differs in each of them in a number of amino acids, in a way that does not affect its function. It is difficult to understand why the "intelligent creator" decided to create a protein that is different in every creature, and its level of variation corresponds to what we expect to find depending on the creature's genetic distance from us. For example, our cytochrome C and that of chimpanzees is exactly the same, because we diverged from the same ancestor only a short time ago, and the protein did not have time to undergo a long-term mutation. On the other hand, between our cytochrome C and that of the frogs there is a difference of several amino acids, because we split from the reptiles a very long time ago, and the protein had time to accumulate many mutations. So... either the intelligent creator is very negligent because he creates mutant proteins for no reason, or cytochrome C is another beautiful proof (which also backs up other proofs about the points in time when we split from our ancestors) for the correctness of evolution.++
==”You can also get additional support from experiments in evolution through artificial selection in computers” ——– the topic of evolutionary algorithms is familiar to me. It is about efficient search algorithms, finite and relatively small possibility spaces compared to 10000^20 spaces, most of which are garbage. Such as some kind of pipe, through which the passage of air is supposed to do something, and that this is done better if the pipe is thick in some places and thin in others, and playing with some parameters and in a way of replication, variation, and precise selection, we reach better results than we would have reached with another search algorithm. It is not similar or reminiscent in any way to "intelligent design" as it exists "apparently", in carefully coordinated multi-component biological systems. And for evidence, no one uses evolutionary algorithms to develop new software code from other software code. ==
++And if in evolutionary algorithms and complicated pathways (which cannot be broken down into discrete and advantageous parts - like the eye, according to you, or all combinations of garbage) their business -
A very interesting experiment reported in Nature dealt with software that simulated "digital evolution" in computerized organisms. Organisms had parts of computer code that had been replicated, and had a "genome" of computer instructions that could be linked together to perform actions. They use "energy" to reproduce, and can get energy by performing logical operations - where the more complicated the logical operation, the more the organism will benefit from performing it. And here is an interesting result for the experiment. One of the organisms reached the more complicated logical operation after 111 mutations, when in the 110th mutation it actually lost a less complicated logical operation. Had it not been for the loss of a lesser logical operation, the same organism would not have reached the more complicated logical operation. The conclusion here was that as you get to more complex operations, there is a tendency to lose the less complex operations. The researchers also found that complex mechanisms also develop through changes of simpler mechanisms that already exist.
Beyond that, the original claim about unbreakable orbits (that cannot be decomposed into small advantageous parts) was originally put forward by Michael Baah, in his book "Darwin's Black Box". Bah claimed there that there are other unbreakable pathways, such as the bacterial cell and the immune system. Both were later exposed as definitely freaks (in the studies of Matzke and Inlay). Now we just have to wait for the research on the discharge of the eye. ++
==Correct. The question is what is "enough" and what is "a lot". Let's face it: with regard to a system with 10 genes, whose possible cluster space is 10000x20 clusters, then also a billion per squared species, a billion per squared individuals in each species, multiplying at a rate of a billion per squared generations per second, for a billion per squared year, with 1000 mutations being experienced at each birth News - not even a billionth squared of a billionth squared of zero will cover the edge of a billionth squared of the space of the Hashfarian summaries for 10 genes. agreed upon? So is this much and is this enough?==
++You are using numbers here with a broad hand, and the question cannot be answered that way. When you ask a scientific question and transfer it to numerical models and statistics, you must ask a very specific question, and your model must be exactly right for the question. You are again basing yourself on the randomness here, and it does not fit the discussion. I hope you get off that line of thinking, because I repeat it over and over again. There is no randomness here. If every progress in evolution does indeed result in progress towards a certain trajectory, then it will take much less time to reach the final goal. To use a simple metaphor: if you try to get from the starting line to the finish line by taking many random steps, it will take you a very long time to reach the end, because half of the steps will be in the wrong direction. But if there is a little elf, that with every right step you take will prevent you from going backwards, then you will reach the finish line in a very short time. So it could be that the space of possible steps is 20^10000, but if you don't use randomness but some choice, then you can only choose the right steps to reach the finish line.++
==And therefore he opened his book with disparaging statements to all those who think that the intelligent design "apparently" does not mean dorshni. And that's why he said that he couldn't imagine how it was possible to be an atheist before 1859. And that's why he devoted an entire chapter, the second chapter of his book, which is all designed to strengthen the claim of the creationists, in which he shows, regarding the sonar of bats for example, how it looks exactly like a design Intelligence of human engineering. Like, but a thousand times. Indeed, I have already encountered blind readers who, even from this second chapter, from the wonderful descriptions of the bats' sonar, left full of pleasure and strengthened in their opinion in favor of evolution, but there is no greater blindness than that.==
++My friend, there is no doubt that the body is a wonderful and great thing, but this is no proof of the existence of an intelligent creator, if we have a theory that allows the creation of such a body even without an intelligent creator.
By the way, a small question. If the design is so intelligent, why does the python have a pelvis? It has nothing to do with it, and you can't see it from the outside. Other snakes get along great without a pelvis... but actually the python's skeleton includes a hip pelvis. Not very intelligent from the same "intelligent" creator, don't you think?
Well, evolution actually has an answer for that. The python is an extremely ancient snake, and did not lose its hip pelvis, unlike more modern snakes.
This example is just one of many cases where the "intelligent" creator is not really that intelligent. These cases make a lot more sense if you look at them from the point of view of evolution and natural selection.++
==So please take a look at the first two chapters of "The Blind Watchman" and tell me if you still think there is a 0 on the intelligent design scale.==
++Sorry, I'm short on time right now, and I won't be able to repeat the same chapters. I read the book several years ago and I don't have time to go back to it now. If it helps you, I have a bachelor's degree in biology at the Technion and am now working on a master's degree at the Technion in tissue engineering and nanotechnology. Believe me when I say that throughout my years of study I have been amazed at the complex and intricate mechanisms found in the living things I have studied about, and now that I am trying to replicate them in tissue engineering, I am even more amazed at the difficult task in front of me.
And yet - evolution can explain the same complications. The 'intelligent creator' is simply trying to deflect the problem, not explain it. Where would we end up if we used a similar approach in all fields of science? If every time a problem proved to be particularly complicated we would say "Well, it's because of God, and there's nothing to be done."? After all, this was the way of solving problems throughout the last 1600 years. Did the Black Death, which killed a third of the European population, disappear because the English doctors claimed that it "comes as a result of a triple conjunction of Saturn, Jupiter and Mars."? Those doctors chose the easiest solution, just as the "intelligent creator" is the easiest solution. But it is not true, and does not advance us anywhere... just like the solution of those English doctors to the Black Death. It is interesting to note that if they had used the scientific method, they would have been able to find a vaccine for the Black Death, since the Indians had already found a vaccine for it around the same time. But... why bother? "God gave, God took away - everything is from God." or from Saturn, Jupiter and Mars. The easy solutions are always easy - but do not bring results. Evolution has already produced so many results and given us so many tools for calculation and thought, that it is difficult to understand how people are able to ignore its existence. For proof - a search in the scientific literature databases will yield thousands of articles that used the theory of evolution to support their claims. When I looked for an article that used "Intelligent Design" to support its claims, I couldn't find a single one.++
==Come on you, my friend. After all, he is what I said - "As long as we do not have a reasonable mechanism that explains how complex processors can develop, without intelligent intervention, from each other, then it is clear to us that they are all creations of intelligent engineering. We can only conclude..." - that is, separate and compare, and examine every evidence or opinion about the body. The mere correlation between the age of layers, by itself, without having a reasonable development mechanism, does not constitute evidence of the matter. And in sight - the Hiria dump.==
++See cytochrome C, above. One of many methods for verifying the development of organisms from one another throughout history.++
==”He gives his own example, which stars a monkey who is placed next to a typewriter.... But, what if a choice was imposed on the monkey's ticks? What would happen if every time the monkey typed the right letter in the right place, the letter would be saved there"
A wonderful example of the X placed on the evolution scale, equal to a round zero.
This is a process of "cumulative selection", where by randomly placing letters, we try to write the sentence "I think he resembles a rabbit".
At first we get meaningless gibberish, but as soon as we happen to get a correct letter in the right place, such as: "S_____ ____ ___ ___", we fix it and continue trying only with the rest, and so on. But this is exactly what natural selection *cannot* do. Natural selection cannot choose/figure out the letter s instead of the institute, based on the fact that in the future, when 20 more letters are added in the right places, we will get a sentence that makes sense. The blind watchmaker, as his name suggests, is blind. That is, he does not predict the end of the act in his first thought. And elsewhere Dawkins compares evolution to a drunk driver who drives like a madman and can't see a meter ahead.
And Dawkins himself, explicitly, stands for this division and admits fully that this is not a good example. So what did he bring? As a demagogue? I've already come across dozens of fools who list this example wonderfully, how by randomly placing a sentence as complex as "I think he resembles a rabbit" was obtained very quickly, and this far-fetched example is enough for them to decide X:0 in favor of evolution, and peace be upon Israel. Credit to Dawkins for being able to convince the blind in what even he admits is not convincing. The sentence "I think he resembles a rabbit" is a successful sentence, and can be chosen by natural selection, only if it appeared in its entirety, which will not happen even in billions of years of experiments. The letter S can only be chosen by an intelligent, human choice, having the virtue of seeing the end of the act with first thought, which we will not call evolution, and long live the small difference.==
++ Nicely said and nicely claimed. But as I already explained above, complicated pathways can be obtained from simpler pathways, and natural selection can certainly lead to the creation of the simple pathways. From the moment they exist, it can also bring about the existence of more complicated routes by adding and returning simple routes. In the end, this is a problem of non-free tracks, and I have already discussed the solution of this problem in the text above.++
post Scriptum.
I hope we get away from the statistics you use all the time, because it explicitly relies on completely random selection, not natural selection.
Best regards,
Roy.
Beneficial mutations are indeed obtained in laboratory experiments.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
What's new - the current discussion is about the truth of the theory of evolution in particular, and expanding it to the general question of creation and the existence of the Creator will only harm at this point. In order to reach any conclusion on the subject, I think we should stay focused on one thing
By the way, the denial of evolution is not necessarily proof of the existence of an intelligent being, it is not a question of one or the other 0 and 1, yes and no, but two separate theories (let's say creationism is a theory...) to explain an existing phenomenon out of the crowd. So there is no point in canceling one just to prove the other.
Continue to creationists
In connection with the second section in the previous article, my intention is not by denying evolution, but by rational proof
In my opinion, if you succeed in this, then you will hide yourselves..
For creationists
1. Do you mean that according to the book of Genesis God created all creatures in seven days if you believe this then this is a violation of all the laws of physics. If so according to your belief when did the laws of physics begin to operate and where is it written in the Torah.
2. If you are trying in a rational way to prove that because of the complexity of life it is not evolution that works then please prove in a rational way that God exists.
Addendum to Tesfat - "I already answered you about the existing fact that one animal can transform into another animal. This fact was proven through experiments and observations in the 20th century" - again not accurate...a dog can change slightly into another dog. But a dog will never become another animal, New genes or new organs. You have to differentiate between alleles and a completely new creature.
"Genes can have action sites, inhibitory sites, visitor sites, binding sites and many others. All of these can be obtained from the combination of several genes - each of which contains a different site - with each other" - you repeat it again. What are the chances of how many Genome parts with a relatively small length of 50-60 nucleotides to create new and useful functionality from a random selection of 50^20 combinations? The answer is zero chance of course and that is clear.
A small addition to Roy. Regarding the number of combinations of the cytochrome. A researcher named "Yuki" checked and found that the above protein you mentioned can have about 10 to the power of 93 possible combinations to create it out of 10 to the power of 180 possible combinations! (This means that the acids that make it up can change like the number of atoms in the universe and still function as cytochrome) that is, in order to obtain it, you will have to scan about 10 to the power of 87 combinations, and even a trillion years will not be enough to obtain the combination that creates the above-mentioned protein! Therefore, the example you gave (a change of some amino acids) is not good and is in fact far-fetched.
Another experience:
Regarding the sample from the correlation found in the Hirayah landfill, you responded:
"Do processors have DNA, as some fossils do, that supports the theory of evolution and connections between them and their descendants? Can processors mate and produce offspring?
Come on, my friend. Oratory is one thing, but please avoid corny metaphors. "
Come on, my friend. After all, he is what I said - "As long as we do not have a reasonable mechanism that explains how complex processors can develop, without intelligent intervention, from each other, then it is clear to us that they are all creations of intelligent engineering. We can only conclude..." - that is, separate and compare, and examine every evidence or opinion about the body. The mere correlation between the age of layers, by itself, without having a reasonable development mechanism, does not constitute evidence of the matter. And in sight - the Hiria dump.
=========================================
"He gives his own example, which stars a monkey who is placed next to a typewriter... But, what if a choice was imposed on the monkey's ticks? What would happen if every time the monkey typed the right letter in the right place, the letter would be saved there"
A wonderful example of the X placed on the evolution scale, equal to a round zero.
This is a process of "cumulative selection", where by randomly placing letters, we try to write the sentence "I think he resembles a rabbit".
At first we get meaningless gibberish, but as soon as we happen to get a correct letter in the right place, such as: "S_____ ____ ___ ___", we fix it and continue trying only with the rest, and so on. But this is exactly what natural selection *cannot* do. Natural selection cannot choose/figure out the letter s instead of the institute, based on the fact that in the future, when 20 more letters are added in the right places, we will get a sentence that makes sense. The blind watchmaker, as his name suggests, is blind. That is, he does not predict the end of the act in his first thought. And elsewhere Dawkins compares evolution to a drunk driver who drives like a madman and can't see a meter ahead.
And Dawkins himself, explicitly, stands for this division and admits fully that this is not a good example. So what did he bring? As a demagogue? I've already come across dozens of fools who list this example wonderfully, how by randomly placing a sentence as complex as "I think he resembles a rabbit" was obtained very quickly, and this far-fetched example is enough for them to decide X:0 in favor of evolution, and peace be upon Israel. Credit to Dawkins for being able to convince the blind in what even he admits is not convincing. The sentence "I think he resembles a rabbit" is a successful sentence, and can be chosen by natural selection, only if it appeared in its entirety, which will not happen even in billions of years of experiments. The letter S can only be chosen by an intelligent, human choice, having the virtue of seeing the end of the act with foresight, which we will not call evolution, and long live the small difference.
to Roy -
take your time, and thank you for the serious and respectful attitude.
Actually there was one more part to my message, and no matter how many times I try to upload it, for some reason it is not displayed, and although I do not receive any error message or explanation. Too bad.
Shabbat Shalom and Blessed.
point –
If monkeys could understand complex languages and ideas, I would try to explain the principles of evolution to them too.
But let's not forget that we are all human beings in this debate. We all have the ability to consider evidence and come to conclusions. Some of us simply choose not to. I do not delude myself that in a debate here I will be able to convince someone on the other side. The debate is mainly for all the people who read and don't participate. These people hear the loud and 'intuitively convincing' arguments of the creationists, but it is very difficult for them to find good responses from science. I am trying to bring here the arguments of science, and how it refutes the arguments of creationists.
In any case, you are welcome to join the discussion and contribute from your knowledge. The more the merrier.
Jonathan -
I have not forgotten you, but your long response, as before, forces me to think and reflect before I respond, so that I can provide an adequate answer to all your questions.
With the blessing of Shabbat Shalom,
Roy.
to roy,
Why not argue with a monkey?
Experience shows that this does not make the monkey change its mind. And this can be understood because the sounds the monkey makes are not related to the debate at all. Even to observers from the side sometimes it seems so.
Continue replying to Roy-
"1000000000:1000… don't forget extra points for evolution…"
No problem, I can find more points in favor of evolution. But I tried in my previous long message to suggest that you do not forget the starting point - 1000000000:0 to the detriment of evolution, because the intelligent design, at least "to the appearance" found in every protein and every mechanism, and because it is as simple as a clock, and because of Dawkins's emphatic statement that it does not raise In his opinion, how can one be an atheist before the publication of the theory of evolution, that is, if we have two scales here, and if we are not blind about one side, then the starting point, before discussing the plausibility of evolution, is that a huge weight rests on the balance of intelligent design. But you seem to forget that anyway, and still, the weight of evidence in favor of intelligent design, in your eyes, is 0.
=======================================
And that's why you continue to load evolution with "evidence" that is only good against weight 0:
"Such as the fact that new species are definitely created (for example a fly from a new species created in the laboratory)"
Has one new functional gene been created in the lab? Has a new functional system been created?
====================================
"Or maybe the fact that you can find amazing similarities in the non-influencing parts of the genome of different organisms"
If you mean "junk DNA", see above.
====================================
"You can also get additional support from experiments in evolution through artificial selection in computers" ——– the topic of evolutionary algorithms is familiar to me. This is about efficient search algorithms, in spaces of finite and small possibilities compared to spaces of 10000^20 that are mostly garbage. Such as some kind of pipe, through which the passage of air is supposed to do something, and that this is done better if the pipe is thick in certain places and thin in others, and playing with some parameters And in the way of replication, variation, and precise selection, we reach better results than we would reach with a search algorithm. This is not similar or reminiscent in any way to "intelligent design" as exists "apparently", in biological systems with multiple carefully coordinated components. And for the evidence, no one uses algorithms Evolutionary to develop new software code from other software code.
"When you have enough different environments, you can end up creating enough new features in many, many paths."
Right. The question is what is "enough" and what is "a lot". Let's face it: with regard to a system with 10 genes, whose possible cluster space is 10000x20 clusters, then also a billion per squared species, a billion per squared individuals in each species, multiplying at a rate of a billion per squared generations per second, for a billion per squared year, with 1000 mutations being experienced at each birth News - not even a billionth squared of a billionth squared of zero will cover the edge of a billionth squared of the space of the Hashfarian summaries for 10 genes. agreed upon? So is that much and is that enough?
==========================================
"1000000000:1000… don't forget extra points for evolution…"
No problem, I can find more points in favor of evolution. But I tried in my previous long message to suggest that you do not forget the starting point - 1000000000:0 to the detriment of evolution, because the intelligent design, at least "to the appearance" found in every protein and every mechanism, and because it is as simple as a clock, and because of Dawkins's emphatic statement that it does not raise In his opinion, how can one be an atheist before the publication of the theory of evolution, that is, if we have two scales here, and if we are not blind about one side, then the starting point, before discussing the plausibility of evolution, is that a huge weight rests on the balance of intelligent design. But you seem to forget that anyway, and still, the weight of evidence in favor of intelligent design, in your eyes, is 0.
=======================================
And that's why you continue to load evolution with "evidence" that is only good against weight 0:
"Such as the fact that new species are definitely created (for example a fly from a new species created in the laboratory)"
Has one new functional gene been created in the lab? Has a new functional system been created?
====================================
"Or maybe the fact that you can find amazing similarities in the non-influencing parts of the genome of different organisms"
If you mean "junk DNA", see above.
====================================
"You can also get additional support from experiments in evolution through artificial selection in computers" ——– the topic of evolutionary algorithms is familiar to me. This is about efficient search algorithms, in spaces of finite and small possibilities compared to spaces of 10000^20 that are mostly garbage. Such as some kind of pipe, through which the passage of air is supposed to do something, and that this is done better if the pipe is thick in certain places and thin in others, and playing with some parameters And in the way of replication, variation, and precise selection, we reach better results than we would reach with a search algorithm. This is not similar or reminiscent in any way to "intelligent design" as exists "apparently", in biological systems with multiple carefully coordinated components. And for the evidence, no one uses algorithms Evolutionary to develop new software code from other software code.
"When you have enough different environments, you can end up creating enough new features in many, many paths."
Right. The question is what is "enough" and what is "a lot". Let's face it: with regard to a system with 10 genes, whose possible cluster space is 10000x20 clusters, then also a billion per squared species, a billion per squared individuals in each species, multiplying at a rate of a billion per squared generations per second, for a billion per squared year, with 1000 mutations being experienced at each birth News - not even a billionth squared of a billionth squared of zero will cover the edge of a billionth squared of the space of the Hashfarian summaries for 10 genes. agreed upon? So is that much and is that enough?
==========================================
"If Dawkins was dead, he would be turning over in his grave at this point.
I hope you will forgive me when I say that you did not understand his point in his book"
I hope you will forgive me too, when I say that you did not understand, neither my point, nor Dawkins's.
I think I understood the point "in his book". And there is no doubt that Dawkins advocates and believes in the correctness of the theory of evolution. But the way Dawkins built his book is that he initially presented the weight that leans towards healthy versus intelligent design. And then he presented the second spoon, in favor of evolution, which he believes is decisive. And therefore, anyone who believes that 0:X is in favor of evolution, has not understood Dawkins, and as a result of this, there is no chance that he will understand why Dawkins' X actually strives for 0, contrary to Dawkins' opinion.
And so he opened his book with disparaging statements to all those who think that the intelligent design "apparently" does not mean doshni. And that's why he said that he couldn't imagine how it was possible to be an atheist before 1859. And that's why he devoted an entire chapter, the second chapter of his book, which is all designed to strengthen the claim of the creationists, in which he shows, regarding the sonar of bats for example, how it looks exactly like a design Intelligence of human engineering. Like, but a thousand times. Indeed, I have already encountered blind readers who, even from this second chapter, from the wonderful descriptions of the bats' sonar, left full of pleasure and strengthened in their opinion in favor of evolution, but there is no greater blindness than that.
So please take a look at the first two chapters of "The Blind Watch" and tell me if you still think 0 is on the scale of intelligent design.
===================================
Roy –
Sorry for the length. The fault is not mine but the complex issue and the many deceptions that are found.
"As you probably know, there is a very large amount of 'junk' in DNA..."
A. not known to me. Please see here: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3245601,00.html And personal information - there is a company in Israel that is their entire business, to say the least, they decipher sections of so-called "junk DNA", register patents on them, and laugh all the way to the bank, about the junk DNA joke. These things are said mainly towards repeated sequences that were once called junk by junk scientists, because they did not understand what their role was, and today they have been found to have critical purposes in gene control, and uses in cancer research and medical research in general. And the day of so-called pseudo-genes, so-called residual genes and the like will come and someone will laugh at them on the way to the bank. The concept of junk DNA is a good example of the loss of science, from a proper scientific point of view, which resulted directly from the evolutionary philosophy and paradigm, because if the working assumption was that creation is divine, already 30 years ago the functions of junk DNA would have been deciphered, because they would not have assumed that they were junk.
B. I do not dispute that there are mutations, random, and that some of them are gene duplications, which with zero frequency, but exist, are determined in the population and actually constitute redundant and dysfunctional DNA. The dispute is about whether these replicated DNA segments can, with random mutations + natural selection, form a successful combination that constitutes a new biological system, and about that in the next comment.
third. "These genes can store a large amount of information that a number of random mutations occurring at the right times and in the right places can 'open' at once, thus creating a new function and a whole new pathway at once. "
Where do you draw such faith strength from? "At the right times and in the right places" is a matter of probability. See, in the section you responded to, I emphasized the distinction between improving an existing system and evolving from a system to a system with a different functionality.
Dawkins yrj and wrote a whole chapter in his book called "accumulation of small changes", in which he emphasizes the fact that evolution can only progress along the path of small advantageous steps. So if we are talking about a small system X, which is encoded by let's say about 10 genes, and which evolution claims it developed from a system Y that has about 10 genes, then what do you propose? Are we to believe that the 10 genes of Y randomly jumped and duplicated? Or two genes from Y, and one from system Z, and three from W and four from M, jumped, and some changes took place in them "at the right times and in the right places" and a new circle was closed and we got a new system X, with new functionality, coded by about 10 new genes, that are operated with a new target organ, with a new special control, etc.? forget about it. This is not a Darwinian evolution of "advantageous small steps".
And you also emphasized and pointed out that evolution is not random. Well, 10 genes that randomly jumped and duplicated, and the right changes took place in the right places until a circle was closed and the ten genes adapted to each other, to a new function, in a new organ, under new control - you don't have a greater randomness than this and this is not the Darwinian evolution of "advantageous small steps".
And to summarize this point - "There is a very large amount of 'junk' in DNA - duplicated genes, genes that are not active" —— a large amount of junk DNA, if there is such a thing, is likened to a liter of ink. A liter of ink *enables* writing the Encyclopedia Britannica, but this possibility is not enough. Encyclopaedia Britannica will not write from a liter of junk ink.
And not exactly garbage, but even if you take this message, or your message, or any other message, and change letters randomly, or not randomly, you will not be able to create a new message with a functional message by changing the correct letters in the correct places different. Not just a complete message but even the sentence:
"The sweat system is based on sweat glands that draw fluids and salts from the blood and secrete them to cool the body"
You will not be able to change in small steps, while maintaining the syntax and coherence of the message, to the sentence:
"The breastfeeding system is based on mammary glands and clusters of milk vessels that produce nutritious proteins and sugars and secrete them to feed the colostrum"
Because even if in a miraculous mutation the word "sweat" is replaced by the word "milk", you will get:
"The milk system is based on sweat glands that draw fluids and salts from the blood and secrete them to cool the body"
which is a clearly improper sentence.
And although some of the above sentences are the same, only "a few changes in the right places" are needed.
Try to move from the first sentence in two advantageous small steps, and you will understand what it means changes "in the right places and at the right times" that bring from one functional system to a system with another functionality.
And the above sentences are the length of a tenth of a gene, and their complexity is infinitely less than the complexity of a gene or 10 genes that make up a functional system.
=========================================
point –
The truth is always important, but it is difficult to reach it without arguing. There must always be a side that will dispute the 'truth', and sometimes it is right, sometimes it is wrong. Without debate, it is difficult to understand who is right and who is wrong.
This is why I don't like it when people immediately dismiss creationists and refuse to address their arguments point by point. If we act in this way, then we ourselves resemble strict religious people, who are not ready to listen to the arguments of science. The only way to convince people is with logic - not with insults.
Age –
I have already answered you about the existing fact that one animal can turn into another animal. This fact was proven through experiments and observations in the 20th century (as I already explained to Jonathan).
"There are no intermediate stages from one garden to another. It's either that all the control areas and the required acids exist, or nothing!"
This is where I stopped arguing. You are clearly distorting the truth here, or you do not know the material in question. I suggest you take a course in comparative biology and see how different genes can be from each other and still perform the same action. A small example is cytochrome C, which in almost every species differs in a number of amino acids (and in species such as bacteria it actually differs in almost all of them), but still performs the same action. In fact, according to the degree of variation in it, the time spans between the splits between species are measured (with us and the chimpanzees, this protein is completely identical, in its entire amino acid sequence, and from this we get knowledge of the amount of time that has passed since we split from our common ancestor).
Genes can have action sites, inhibitory sites, visitor sites, binding sites and many others. All of these can be obtained by combining several genes - each of which contains a different site - with each other. This kind of combination happens in nature all the time through replacements and breakages of chromosomes, through transpososomes (DNA segments that jump from place to place in the genome with each division, and are responsible for a great many mutations), through point mutations and more. And I already explained this to you a few days ago, and you continue to systematically ignore this fact.
I already told you that I find no point in this debate, and right now you are only reinforcing my words. If you are willing to read and study in more places, and receive evidence and proofs also in the direction of evolution, and not only in the direction of creationism, then you will find plenty of such proofs. I hope that you will not continue to write such harsh claims that have already been refuted by science, thereby biasing the minds of people who do not know the material and information better. If you continue to do so, you are knowingly twisting the truth and 'selling' wrong information.
To Roy - "I already explained to you that in your reasoning you only take the final result into account, and not the steps along the way, - excuse me? ... There are no intermediate steps from one garden to another. It's either that all the control areas and the necessary acids exist, or nothing!
Therefore, your claim regarding intermediate stages is imaginary and recycled and I also explained why.
Regarding the rest of your words - "these genes can store a large amount of information that a number of random mutations that occur at the right times and in the right places can 'open' at once, thus creating a new function and a whole new pathway at once" - not accurate at all. You must be talking about neutralistic evolution Kimura's. It is not possible for silent mutations to be coded all at once because of a small change and suddenly cause a huge change. And even if it were true... again, what is the chance of 100 neutral mutations (let's say) to create functionality that adapts itself to an existing system? How many amino acids are involved? 30? The chance Therefore it is around 1 to 30^20! And that's more for a tiny garden!
"And yes, if we accept as a fact the correlation, which is found in many places, between the age of the geological layers and the complexity of the fossils found in those layers, then apparently we will have 1000000000:1000 (I awarded 1000 points to this argument which is the strongest of the evolution arguments)."- Woe to the ears that heard this Is this the winning argument of evolution? Homologous similarity between animals "proves" in your opinion a common origin? And leave you nonsense about the ability to reproduce, etc.
It has never been proven that an animal can become another animal, with organs with multiple new genes. Not even in a fly or bacteria or worms. They all remain the same animal only in other organisms (alleles, change in control areas, etc.).
And so this "winning" argument is based on innocent wishful thinking!
Regarding everything else - I just answered you about it right now.
For Roy Cezana, the approach that says one should treat each other with mutual respect may be true for idle arguments of a different kind.
In a real debate where one side believes that he himself is right and the other is wrong and vice versa, there is no room for mutual respect.
In the natural sciences, truth is more important than mutual respect.
Roy –
Sorry for the length. The fault is not mine but the complex issue and the many deceptions that are found.
"As you probably know, there is a very large amount of 'junk' in DNA..."
A. not known to me. Please see here: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3245601,00.html And personal information - there is a company in Israel that is their entire business, to say the least, they decipher sections of so-called "junk DNA", register patents on them, and laugh all the way to the bank, about the junk DNA joke. These things are said mainly towards repeated sequences that were once called junk by junk scientists, because they did not understand what their role was, and today they have been found to have critical purposes in gene control, and uses in cancer research and medical research in general. And the day of so-called pseudo-genes, so-called residual genes and the like will come and someone will laugh at them on the way to the bank. The concept of junk DNA is a good example of the loss of science, from a proper scientific point of view, which resulted directly from the evolutionary philosophy and paradigm, because if the working assumption was that creation is divine, already 30 years ago the functions of junk DNA would have been deciphered, because they would not have assumed that they were junk.
B. I do not dispute that there are mutations, random, and that some of them are gene duplications, which with zero frequency, but exist, are determined in the population and actually constitute redundant and dysfunctional DNA. The dispute is about whether these replicated DNA segments can, with random mutations + natural selection, form a successful combination that constitutes a new biological system, and about that in the next comment.
third. "These genes can store a large amount of information that a number of random mutations occurring at the right times and in the right places can 'open' at once, thus creating a new function and a whole new pathway at once. "
Where do you draw such faith strength from? "At the right times and in the right places" is a matter of probability. See, in the section you responded to, I emphasized the distinction between improving an existing system and evolving from a system to a system with a different functionality. Think about a programming function, for example, that performs a "paste" operation, let's say. If a mutation occurs in one bit, which determines, let's say, the size of the buffer assigned by the programmer, the buffer will double and it will be an improvement in functionality, let's say. But if we duplicate the code of the function, and allow random mutations in the code, does it turn out that some random mutations will be applied "at the right times and in the right places" and turn the duplicated code into the play_mp3 function? Answer - it does not appear. why? Because this is a different functionality. So what? So there is a big difference in the internal processing of the function. One copies text to a specific buffer, and the other receives the name of a file, passes it to an mp3 reader module, receives output from it and directs it to a specific driver. Even if the internal processing changes in all the "right places", the function will still not be usable, because the parameters it receives are different. The code that determines the parameters in all the "correct places" will also change, it will still not be usable, because the program does not call it with the correct parameters, and so on. If the code of the function, of its parameters, of the places in the program that calls it, that needs to be changed is 10000 English letters long, the space of combinations is of the order of magnitude of 10000^26, and there is no limit to the strength of faith required to believe that in this space the necessary adjusted changes will be applied "at the right times and places The right ones", and the same is true of genes and biological systems with different functionality.
Which is why Dawkins went to the trouble and wrote an entire chapter in his book called "Accumulation of small changes", in which he emphasizes the fact that evolution can only progress along the path of small advantageous steps. So if we are talking about a small system X, which is encoded by let's say about 10 genes, and which evolution claims it developed from a system Y that has about 10 genes, then what do you propose? Are we to believe that the 10 genes of Y randomly jumped and duplicated? Or two genes from Y, and one from system Z, and three from W and four from M, jumped, and some changes took place in them "at the right times and in the right places" and a new circle was closed and we got a new system X, with new functionality, coded by about 10 new genes, that are operated with a new target organ, with a new special control, etc.? forget about it. This is not a Darwinian evolution of "advantageous small steps".
And to summarize this point - "There is a very large amount of 'junk' in DNA - duplicated genes, genes that are not active" —— a large amount of junk DNA, if there is such a thing, is likened to a liter of ink. A liter of ink *enables* writing the Encyclopedia Britannica, but this possibility is not enough. Encyclopaedia Britannica will not write from a liter of junk ink.
And not exactly garbage, but even if you take this message, or your message, or any other message, and change letters randomly, or not randomly, you will not be able to create a new message with a functional message by changing the correct letters in the correct places different. Not just a complete message but even the sentence:
"The sweat system is based on sweat glands that draw fluids and salts from the blood and secrete them to cool the body"
You will not be able to change in small steps, while maintaining the syntax and coherence of the message, to the sentence:
"The breastfeeding system is based on mammary glands and clusters of milk vessels that produce nutritious proteins and sugars and secrete them to feed the colostrum"
Because even if in a miraculous mutation the word "sweat" is replaced by the word "milk", you will get:
"The milk system is based on sweat glands that draw fluids and salts from the blood and secrete them to cool the body"
which is a clearly improper sentence.
And although some of the above sentences are the same, only "a few changes in the right places" are needed.
Try to move from the first sentence in two advantageous small steps, and you will understand what it means changes "in the right places and at the right times" that bring from one functional system to a system with another functionality.
And the above sentences are the length of a tenth of a gene, and their complexity is infinitely less than the complexity of a gene or 10 genes that make up a functional system.
=========================================
"1000000000:1000... don't forget extra points for evolution..."
No problem, I can find more points in favor of evolution. But I tried in my previous long message to suggest that you not forget the starting point - 1000000000:0 to the detriment of evolution, because the intelligent design, at least "apparently" found in every protein and every mechanism, and because it is as simple as a clock, and because of Dawkins's firm statement that it does not raise In his opinion, how can one be an atheist before the publication of the theory of evolution, that is, if we have two scales here, and if we are not blind about one side, then the starting point, before discussing the plausibility of evolution, is that a huge weight rests on the balance of intelligent design. But you seem to forget that anyway, and still, the weight of evidence in favor of intelligent design, in your eyes, is 0.
=======================================
And that's why you continue to load evolution with "evidence" that is only good against weight 0:
"Such as the fact that new species are definitely created (for example a fly of a new species created in the laboratory)"
Has one new functional gene been created in the lab? Has a new functional system been created?
====================================
"Or maybe the fact that you can find amazing similarities in the non-influencing parts of the genome of different organisms"
If you mean "junk DNA", see above.
====================================
"You can also get additional support from experiments in evolution through artificial selection in computers" ——– the topic of evolutionary algorithms is familiar to me. It is about efficient search algorithms, finite and relatively small possibility spaces compared to 10000^20 spaces, most of which are garbage. Such as some kind of pipe, through which the passage of air is supposed to do something, and that this is done better if the pipe is thick in some places and thin in others, and playing with some parameters and in a way of replication, variation, and precise selection, we reach better results than we would have reached with another search algorithm. It is not similar or reminiscent in any way to "intelligent design" as it exists "apparently", in carefully coordinated multi-component biological systems. And for evidence, no one uses evolutionary algorithms to develop new software code from other software code.
"When you have enough different environments, you can end up creating enough new features in many, many paths."
Right. The question is what is "enough" and what is "a lot". Let's face it: with regard to a system with 10 genes, whose possible cluster space is 10000x20 clusters, then also a billion per squared species, a billion per squared individuals in each species, multiplying at a rate of a billion per squared generations per second, for a billion per squared year, with 1000 mutations being experienced at each birth News - not even a billionth squared of a billionth squared of zero will cover the edge of a billionth squared of the space of the Hashfarian concatenations for 10 genes. agreed upon? So is that much and is that enough?
==========================================
"If Dawkins was dead, he would be turning over in his grave at this point.
I hope you will forgive me when I say that you did not understand his point in his book"
I hope you will forgive me too, when I say that you did not understand, neither my point, nor Dawkins's.
I think I understood the point "in his book". And there is no doubt that Dawkins advocates and believes in the correctness of the theory of evolution. But the way Dawkins built his book is that he initially presented the weight that leans towards healthy versus intelligent design. And then he presented the second spoon, in favor of evolution, which he believes is decisive. And therefore, anyone who thinks that 0:X is in favor of evolution, did not understand Dawkins, and as a result of this there is no chance that he will understand why Dawkins' X actually strives for 0, contrary to Dawkins' opinion.
And so he opened his book with disparaging statements to all those who think that the intelligent design "apparently" does not mean desirability. And that's why he said that he couldn't imagine how it was possible to be an atheist before 1859. And that's why he devoted an entire chapter, the second chapter of his book, which is all designed to strengthen the claim of the creationists, in which he shows, regarding the sonar of bats for example, how it looks exactly like a design Intelligence of human engineering. Like, but a thousand times. Indeed, I have already encountered blind readers who, even from this second chapter, from the wonderful descriptions of the bats' sonar, left full of pleasure and strengthened in their opinion in favor of evolution, but there is no greater blindness than that.
So please take a look at the first two chapters of "The Blind Watch" and tell me if you still think 0 is placed on the palm of intelligent design.
===================================
"He gives his own example, which stars a monkey who is placed next to a typewriter... But, what if a choice was imposed on the monkey's ticks? What would happen if every time the monkey typed the right letter in the right place, the letter would be saved there"
A wonderful example of the X placed on the evolution scale, equal to a round zero.
This is a process of "cumulative selection", where by randomly placing letters, we try to write the sentence "I think he resembles a rabbit".
At the beginning we get meaningless gibberish - "XXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX"
However, as soon as we happen to get a correct letter in the right place, such as: "SXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX", we fix it and continue trying only with the rest, and so on. But this is exactly what natural selection *cannot* do. Natural selection cannot choose/figure out the letter s instead of the institute, based on the fact that in the future, when 20 more letters are added in the right places, we will get a sentence that makes sense. The blind watchmaker, as his name suggests, is blind. That is, he does not predict the end of the act in his first thought. And elsewhere Dawkins compares evolution to a drunk driver who drives like a madman and can't see a meter ahead.
And Dawkins himself, explicitly, stands for this division and admits fully that this is not a good example. So what did he bring? As a demagogue? I've already come across dozens of fools who list this example wonderfully, how by randomly placing a sentence as complex as "I think he resembles a rabbit" was obtained very quickly, and this far-fetched example is enough for them to decide X:0 in favor of evolution, and peace be upon Israel. Credit to Dawkins for being able to convince the blind in what even he admits is not convincing. The sentence "I think he resembles a rabbit" is a successful sentence, and can be chosen by natural selection, only if it appeared in its entirety, which will not happen even in billions of years of experiments. The letter S can only be chosen by an intelligent, human choice, having the virtue of seeing the end of the act with foresight, which we will not call evolution, and long live the small difference.
What do I say to you, Saul, and what will I say? Researchers have egos like everyone else, and I am indeed not sure that a researcher who has strong feelings about any subject will publish results that contradict his expectations.
Fortunately, there are many groups in the world working on any scientific topic, so the scientific method is preserved. And if, God forbid, one of the researchers publishes false results, you can be sure that all the other groups will check his results and find the false claim in them.
"In conclusion: any research can be interpreted in several ways. All emotions only make noise and only divert from the trend."
Research by itself is meaningless. Mixing test tubes with no real purpose. The research gets its true meaning from the interpretations obtained from it, which are what move the researchers in the field forward. Still, it's hard to mix test tubes all day without thinking there's some important purpose beyond the daily craft.
So I don't believe that it is possible to keep emotions away from research, and still get interesting and brilliant research from researchers who are really interested in their work and love it.
Roy,
These are celebrations of running discussions here.
I prefer to continue to focus on the question of ulterior motives.
The division between scientific publications intended for the scientific community and popular science publications is well known.
What I meant to say is that when a person writes to the public out of such strong emotions, I really find it hard to believe that at the same time his scientific articles are so objective that even when he has results that 'spoil' him, he will have the courage to present them and admit it.
To all those interested, I highly recommend the book 'The Lonely Hearts of the Cosmos' by Dennis Overby, which very nicely reviews the development of astronomy in the second half of the last century through the life stories of prominent astronomers. Alan Sandage - one of the seniors - came to believe in God the Creator through his research. What will they say about him? who is a shaky and weak person... on the other hand, a researcher who comes from his research to heresy, is a brave person who follows his research...
In conclusion: any research can be interpreted in several ways. All emotions only make noise and only divert from the trend. How did that famous speaker write to himself on the page he prepared for himself for the speech: The things here are not convincing, so you have to shout...
point –
I believe that most creationists argue from a motive that is perhaps the highest that humans have: the desire to find logic and order in an apparently random system. There are different ways of thinking to reach this logic. Creationists choose God, whose existence is not proven. The scientists choose the scientific method, which has proven itself over and over again throughout history and achieved amazing achievements in all areas of life. Each in his own way.
In any case, the only way to treat different people in a serious debate is with mutual respect, and not by making accusations.
for age
I already explained to you that in your reasoning you only take the final result into account, not the steps along the way. For me this is a sufficient answer, and I hope it will be so for you as well, if you think about it deeply and also use your imagination to conceive some of the steps on the way to the final result.
I see no point in continuing the discussion with you on this point. It has become a dialogue of the deaf, and I don't believe that one of us will be able to change the other's mind.
Leontani –
You formulated a long and detailed answer. I will respond to her paragraph by paragraph.
"Does the complex nature of biological mechanisms support the possibility of their creation from random mutations in an evolutionary mechanism? Are there intermediate routes of "small advantageous steps" between one functional system and a system with different functionality? Is it because it is likely, for example, that a random mutation can cause a functional improvement in an existing system, do we therefore believe that a chain of random mutations can lead to a system with different functionality? In watches, computers, or any complex electronic system, is it possible to add one component after another, slightly change existing components, etc., and gradually move from a watch to a computer, with each step improving the function in some way? "
As you probably know, there is a very large amount of 'junk' in DNA - duplicated genes, inactive genes, areas that were once genes but now do not undergo transcription, and on and on. These genes can store a large amount of information that a number of random mutations occurring at the right times and in the right places can 'unlock' at once, thus creating a new function and a whole new pathway at once. Of course, the new route will falter and not be perfect, but these things can undergo selection and evolution over time. The point is, that tracks can indeed be created.
Beyond that, you must remember that the selection is not always in the direction of the 'good' mutation. The selection can often preserve many mutations that are not essential for the fate of the cell. These mutations can serve as the basis for initial primitive pathways. The pathway is not created all at once in this case, but is based on a number of proteins that until now had no real use in the cell.
"And yes, if we accept as a fact the correlation, which is found in many places, between the age of the geological layers and the complexity of the fossils found in those layers, then apparently we will have 1000000000:1000 (I awarded 1000 points to this argument which is the strongest of the evolution arguments)."
You are very generous in distributing your points. Do not forget other points in favor of evolution, such as the fact that new species are definitely created (for example a fly of a new species created in the laboratory). Or perhaps the fact that an amazing similarity can be found in the non-influencing parts of the genome of different organisms - a similarity that should have no reason, if an 'intelligent creator' did indeed create us all. You can also get additional support from experiments in evolution through artificial selection on computers. A very interesting experiment conducted several years ago showed that when a silicon chip is subjected to forced 'evolution', a complex is created in the end that is able to perform tasks more efficiently than the researchers were able to understand. You have another nice proof of the power of evolution through selection. Now you just have to understand that natural selection does not always mean that the strongest/fertile organism is selected, but the organism that is suitable for the time. When you have enough different environments, you can end up creating enough new features in many, many paths.
"And what findings do you think will be obtained if we excavate layers in the Hiria landfill? Aren't there electronic processors arranged before the level of complexity, starting from the garbage layers of the 2000s until the year XNUMX?"
Do processors have DNA, as some fossils do, that supports the theory of evolution and connections between them and their descendants? Can processors mate and produce offspring?
Come on, my friend. Oratory is one thing, but please avoid corny metaphors.
"And not to mention horrifying "evidence" from phenomena such as the well-known "industrial moth butterfly", phenomena in which there was not even a point mutation but only the selection of existing alleles."
I refer you to Dobzhansky's famous experiment from 1971, in which a new species of flies was created in the laboratory through evolution and selection. Also, the evolution of a new species of fish from the old species of the tilapia fish, in lakes in East Africa, was studied.
"In conclusion: only because the believers of evolution put 0 next to creation, and did not internalize Dawkins' words about light and clockwork material, and did not internalize how much design is "seemingly" as his language"
If Dawkins were dead, he would be turning over in his grave at this point.
I hope you'll forgive me for saying that you didn't get his point in his book. Dawkins brings out the full complexity of nature, and indeed explains that in a completely random way such complexity cannot be reached. At the same time, the process of evolution is explicitly -=not=- random. Evolution is guided by natural selection, whose requirements change all the time and according to each place and environment. By way of natural selection, we can indeed reach results with a very high level of complexity.
In fact, Dawkins in his book 'The Blind Watchman' completely dismisses the myth of a random evolutionary process. He gives his own example, which stars a monkey who is placed next to a typewriter. The argument is that if a monkey is given infinite time to tick, then at some point the randomness will lead him to write all of Shakespeare's works. The problem is that this time will be longer than the lifetime of the entire universe.
But, what if a choice was imposed on the monkey's ticks? What would happen if every time the monkey typed the right letter in the right place, the letter would be saved there, and he would not be allowed to change it anymore? In this case the monkey will tick off all of Shakespeare's works in a very short time.
Natural selection does not know in advance what the correct letters are and what their correct place is, but it certainly imposes a strong element of neutralizing mistakes from the 'output'. Under the right conditions, it forces the tickling monkey to type only in certain directions, or only certain sentences that will be accepted. And finally, we get a finished piece, after so many spoons and choices.
Evolution is blind and random. Natural selection is the one that steers it, and as a result there is no point in all the arguments about the zero chance of creating a complex protein or creating a system that depends on its thousands of parts. One can say that there is a 'creator', but he is not an 'intelligent creator'.
1:0.
From those who do not understand the theory of evolution (the creationists) I heard only one claim:
"I'm afraid"
All the other syllables and consonants emitted from them come to forget this fact.
Roy –
The very approach of considering evolution versus creationism, in X:Y terms, is correct and welcome. That is, there are complex issues, the decision on which is not simple and trivial, and there may be evidence, or opinions, that lean one way or the other, and both scales must be tested, weighed, and chosen.
Except that the moment you put 0 next to the rational creation, you discovered that you do not consider anything and that you are forced and forbidden under the belief that you have become accustomed to, and your eyes are blinded by the matter.
I suggested to you, and to anyone who thinks to examine the issue objectively, without being enslaved to his current faith, that he carefully read the words of Richard Dawkins in his book "The Blind Watchmaker", pp. 19-20 in the Hebrew edition, about the ease and material of a watch, and about the fact that he, Dawkins, He is unable to imagine how it was possible to be an atheist before 1859, the year Darwin's book was published.
Howie says, first you have to start from 0:0 (objectivity). After that, you must assimilate in your mind all of Dawkins' words in the second chapter of his book, about the "seemingly" intelligent design found in nature in every protein and every mechanism, about how sophisticated the above-mentioned design is, about how the ways of solving problems in that design are similar to intelligent human engineering factories (Dawkins , ibid.), on what is the reason why when we see a watch our mind undoubtedly decides that it is the product of intelligent design, and not because we know from reading or seeing that watches are made in Bihar, but because they are composed of many components, each of which could have infinite values (wheel size teeth, thickness, hole and axis, number of teeth, etc.) but the special thing is that each gear, each screw, each axis and each spring in the clock, each brother of these received values adapted to the common general purpose of the clock, when from a probabilistic point of view the accumulation of all these adjusted values It is infinitely zero, and the theory of probability as it is, quantifies probabilities for us so that we can *consider* in our mind if this turns out. You must understand then (Dawkins, ibid.) how great the light and substance is from a clock to the eye, or to the heart, or to a bat sonar, or to any other biological mechanism, which consists of many, precise, sophisticatedly adjusted components and thousands of counters from each clock.
Now, if you are a free person, you will understand that the starting point is 1000000000:0 in favor of "intelligent creation".
Only by understanding the above, will you be able to examine the "plausibility" in favor of evolution.
For example: there are characteristics in living things that do not exist in clocks - living things reproduce, change randomly in mutations, and are subject to natural selection, that is - evolutionary mechanism belongs in living things and not in clocks.
is that so? Does the complex nature of biological mechanisms support the possibility of their creation from random mutations in an evolutionary mechanism? Are there intermediate routes of "small advantageous steps" between one functional system and a system with different functionality? Is it because it is likely, for example, that a random mutation can cause a functional improvement in an existing system, do we therefore believe that a chain of random mutations can lead to a system with different functionality? In watches, computers, or any complex electronic system, is it possible to add one component after another, slightly change existing components, etc., and gradually move from a watch to a computer, with each step improving the function in some way? Is it even possible to think of a gradation between a watch and a computer, between a sweat system and a breastfeeding system, or between a few simple systems that allegedly existed in the beginning of life, to the many existing biological systems? What is the size of the possible concatenation spaces (10000^20 for a simple system coded with 10 genes)? What is the percentage of garbage scavengers and what percentage of scavengers in this space are successful systems in any habitat? Do random mutations have the power to cover a permil of a permil of a billionth of a billionth of the end of zero end of the above space, even in a billion squared imaginary creatures that reproduce a billion times a second, for a billion squared years? And what is the probability that a compound constituting some new system will arise in mutations in the organism and in the habitat where that system may be useful?
Only by understanding the above (1000000000:0), will you be able to examine the "evidence" in favor of evolution.
Such as, if we accept as fact, the age of many fossils dating back millions/billions of years. Many jump from here to conclude 1:0 in favor of evolution, but this is vain.
1) Because it is not 1:0 but 1000000000:1 in favor of evolution, as above.
2) Because it remains 1000000000:0. The creation vs. evolution debate is not about the Torah of Israel vs. evolution, and 5768 years from creation to today, as the Torah claims, are not at all being discussed.
And, if we accept as a fact the correlation, which is found in many places, between the age of the geological layers and the complexity of the fossils found in those layers, then apparently we will have 1000000000:1000 (I awarded 1000 points to this argument which is the strongest of the evolution arguments).
is that so?
What findings do you think will be obtained if we excavate layers in the Hiria landfill? Are there not electronic processors there that are arranged before the level of complexity, starting from the garbage layers of the sixties until the year 2000? Does the correlation between the layers of freedom and the complexity of the processors indicate, conclusive evidence, or some kind of evidence, that these processors evolved from each other? of course not. As long as we do not have a reasonable mechanism that explains how complex processors can evolve, without intelligent intervention, from each other, then it is clear to us that they are all creations of intelligent engineering. We can only conclude that either those engineers evolved over time, or that for some reason, whatever, they gradually discovered their ability.
And also regarding the common mantra - "Evolution is an observed fact", which is mainly based on the observed phenomenon of beneficial point mutations in bacteria. Only, and only because the supporters of evolution never understood that the starting point is 1000000000:0, only, and only because of their horrifying mistake that as a starting point they assign a weight of 0 to an intelligent creation, only, and only because against a weight of 0, "evidence" that has a weight of 0 is also good , only because of this we are witnessing this horrifying mental regression, bringing about point mutation phenomena, whose probability of coming sooner or later is 100%, which create neither a new system nor new functionality, and which at best improve the functionality of an existing system, and in other cases protect The strain against a specific antibiotic, as "evidence" for the feasibility of complex development with thousands of coordinated components, timed concerts of dozens or hundreds of genes, each letter of which is precise and compatible with all the others, in the contiguous spaces of 100000^20.
And not to mention horrifying "evidence" from phenomena such as the well-known "industrial moth butterfly", phenomena in which there was not even a point mutation but only the selection of existing alleles.
To sum up: only because the believers of evolution put 0 next to creation, and did not internalize Dawkins' words about the light and matter of a watch, and did not internalize the extent to which the design "seems to be apparent" as it were, and never internalized that without a proven theory of evolution, the fact of divine creation shines like the sun and is clear as daylight and rises From every protein and every mechanism, only because for a moment they did not internalize the starting point of 1000000000:0, that is, the burden of proof rests on the theory of evolution, and the weight of evidence in favor of divine creation in their opinion is 0, only because of this in their opinion, the theory of evolution meets the burden of proof - zero burden.
======================================
And as for the above article and the evolution of the eye, and whether it is a discharge or not, Gil has already answered you with several answers, and I recommended that you look at it with moderation and patiencethis message - In the second half, starting with the first link given there, and please follow the links, and you will see some gradual close-ups of a small part of the components of the eye, think about the twin, the interdependence between the components, the amount of genetic code that stands behind each detail, the amount of genetic code that even stands After the simplest eye spot that is sold to you as the "beginning" of the evolution of the eye, and if you win you will see through and understand what made you come out with the 1:0 announcement. Successfully.
I will explain again…” You return to the same point, but still refuse to accept that the development of the system can be gradual. The initial milk could equally have been amniotic fluid or some type of secreted fat" - not accurate, from the moment mammals entered the milk system, the duct and the gland already existed. Now they have to add milk or another nutritious liquid. The point is that there is no Gradualness. You must have some kind of nutritious liquid (it must be liquid + sugar or nutritious protein), and this is in order to exponentially dominate the population. Moreover, you must have some kind of differentiation mechanism, so that the production of milk will be only in the breasts and, God forbid, in the rest of the body. (otherwise The female will die because she will secrete milk from her entire body). Therefore you must have all the impressive minimalistic functions mentioned above and there is nothing to do with gradualness. Therefore you remain with the same orders of magnitude.
Shaul -
There is truth in what you say, but I believe that scientific interpretation can be divided into two categories.
The first category is the scientific interpretation given in the articles by the scientists who conducted the studies. If you read scientific articles, you will surely agree with me that the authors of the article are usually very careful in interpreting their results and use as many caveats as possible before they reach an unequivocal conclusion.
The second category is the interpretation given to the research while it is being communicated to the general public. This interpretation must be less reserved, partly because the general public usually does not delve into the issues in question. A popular article on quantum theory for the general public cannot contain differential equations, and a popular biological article cannot contain full detail about the genetic analysis methods used by the authors of the article. Any such detail will only keep potential readers away from the article.
It turns out that the scientific world uses much more difficult and reserved language, but the general public accepts the results with less scientific criticism.
In my opinion, this is required by reality. You cannot convey the science as a whole to the public, without the general public having scientific knowledge in the fields in question - knowledge that usually no one has except the very specific scientists who deal in the aforementioned fields. Real scientific conclusions are obtained from that limited group that deals in the scientific field. The 'enthusiasm' of certain science communicators on certain subjects, or of the media on other scientific subjects, does not reflect on the critical and rigorous scientific treatment that these subjects undergo among the population of scientists.
So in conclusion - two aspects to science - the research and the publication, and the publication does not affect the research (and it is good that it is, or it was not science but an ideology that supports itself).
Roy,
It seems to me that in your very words you reveal to what extent it is not (!!!) correct to add the researcher's subjective interpretation, because as soon as you add the interpretation by translating the findings into ideological conclusions (whatever ideological they may be), your research becomes suspect in the absence objectivity.
In other words: just as Judaism or Christianity are essentially 'religions', so atheism itself has become a religion (much more blatant in my view than many other religions) and thus the basis for trust in any conclusion from any research has been undermined.
Example: Steven Gold's (Head of the Department of Paleontology at Harvard, to the best of my memory) books on evolution ('Panda's Toe', 'Hail to the Brontosaurus' and more) are amazing in terms of the knowledge revealed in them, and I stopped to read another one that, at least for me, loses all proportion in its obsessive drive to reach any conclusion scientifically to his ideological conclusion - atheism.
His zeal to convince of his conceptual truths totally reminded me of the evangelical preachers in the USA who passionately preach their ideas. So who decided that he is a more scientific person than them???
Rather his atheistic fervor casts doubt on the authenticity of his science. It seems to me that only science loses this way, and it's a shame.
In conclusion, it was possible and desirable to submit the research in a dry form and only to add that there is support in this research, etc. The title and the structure of the article, at least for me, are only harmful.
An interesting report and I also liked Roy's comments, they are detailed and learned and add to the article
Shaul -
Judaism treats interpretations of the Torah in a more forgiving way than Christianity. Although I also oppose the introduction of ideological interpretations into scientific articles, we live in an era where there is no other choice in the US. The Christian religion tries to impose a fixation on the system and its opinion only, which is not based on scientific evidence. Science, on the other hand, tries to impose its own opinion - which is definitely based on scientific evidence, and has already shown countless contributions to humanity as a result of the scientific way of thinking.
Therefore, I actually see positively the attempt to make people see the 'message' in popular science articles. When you are competing for public opinion against the talented orators of Christianity and Judaism, who know how to manipulate people and sway a crowd of fans after them, you have no choice but to use the same tools and stimulate the imagination and appetite of the people, but through science.
Roy,
Thanks for treatment.
Your words are completely acceptable to me. If we widen the canvas we will find that the contradiction you are standing on (regarding the concepts of time according to the Bible as opposed to these concepts in science) arises more strongly from cosmology and to a greater extent from biology. The cosmology on the one hand 'pushes' for singularity, which not only for me is associated with the belief in one God (although, the extreme believers in modern string theory insist on claiming that new universes are constantly created by themselves at the same time...), but on the other hand it talks about orders of magnitude of time of 14 A billion years.
Addressing the Bible in a dry, literal way - and especially in relation to the first sections of the story of creation - was already explicitly opposed by Rambam and many more after him.
In conclusion: science is so beautiful in itself. Please let everyone deal with 'proper' science, and the interpretation that he will leave to the viewers. Every time I read an article that doesn't hold back and adds an ideological interpretation to scientific conclusions - of any kind - it reminds me of the Soviet scientists during Stalin's time who always had to come to a conclusion from any research about the superiority of the Marxist method and the decline and decay of the West.
It's time to grow up…
Shaul -
I think that the main problem is not necessarily the belief in God, but the belief in the Bible. Those who believe in the Bible in a literal form (as is the case in the USA) find it difficult to accept another explanation for the creation of the world other than the 'six days of creation'. In this case, it is difficult to fit the theory of evolution into the story, because it requires hundreds of millions of years of variation.
Age –
You return to the same point, but still refuse to accept that system development can be gradual. The initial milk could equally well have been amniotic fluid or some type of secreted fat - something that can be found without serious differentiation in the direction, and babies can digest even without differentiation on their part. As this direction in evolution proved to be more successful, organisms with slightly richer milk evolved. Regarding the timing of the milk, etc. - it is about several genes that create several proteins. There is no reason to believe that everything lies in one very complicated gene. Throughout evolution, more and more genes and proteins joined - by mistake and slowly - the process of milk development, its location in the body, its timing, etc.
Summary-"You are referring to the benefit we receive today from a certain gene. How do you know that in the past it did not have a different and simpler role, and from here the basis for that protein was obtained?" It is possible that it once consisted of a smaller number of acids - that is, it was never milk and therefore could not be useful in the milk system either. So how was the milk made for it? What is the minimum number of acids needed for a minimal milk fluid suitable for ovulation + differentiation to the gene that produces milk only for females And nowhere else in the body + controlled timing of milk production only in a pregnant female? Do you think 50 amino acids will be enough? How many other milk-producing combinations exist? A trillion? A trillion squared? These are zero numbers out of 50^20 possible combinations, and therefore we cannot have them even in evolution which lasts about a trillion years of mutation scanning.
It is always pointed out that a religious scientist cannot be objective because he supposedly has a conclusion that he must reach or alternatively he has a conclusion that he must not reach. When you read the article and the comments, you see that even a non-religious scientist is bound to the conclusion that he must reach... basically, everyone has basic assumptions: some admit it and some don't.
Bottom line: there is nothing preventing a religious person from believing in evolution. After all, even those who believe that G-d created the world are allowed to ask themselves what are the processes that G-d 'used' until the final result. The difference between the believer and the unbeliever will only be where science has no way to explain the skips. The religious will find God there, and the atheist will write applications for grants to conduct research that will help him continue to adhere to his worldview...
"It is a homologous gene, so again it is not a question of the formation of a gene with a new function."
The different hemoglobin genes have different functions. They all transfer oxygen, but some bind it more strongly than others, and without them the fetus would have a serious problem of 'robbing' oxygen from the mother. The gene in this case replicated, changed and got a new function.
There are other examples of genes that have duplicated and acquired other functions. Of course, it is impossible to prove beyond any doubt that these genes are duplicated - but this is the most logical assumption, beyond "God created the genome this way, because he felt like it".
"The benefit of any garden, which folds into a spatial structure with a specific purpose, is only achieved given the entire context of the various control areas, and therefore we need all of the above."
You are referring to the benefit we receive today from a certain shield. How do you know that in the past it didn't have a different and simpler role, and that's where the basis for that protein came from?
By the way, you are probably aware that in today's genetic engineering it is easy to take a certain gene, cut out of it the site with a protein that does a certain action, and attach it to a protein that does another action. As a result, you get a protein with a new function that works in a different way. A similar process occurs through viruses, which alternate and splice segments of chromosomes. Mutations of this type are created all the time during evolution, and if they are useful, then they will be preserved in the process of natural selection.
"And I explained why - what is the chance that a functional gene will appear from the union of 2 DNA segments, let's say 100 amino acids long?"
Not high, but I already explained that the functionality of a garden is determined every time. I don't see a problem that a gene will be created that codes for a very basic protein, and that this protein will become more and more complex as evolution progresses through natural selection - perhaps by splicing with other genes, as I have already explained. Why is it so difficult to think of a gene that was duplicated, then with the help of random mutations and splicing of other genes, got a very basic new function? If such a basic protein consists of only 10 or 20 amino acids, for example, then there is a good chance that this will happen.
"Let's take the milk system as it developed, as it were, in evolution - let's say that the mammals have already gained a mammary gland and a milk duct. What is the chance of gaining milk from complementary udders? What is the chance of gaining a complementary receptor after that? And the hormone that activates the aforementioned receptor?"
Again, you are taking the perfect system here, as it is today. There are many theories of evolution, and some claim that significant stages of evolution occurred in very short periods, with very specific environmental pressures. In these cases, there is a chance to receive a loan that has changed significantly over a short period of time.
In conclusion -
I can't tell you for sure that evolution does exist, because I can't go back in time and document it. However, following all the evidence accumulated in our genome and in the fossils we find, I can say with certainty that currently evolution, with all the problems and gaps it still has, is the most successful scientific theory that man has about the origin of species.
The small difference between ignorance and irrationality
When I have to choose between evolution and creationism
There are two possibilities: the first is
A long road full of bumps, which begins, as
As noted by one of the writers here, "a thick soup of hydrogen"
And Supa may be an evolving human race or creatures
Big ones with a cockroach - or (if you want) a nasty cockroach.
There is no doubt that the other possibility, which claims its existence
of a "creator" or a higher power, more sorceress and there is
And it has a solution for every bump and drop along the way
which she offers - except that she contradicts
My way of thinking (and maybe not only that..)
In two essential matters:
The first thing is Occam's Razor, which determines
that the way to decide on the right one between two options
that we don't know enough about is quite simple:
Choose the option that involves the least discounts
- and indeed to believe in the possibility of evolution we have to
to receive a very large number of discounts - but to receive
the possibility of the existence of a capable "creator" or "creator".
To create a person - we have to make several assumptions
Greater than that of evolution itself - which it created in the end
of speaking the person.
The second problem with the existence of the "creator" or the "creator"
She, whose very existence raises the thought of the existence of
A "creator" greater and more powerful than him (who created him)-
And brings us, in the end, to infinity
Creators, that all are "all-powerful" - and still all
The former among them is stronger, more powerful, and more powerful than its predecessor
(since he created it), hence a double contradiction (and this
Only in the second problem I posed...).
Hello Roy. It's nice to see that there are guys here who have learned a thing or two (unlike other places where I write on a regular basis). And regarding "and there is a lot of evidence regarding duplicated genes that have undergone mutations and now they are used in different roles" - if you are talking about genes that evolved in bacteria (nylon digestion, decomposition enzymes, etc.), so it does not belong to the evolution of larger creatures (mammals, reptiles, etc.) since the bacterial culture rate is trillions of orders of magnitude higher. )."For example, there is a different hemoglobin for fetuses and adults" - this is a homologous gene, so again it is not a question of the formation of a gene with a new function." And science currently believes that these are genes that have duplicated and mutated until each of them now serves a different function" - the key word here is " I believe" and that is what the discussion revolves around. I argue and reason why this is not possible.
"Your argument about the unlikely statistics of the proteins only takes into account the final product. You yourself say that your protein, which consists of 100 amino acids, includes an active site, a surveillance site, an activator site, an allosteric control site and a methylation mechanism. But what about a much simpler protein, which in the process of evolution undergoes more and more changes and more and more roles are added to it?" - Not accurate.. The benefit of any gene, which folds into a spatial structure with a specific purpose, is only achieved given the entire context of the various control regions, and therefore we need all The above.
"I don't see a problem with the claim that genes coding for very simple proteins that contain very simple sites will join together and create a more complex protein. The chance of that, you will surely agree with me, is very high" - no, and I explained why - what is the chance that a functional gene will appear from the union of 2 DNA segments, let's say 100 amino acids in length? Let's take the milk system as it developed, so to speak, in evolution - let's say that mammals already have a mammary gland and a duct Milk. What is the chance of winning complementary colostrum milk? What is the chance of winning a complementary receptor after that? And the hormone that activates the aforementioned receptor? Even if there are a trillion sequences that create all of the above, they constitute zero squared from an astronomical space of 100^20 combinations, therefore Evolution in the above system will not be possible. Regards.. Gil.
Hello Gil -
First of all I would like to point out that the article describes the results of the study on the tip of the fork. If you would like to examine the methods by which the researchers reached their conclusions, I suggest you go to the link to the original news.
And now regarding your claim -
I also studied biology, and there is a lot of evidence about duplicated genes that have mutated and are now used in different roles. For example, there is a different hemoglobin for fetuses and adults, and science currently believes that these are genes that have duplicated and mutated until each of them now serves a different function.
Your argument about the unlikely statistics of the proteins only takes into account the final product. You yourself say that your protein, which consists of 100 amino acids, includes an active site, a surveillance site, an activator site, an allosteric control site and a methylation mechanism. But what about a much simpler protein, which in the process of evolution goes through changes and more and more roles are added to it?
In this case, the chances are much higher that such a protein will be created and find a use for it.
Besides that, don't forget that in nature there are many cases where genes connect with each other as a result of a mutation, creating a new protein consisting of a combination of the two genes. I don't see a problem with the claim that genes coding for very simple proteins that contain very simple sites will join together and create a more complex protein. The chance of that, you will surely agree with me, is very high given enough time...
And here we have the finished protein, the light receptor.
Good day to you.
The whole article is based on extrapolation hypotheses, which I don't know where to start. I actually studied biology, so I will respond about the development of the eye. The researchers conclude that mutation mutations in a duplicated gene can lead to a new functional gene. an active site and a surveillance site and an activator site and an allosteric control site and a methylation mechanism) and therefore there may be about 100^100 possible combinations (higher than the number of electrons in the universe). How many of them can be used as a light receptor (photoreceptor)? A hundred trillion? A hundred quadrillion? We wouldn't be able to get them even if the entire universe was infested with organisms on each individual planet for a trillion years, when every second the creatures reproduce and with each reproduction about a thousand mutations occur!
What's more, there is no way to pass from a replicating gene to another gene, since a change is required in all control areas of various kinds (what I mentioned) and among them are trillions of garbage situations - therefore evolution will never be possible! Yours very much appreciated.
Biochemical pathways that make it possible to sense light are like biochemical pathways that make it possible to sense smell, for example. Substances scattered around the world react with all kinds of things, we have developed a mechanism that is actually able to analyze an image based on light, but for example in the sense of smell or the sense of taste it is all about the fact that certain receptors located in the right organ pick up particles that are scattered in the air and create a biochemical reaction.
Similar to the sense of the hydras described in the article, there are all kinds of senses in the natural world that we are far from grasping. Flies are able to sense the horizon line, bees are able to see ultraviolet (and thus instead of seeing the colors of a flower, if you see the nectar tracks on it), various insects are able to sense if they are on food or poison with the tips of their legs...
As a believer in creation, I see no contradiction between the theory of evolution and belief in creation.
Do we believe that the first man was born as an adult and so were the trees, rivers and mountains (and coal and oil) etc. So even if the theory of evolution is correct it still does not necessarily contradict the belief in creation.
Even those who believe in the theory of evolution do not have a clear answer as to where it all started. Who created the thick soup of hydrogen? Who established the laws of physics and mathematics, etc. And of course who designed and established the theory of evolution.
So the theory of evolution does not contradict the belief in creation but only explains according to human logic that at a certain point millions or billions of years ago there was a possibility of gradual development and nothing else. but does not explain what happened before that point.
Today, with the development of the computing world, we can parallelize and understand that just as we are able to create a whole world (virtual-seem, second life as an example) at a late point, the Creator of the world can also create the world at a certain starting point along with the laws of evolution that will apply from that point on.
1:0 for evolution???
Before it was 79263476:0 for evolution.
Now 79263477:0
Good Day
Ofer -
A senior lecturer is defined in Israel as Senior lecturer. In the Hebrew Academy, as you mentioned, there is simply no Assistant Professor position.
Since I saw in the Hebrew CVs of several professors that they served as 'Assistant Professor at **** University', I preferred to translate the term this way. In the end, although the position may be parallel to the senior lecturer position, I suppose there are differences between them, and it is better not to confuse one with the other.
Thanks for the attention and correction.
Ori -
The belief of the creationists is indeed based in the original on faith and nothing else. However, the debate between creationists and evolution is based on rational arguments on both sides. One of the main arguments of creationists is about the complexity of the eye. They claim that it is impossible for an organ as complex as the eye, where each part relies on the other but is useless on its own, to have been created through a process of gradual evolution (even if it is based on natural selection).
Usually, those who study evolutionary biology in depth come across a wide variety of different animals throughout evolution, and see how their eyes developed gradually. Here we encounter what can be called the 'primordial eye', and the source of the ability to see in evolution.
This gives additional evidence to the theory of evolution, and the issue is actually important, because people can be convinced with logic and evidence. Beyond that, this is the only way, in my opinion, to convince people. If we simply sit quietly and ignore everyone who does not think like us, then we will miss important problematic points they raise against evolution (and they must be resolved in order to confirm evolution). Worse than that - those who are silent, do not have the ability to influence and change things in society. The silence of the scientists is probably the reason why one of the US states passed a law that allows creationism to be taught in schools as a science equivalent to evolution, for the rest of the world.
Long response. I hope you enjoyed the article.
There is no such thing as an assistant professor, assistant prof is the entry level in academia in the US that is equivalent to "senior lecturer" in Israel (the next step is associate prof, which is a fellow professor).
Mike –
This is a good question, and the wording here is indeed problematic (so in the original English).
I believe the explanation is that the hydra does not have complex organs for sight, like real eyes. All it has is the opsin gene, and a relatively simple primitive pathway that makes it possible to transmit the 'signal' that is received when light hits the opsin.
In more modern organs for absorbing light, such as the eyes, there are many additional mechanisms to improve the absorption of light, to process it quickly, to protect against excess light, etc.
So the hydra is not really blind - it can sense light, but apparently it cannot receive complex messages from it, which are possible with more advanced organs for receiving light.
"1:0 in favor of evolution"... already tired of the fruitless debate between creationists and believers in evolution. After all, it is clear that those who choose creationism cannot be convinced through science (because the choice is not logical!) and therefore, it is a waste of our strength. Let's just decide that we ignore them and peace be upon Israel.
Good Day,
Ori
What are genetic pathways that allow hydras to sense light?
Like, it's not clear, she's blind but she reacts to light?