On the occasion of the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, we bring a small explanation - what evolution is and especially what it is not
The debate between evolution and creationism has been marred by many misunderstandings and ideological positions, often on both sides. That the creationists are knowledge refusers, and this is noticeable in the difference between what the theory of evolution really is and what they think it is. And the difference between the years is huge and important. In this lesson we will examine some misunderstandings concerning the perception of evolutionary biology in the general public and among creationists. The goal is to give a better sense not only of what evolution is but also a more general appreciation of the nature of science.
Thus writes Dr. Massimo Pigalucci, in the introduction to the Science and Humanism course, which can be downloaded for free (you must register first)
- Evolution is technically defined as a change in the frequency of genes found in the natural population.
- An important side effect of these changes is that evolution can appear as gradual change with adaptations linking different life forms on Earth.
- Contrary to the claim of creationists - evolution is not a theory that describes the origin of life.
- Evolution is also not a theory that describes the origin of the universe
- Finally, evolution – or more generally understanding the diversity of life on Earth – does not require any kind of intelligent design.
Evolution as changes in gene frequency
According to Filgucci, if you ask an evolutionary biologist, who is by definition the only person suitable to answer the question - he will answer you that evolution is simply a change in the frequency of genes over time. This seems simple and uninteresting from a philosophical point of view, but it goes in line with the essence of science: to search for answers to specific questions. Not questions of substantial significance. The theory of genetic changes in natural populations is understood by a group of biologists known as population geneticists, and today's molecular biology provides direct evidence that this change in gene frequency is indeed happening right under our eyes. Examples of this abound in all classes of living beings, including humans of course.
Another definition can be found on the website American Association for the Advancement of Science (which publishes the journal Science). By this definition, evolution is a common, well-rehearsed description of the way in which today's living forms evolved from common ancestors reaching back to a simple single-celled creature nearly 4 billion years ago. Evolution makes it possible to explain the similarities and differences between a huge number of living creatures that we see around us. Evolution occurs in populations when hereditary change is passed from one generation to the next. Genetic variation, whether it is carried out through random mutations or through the mixing of genes that occurs during sexual reproduction, sets the stage for evolutionary change.
This change is driven by forces such as natural selection, in which the living creature uses its advantages such as colored reefs in insects that camouflage some of them from predators, allowing them to survive better and thus they manage to pass the trait on to the next generation. (Here is the place to emphasize that the genes are not completely mixed in each generation, as the creationists claim, but rather that there is mainly continuity, and therefore there is no need to double the chances to get an impossible chance, as appears from the calculations of many creationists, A.B.).
Evolution explains both the small-scale changes within populations and the large-scale changes whereby species diverge from a common ancestor over many generations.
What is the theory of intelligent design?
The theory of intelligent design asserts two hypothetical claims about the history of the universe and life: first, that some structures and processes in nature are "complex and not crazy" and therefore their origin cannot be found in small changes over a long period of time. The second argument, according to which some structures or processes in nature are expressions of complex specified information that can only be the product of an intelligent agent.
Does intelligent design have any scientific basis?
No. In December 2005, Judge John Jones ruled in Kitzmiller's lawsuit against the Dover County School Board that the artificial intelligence was based on religion rather than science. "The evidence in the trial demonstrated that intelligent design is nothing more than a consequence of creationism." Ruling. Moreover, many scientists have commented that the concept presupposes that there is an "intelligent planner" outside of nature who, from the beginning or from time to time, introduces planning into the world around us. However, the question of the existence of an intelligent planner is a matter of religious belief, and not a testable scientific question.
Why not "teach both sides" in science classes?
First, presenting non-scientific views in science classes will confuse students about what is science and what is not science. At a time when US students are experiencing a reduction in enthusiasm for science, baby boomer scientists are retiring in large numbers, and students from all over the world are returning home to work, America cannot afford to jeopardize and compromise the integrity of its science education. Second, it would be unfair to present students with one religious opinion and not others. And it would be unreasonable to ask science teachers to try to teach religion in science classes.
Do science and religion collide?
No. Science does not take a position about the intelligent planner which, as mentioned, is a matter of religious belief and cannot be tested with scientific data. Science and religion ask different questions about the world. Many scientists in the world, from Reverend George Koyon, director of the Vatican Observatory to Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the American Institutes of Health - are religious people and they do not see a conflict between belief in God and accepting the theory of evolution as a language. In fact, many religious leaders and scientists see scientific research and religious belief as complementary components of their whole lives.
Are there "gaps" in our understanding of evolution?
No, certainly not in the sense that intelligent design advocates suggested. Obviously, there are still many puzzles in biology as to the particular ways of the evolutionary process and how different species are related to each other. However, these gaps in knowledge do not refute or challenge Charles Darwin's basic theory of descent through adaptation, and of course it is supported by the genetic sciences. The contemporary theory of evolution provides a conceptual framework in which these puzzles can be answered and suggest ways to solve them. As scientists continue to solve the mysteries of nature, today's inextricable complexity can become tomorrow's most obvious scientific explanation.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
110 תגובות
The Torah of Israel does not oppose evolution, on the contrary, it refines it, gives it a direction and trend - it shows and emphasizes that the development was and is being done according to a certain direction, according to a certain trend, a certain planning.
https://www.daat.ac.il/daat/tanach/maamarim/torat-2.htm
The formation of life from an inanimate being is a much more complicated operation than the development of life from an already existing cell. And even if it happened many times, only one form survived, that of life as we know it. If there was another version we would feel the shortages. All attempts to find such a group - for example bacteria living on arsenic, turned out to be wrong in the end.
In addition, life has the property that as soon as it exists, it begins to change its environment, for example the blue algae (now called archaea) that managed to develop photosynthesis increased the level of oxygen in the atmosphere, a substance that is toxic for many life forms that did not survive.
There is an understanding in the article that creation relies on gaps in science, and thereby requires the existence of the Creator.
I assume that every reader here knows the "God of Gaps", there is no point in adding to that.
but to argue whether our understanding or misunderstanding of the procedures taking place in the world is related to the question of the existence of the Creator.
In general, science relies on a certain sequence of reactions or we will call it cause and effect.
When we trace back the reason why a specific light bulb is hanging in my room, an inflation of reasons will occur as we go back.
Any of these reasons and reasons after reasons, could have resulted in a different light hanging in the room or no room at all or me not being there.
Therefore, when I investigate why a certain light bulb is hanging in a room, I will avoid investigating most of the reasons in the first place, and concentrate only on the most intuitively influential reasons.
Science chooses and can investigate a very limited sequence of causes that led from the bang and before to the conscious, rational man.
Therefore, there is no doubt that there will be a long time left with many and difficult gaps.
Does evolution disprove the existence of God?
One can ask more, would a scientific explanation for the entire development of the universe negate the existence of God?
Does the fact that we understood or did not understand in which sequences of events and reactions the universe was created, at all fundamentally change the answer?
When I walk into a room and see an open computer, I assume there was a person here. I would need a very plausible explanation for me to assume that the computer was turned on by accident.
This is because complex undirected procedures that result in a distinct outcome tend to be rare. Usually undirected complex procedures tend to create an undifferentiated result.
Therefore intuitively I will also assume that if there is no very plausible explanation of how the world came to be by chance, I will assume that there is an intelligent external creator or orderer or director.
The more we understand the complexity of creation, the stronger this intuition becomes.
Can this intuition be called a scientific argument? Very likely not. Lots of reasons to talk.
for example. Science is based on observation. We cannot observe how a universe develops by divine intention, and have another observation in which a universe develops by chance. We are always captive within our current universe.
In the room with the computer, I know that the chances of opening the computer by accident or by remote control are less than the chances of a person entering the room.
But this is only after I know that there are people in the world, and there is a possibility to enter the room.
But if I didn't know about the existence of humans, I would have to assume another explanation from the possible factors before me.
Even now, before we know about the existence of God or an intelligence capable of influencing creation. And before we know what God's abilities are. We have to assume an explanation for the development of the world from the factors we do know.
Why does evolution assume the development of all animals from a single cell?
Is it not more convenient to assume that the case of the formation of life from inanimate has repeated itself?
Complete,
If you mention specific places in the book, I would be happy to refer accordingly.
Roy Cezana,
I read Jones's book a few months ago, and as far as I'm concerned, it came out in the opposite way: it came to bless and came out to curse. The arguments he uses when he tries to defend himself against the claims against evolution prove the opposite. It seems to me that some of the experiments and observations in Michael's reference already appear in Jones's book.
Complete,
The invention of the polytheistic religion is to show you that logically, it is just as valid as the monotheistic religion you believe in, which has only one God. You have not yet addressed this claim.
I will emphasize again that evolution does not explain the origin of life but only its development. The main difference between science and religion is that religion claims to have all the answers (even the religion I made up in the previous comment has an explanation for every question, even if it is false. If you doubt you can try asking a question and I will demonstrate to you through theory), while science claims to have little A lot of answers and a lot of questions. Therefore, it is tempting to believe in religion, but also very unproductive and even very pretentious. The explanations of the religion are usually very clear and superficial (not always), so that almost everyone in the population can understand them to a reasonable extent. This cannot be said about science, and this is another advantage of religion in its propaganda war against science. In order for me to be able to answer your question about the chemical that develops in humans in a complete and detailed way, I need not only to study several degrees in evolutionary biology, but I may never be able to give you explanations that will put your mind at ease, if you do not study biology/chemistry/geology up to a master's level At least (maybe even more).
On the other hand, any child can understand the claim that God created the world and everything in it. That doesn't make it right.
I have encountered this problem in conversations with creationists in the past. When I started to explain the genetics involved, I was met with the answer "Go away, doesn't it seem much simpler to you that God created us and that's it?". People want to receive clear and immediate answers, not to study their studies for years and years, and finally for every question they manage to answer they receive two additional open questions (at least), not to mention that they may also receive a partial or ambiguous answer to the original question . Such is our world - complex and demanding. You can either deal with it in a responsible way, approach the task of investigating him knowing that the task will never be completed and will be exhausting and tiring, and you can also be satisfied with pre-prepared answers from "religious sages".
I have yet to see a single creationist who questions his own faith as much as he questions evolution. I want to see creationism survive all the logical attacks on it, but you dodge by claiming that God is immune to the logic of his creatures. The computer god is also immune to the logic created by his good friend the logic god (he implanted in logic a special law that protects all the gods against it, because otherwise they would rise up against him to kill him).
light,
If you feel like playing inventing a polytheistic religion, go for it. A bit retro but not bad as intellectual entertainment for leisure time.
"Virus or chemical" as the beginning of life. Excellent. The virus, by definition, is already a life form, and even a late one. And if you can posit a chemical that became conscious, your kind, for example, by a putative process that is best called Stichian, and all this in only 4 or 5 billion years (or even 13.7 billion years since the Big Bang according to the last number I came across.) All as a result of that mind Kinds of chemicals waded in some ancient soup, they had a film with lightning and a soundtrack of thunder, and electric currents made them feel good in their bodies, and that's how life began, so it's really better to be a polytheist.
Michael,
Thanks for the referral. I didn't know. I am new in the field. I promise to read. I would love to return to the bosom of the innocent belief in evolution (for many years, until about a year ago, it settled with me without a problem with the belief, and if I am convinced again, I will not be ashamed to announce it. It will just take me a little time)
Yehuda:
The truth is that the uncertainty principle can (in a completely theoretical way and with a probability that is for all practical purposes zero but mathematically is not zero) also bounce pingpong balls out of the box.
In any case - what I wanted to say is that even in the case of absolute certainty, it is possible to come up with irrefutable explanations for the results and I provided some examples of such explanations.
The existence of such explanations means that the theory is never proven.
To Michael
I liked Michael's law of conservation of ping pong balls, and I have a problem with it, but apart from that, in every measurement there is uncertainty in the measurement (and not because of Eisenberg's uncertainty principle), therefore there is no such thing as a XNUMX% correct measurement or a measurement that is on every the universe. That's why there are always defined limits, of course up to that limit the formula/theory is defined.
The disgusting case of Michael's ping pong balls makes me think that I have a problem there because it is clear to me that the count can be completely accurate. Maybe the problem is that counting itself has no physical law? In short, food for thought.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
in light of
There is a much more economical "theory", with far fewer arbitrary assumptions:
One God is enough to:
make the birds fly
falling objects,
for computers to work
And for humans to come up with strange and useless theories
Complete,
As you pointed out, no one believes or apostatizes their faith due to intellectual conviction. This means that there is no logical reasoning that I or any person would present to make a person lose his faith. The computer gods are just as logical as the God of the Bible, until you show me one flaw that exists in the God of the computer and does not exist in the God of the Bible. Logically, both are equally valid: both explain the findings, provide no successful predictions, and have not even a shred of proof. I accept your intellectual challenge, and I present my own challenge to you - find some flaw in the belief in the God of the computer that I cannot also impose on the belief in the God of the Bible. I am sure that if you try, you will see how exhausting such a discussion can be on your part, because I can defend the belief in the God of the computer with exactly the same arguments that the creationists defend against the God of the Bible.
And now, to the challenge you posed to me: evidence that evolution is the origin of life. Well, as the article points out, evolution does not indicate the beginning of life but rather its development. It is enough to assume one ancient organism (not even a single cell, but a virus or any chemical capable of replicating and changing from generation to generation to some extent, little but present), and assume changing conditions over time and place, and from here to man, evolution explains. The previous commenters helped me and directed you to scientific articles/books that provide evidence for evolution, and I note that this site also has quite a bit of skills.
Something else. As I said before, evolution provides predictions. If I believe in natural selection, I can believe that if I spray insects with a chemical poison, one day I will find myself spraying insects resistant to the poison. Thus, I can prepare in advance and change my pest control method. For example, to spray only a part of the field and leave enough space in its furrows to prevent a competitive advantage for resistant insects over non-resistant insects (this is done with methods of biological control in transgenic plants, and whoever does not do so violates the contract with the biotechnology company).
That is, I assume that it is possible that one species of beech, the insect harmful to my field, may one day change into a new species (the definition of a species is very problematic, and if you do not think so, I invite you to define a biological species and you will quickly prove that, like any definition in biology, it is problematic ), according to the principle of natural selection. Those who do not believe in this possibility, those who deny evolution, will not be able to exterminate their pests with the same efficiency, because eventually they will become resistant to any poison that is used against them.
Another example. Suppose I believe in creationism. Some organism, for example the last grain, is in danger of extinction. Other people are trying to save this grain, so that in the future new species of grains can develop from it. But I won't do anything, because I know that the Creator can design a new grain either way, even without a common "ancestor" for the grains. If indeed my opinion prevails, the grains will be extinct forever, like the dinosaurs.
You may object to the last statement by arguing that the Creator can indeed plan a new grain, but He will decide not to do so. This requires you to make another assumption, which is also without evidence. It only weakens your "theory". If you are not yet convinced that the addition of assumptions weakens a theory, give your opinion on the following "theory":
-Why do the birds fly?
Because the god of birds decided so.
-Why do objects fall?
Because the God of Fall decided so.
- Why do computers work?
Because the computer god decided so.
And so on and so forth, for any phenomenon you can think of, my theory will provide an explanation in the form of a new god dealing with that phenomenon (I can also provide a new god for every species of bird that can fly and not for all birds as a whole, not to mention a god for every species of flying insect !). You do not have the ability to disprove the theory, but you do have the ability to come up with another theory, which has a much lower number of assumptions and which explains the phenomena to the same extent and is even able to make predictions. Your theory will be better than mine, because it has far fewer unfounded assumptions (for example, to assume that a positive electric charge is attracted to a negative electric charge is an assumption that has never been proven - I can always say that in every experiment that "proved" the assumption there was a different god, special to the experiment This one, who decided that the charges would be attracted to each other at that moment but equally he could have decided that they would not be attracted to each other).
Yehuda:
Regarding your words about proving theories - it is advisable to be precise and say that they are not true.
Even if you were to get a completely accurate result - exactly the one predicted by the experiment - and even in cases where there is no possibility of measurement errors (for example "the law of keeping the ping-pong balls in the box where I keep them and check that their number has not changed during the night) it cannot be claimed that the theory has been proven.
In the interpretation one can raise speculations that maybe the next time the experiment will not give the same result and maybe in general God is just giving me the illusion that the number of ping pong balls is saved.
Ask Hugin and she will even tell you about the consciousness and the will of the pingpong balls that are not kept at all but that they take turns among themselves and every time someone is about to open the box they send a group of turners there.
Of course, if you take a simplistic model like Yehuda did, you will reach an illogical speed
Maybe it's worth adding the air resistance in the calculation or at least start with a correct summary of forces and not jump directly to a final formula describing a specific case.
And just for the sake of understanding, if a body falls to the earth, how can it escape from it?
It's really going down, isn't it?
Huganode:
I'm not talking about censorship of ideas but censorship of attempts to "convince" through a war of attrition.
Throughout all of your statements on the site it is evident that you do not understand the difference at all.
And to all those who claim that it is impossible to prove the correctness of theories.
Perhaps it is desirable to specify what can be proven. Well, the theory can be proven with the help of measurements, but measurements have two important properties, the first is the measurement range and the second is the uncertainty inherent in the measurements. That is why it is said:-
Any theory can be proven to the point of accuracy in measurements and only within the range of measurements.
For example:-
We will take the formula of the speed of a body in free fall on Earth V=G*T the speed = the acceleration of gravity times the time, and we will check it.
We will check between zero and five seconds and take an acceleration of gravity equal to 9.8 meters per second squared. The results you get will be correct, but if we take a much larger range than five seconds, for example 2000 seconds, we will get a result of 19.6 km per second, which is incorrect because the speed cannot be greater than 11.2 km per second which is the escape velocity from the earth.
Hence the conclusion is that use beyond the measurement range of the theory is irresponsible and is done without any reason.
Another example, Newton's gravitation is widely used, has the formula been proven in the huge ranges in which it is used? I won't get into an argument on this topic, but it's food for thought.
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
What did we expect from Michael? After all, he is always Michael and the same Michael!, as long as the information does not match his he will fight it with all methods and now he surpasses himself and is looking for "miracle software" that will filter inappropriate content. Orwell's big brother "1984", Bea is proud of people like you.
Do you really think that evolution has nothing to develop? After all, life is a combination of consciousness with a mechanical system, so is consciousness included in evolution?
For all the pain, creationists treat consciousness in a more challenging way than evolutionists and certainly than censorship people like you.
It's really disgusting just to come up with the lame idea of censorship of ideas.
Haggin Haggin!
Hopefully I won't be censored
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Mr. Michael's response 91 is an intellectual scandal.
If Michael R brings to his mind even a hint of subconscious thinking like the one brought up here by him, the world of education is indeed in a difficult position.
Get off the science platform, Michael, if you don't have an open mind and you represent hopeless opacity.
This is a set of comments and not articles and you have to take into account that we commenters want to learn through everyone and also understand ourselves in the learning process.
Roy Cezana
Depends on how you define theory and how practical the matter is. When you define one or more rules that describe a certain order. There are many cases with conclusive proof.
The question is to what extent this is expressed in practice that can be checked or alternatively how open the ends are in the order that the system of laws describes.
The discussion with the creationists simply amazes me every time.
All the claims raised in this discussion have already been raised in all the previous discussions held on this topic here and on other websites but the creationists do not try to understand at all. They are just trying to exhaust themselves.
I hope that the response filtering software will soon learn to simply filter and delete their responses automatically - just like the patent registrar today is not at all willing to check patents that offer a leading perpetuum without a working model.
Shlomo is lying as usual.
After all, I myself have published this link (which shows many events of evolution) already dozens of times and it is impossible that he did not see it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-speciation.pdf
Although confidently asserting claims that one does not know is a lie, but confidently asserting claims that one knows are not true is twice as bad
higgs,
There is no experiment capable of confirming a theory. point.
This includes the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, the quantum theory, or any other scientific theory, and evolution as a whole. Just because the sun rises this morning, doesn't mean it will rise tomorrow. Just because my feet are on the ground today, doesn't mean I won't fly like a balloon tomorrow.
But the fact is that the sun continues to shine, and that people do not fly through the air. The laws of nature do not change easily, and their existence and nature can be deduced from single experiments.
We can only disprove theories. The theory of intelligent design is based on the idea that evolution cannot lead to the creation of complex systems. 'Someone somewhere' claimed that if evolution was demonstrated to create a complex system, then the theory would be disproved. It's not exact, but close enough to the truth. The theory will indeed suffer a severe blow if it turns out that the logic behind it does not correspond to reality.
Does this mean there is no intelligent planner? of course not. It may exist, it may not. But the fact is that we don't need it now to explain how complex systems evolved, because we have an even better alternative explanation.
Higgs:
Everyone knows that in science it is not possible to prove theories at all and this is not what Roy's response was about.
Roy simply demanded that "someone from somewhere" show a little decency and stand behind what he himself said.
Roy Cezana
The experiment you described is not enough to confirm the theory of evolution on a large scale and certainly not enough to unravel other concepts. For any theory there is no end to their testing, positive experiments are not enough to prove when you cannot prove that there is not one counter experiment that will disprove everything.
It is possible if there was an experiment that starts with atoms and simple pure molecules and ends with bacteria.
could have had more significance even as a positive experiment.
The problem with theories based on statistics and probability is actually the problem of science itself to understand them and their implications. Take for example the subject of uncertainty and the problem of measurement. managed to create theories that fit our understanding and technologies that build on it. But these are still open problems. It is possible that once such phenomena are understood more deeply, the physics will change and the perception will change regarding the essence of randomness and the essence of uncertainty and the relationship with the laws of conservation and order in new ways.
In front of your apparent evolutionary example I will mention again examples of probabilistic analyzes for finding skips in the Bible. And it doesn't matter at all what the consequences are. But what is important is that the predictive statistical game can easily be used in any direction you want.
And in the bottom line, you do not escape the debate because you are not able to provide conclusive proof in this area.
Like for example one negative proof.
I will mention for example Riemann's conjecture about the line of zeros in the half coordinate no matter how many trillions of zeros you have calculated one is enough that is not on the line to prove something absolute.
There is currently no such proof.
Complete,
I have no idea where you got that there is no evidence of visible changes within animal and plant species. Read 'The Origin of Species', or even better - I suggest you go to the library and read the book 'Almost Like a Whale' by Steve Jones, published in Hebrew. You will discover a lot of surface evidence there among the animals and plants.
light,
As far as I know, no one (and certainly not me) becomes a believer as a result of intellectual conviction. And sophistry (of the computer god type or the egg and the chicken) that I can always answer with sophistry, certainly cannot be considered as proof of anything.
Is it possible to prove that there is no God? I racked my brain and thought of a nice challenge for you:
Since God, according to my perception, is living and exists, and is also the source of our life and the life of all creatures in our world and the entire universe, it is enough for me that you offer me a reliable scientific explanation for life and the origin of life, or alternatively you are welcome to prove to me that life is just an optical illusion or a fiction of another kind.
The problem with evolution in the Darwinian version and with some other theories of its kind, is not at all in their ability to be refuted. The problem is much earlier than that - it is with the proofs and evidence from the field for their validity. The Darwinists, for example, having despaired of finding any evidence of visible changes within or between species of life or flora so far, are now retreating to the study of contemporary bacteria and schooners and the changes in their gene frequency, hoping to catch something there to hang on to to save the day. So those who do not have a microscope lose the right to speak.
As for my friends in the Darwinist sect: on the one hand, it seems to me that you forgot in your definition of evolution for some reason the principles of natural selection, the ancestor and the tree of evolution, Mother Lucy and a few other ideological chapters that are not completely acceptable to me. And on the other hand, it seems to me that you are committing to too much, compared to the current definition of the theory in the article that is the subject of our concern. Remember?" Evolution can be seen as gradual change with adaptations linking different life forms on Earth." I really like theories that start with the words "can show". I can show that I believe in them even without testing.
'someone somewhere',
Aren't you tired of dodging and playing with words?
Let's make it simple:
You wanted a complex system created by evolution. You made a brilliant statement that if such a system can be created, then other complex systems can also be created, and therefore the idea of intelligent design is disproven.
I brought you a study that indicates the creation of a complex system in evolution.
Now you play with words. Maybe it's a simple mutation? Maybe it's a change in the control of the protein? All in order not to say the word 'evolution'.
But the simple fact is that all of these are included in the term evolution, and they all come about as a result of mutations. A change in the control of a protein comes as a result of a mutation. Changing the function of a protein so that it can transfer citrate - this is also a mutation.
In the end, there was an evolution in this experiment that led to the creation of a complex system, and that is simply impossible to argue with.
I'm still waiting for the admission, as you promised, that intelligent design was disproved in this experiment.
Shabbat Shalom,
Roy.
Complete,
A. I did not understand what the answer to my question was. You claimed that God's existence cannot be disproved by human reasoning, so I said that this meant that God could not be disproved at all. The big bang and any other theory can be disproved, otherwise they are not scientific theories. Is there any evidence that you consider to disprove the existence of God (because I understood that any logical fallacy is not acceptable in your eyes as a disproof)?
If not, then why don't you believe in the computer gods who are responsible for my computer being on now? After all, you have no proof that they don't exist either. If you say that you build computers - I will tell you the truth, you may put the components in their place, but the computer gods will decide that they will work. If they decide, the computers won't work. See how many miracles the computer gods give us today!
Yes, what evolution claims is that species change over time, and it also describes how these changes occur, why and at what rate. The most important emphasis is that the species do not change now, but they also changed in the past and this change is responsible for the differentiation and variety of species that live today or lived in the past, including humans. I'm happy to list you as a Darwinist, if you agree with the last paragraph.
light,
A. Note that when I claim that using the logical argument of the chicken and the egg is not legitimate when it comes to proving the existence or non-existence of God, you see this as evidence for my position which supposedly holds that there is no possibility of doubting God, and for the dark dogmatism of religion in general. And on the other hand, you have no problem giving the big bang theory immunity from the argument of the chicken and the egg that "time was created at the time of the big bang as well, so the question of what was before it has no meaning" as you say. Doesn't it seem to you, even without being a physicist, that an explanation that assumes the beginning of everything in a tiny black dot is much more mythical, mystical, delusional and absurd than any religious explanation?
B. When you come to me with the changes that apply to bacteria that develop defense mechanisms against the fungi that humans launch to attack them (antibiotics), you burst into a wide open door and contribute nothing to the proof of evolution in its Darwinian version. In his book on the origin of species, all the examples that Darwin gives of changes that apply to biological species are based on human intervention (in all his travels he did not find a single example of a similar change occurring in nature). And this is also true of the bacterial-fungal example you gave (it is clear that improving the immunity of the bacteria was not the goal of human intervention, but it was certainly its product) Regarding the biological or genetic changes, I have already mentioned Yaakov Avino who knew how to play with the genes and bring about a disproportionate proliferation of spotted and spotted sheep and goats When it suited his goals (several thousand years before Lorenz and Darwin's father, and there was a (religious) prohibition on the marriage of close relatives because our ancestors already knew about the unpleasant genetic results of this practice. Whereas the prophets reveal to us that many days "a tiger will lie down with a goat." From this it is clear that there is no contradiction between religious belief (at least in the monotheistic religions based on Judaism) and the recognition of the occurrence of biological change processes. If this is all the theory of evolution says, register me as a Darwinist.
As for my own position regarding planning and creation, we will have to wait because Shabbat is about to enter. Shabbat Shalom.
To Ilan, I responded to this comment of yours in the article "Does Darwinism Need Defense" and my answer will not change if I respond to it again, so I will not do so. I'm just amazed at the great innovation, I didn't know that Amnon Yitzhak and Zamir Cohen were responsible for any scientific innovation.
tree:
Now I see that you really looked for your comment in the wrong place.
Of course, it is not innovative, but rather wrong, and it received a response in the place where it was first published.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/does-darwinism-need-rescuing-0402098/#comment-173996
tree:
I called my father and asked him if he deleted your comment and he said no.
You may have included a combination of words in the response that caused it to be automatically disqualified.
On the other hand - maybe you are confused and maybe you are looking for your response in the wrong place because I remember that both my father and I responded to your response in another discussion.
There is no doubt that the theory of evolution is well proven and cannot be challenged, it beautifully describes the course of life's development from primitive forms to more sophisticated forms, but (and this is a big but):
1) There is no explanation why the entire process goes against the second law of thermodynamics, let's say in the direction of decreasing entropy.
2) There is no explanation in it as to why we do not find mistakes in nature which should be found in every random process, I am not talking here about survival of the fittest but about mechanisms which according to the theory of evolution developed randomly, these mechanisms such as the middle ear mechanism, the frequent mechanism etc. require precise planning, If they did evolve randomly why do we not find the results of the errors, for example why has no bird ever been found whose aerodynamic center is behind its center of gravity?
In this case the devil is in the details, it is not enough to show that there are no tools with the help of which the huge variety of creatures was created, it is also necessary to understand how the planning or optimization of each and every mechanism was created, the theory of evolution does not deal with this and the majority of the public does not understand this and thinks that there was an explanation full and complete.
As a great man said (Einstein in his speech on quantum theory) "God does not play with dice"
(Hopefully this comment will not be deleted like the previous one)
To the scientist site, why did you delete my comment, it was well worded and innovative.
Not tired???!!!
I've been spending time on the science site for years, and I enjoy it every time.
But lately I have felt that something is repeating itself every few articles and I am talking about the debates in the withdrawal system. There is a (almost) permanent group of commenters here and each has his own fixed views and I didn't get to see one convince the other.
Not tired!!!
Complete,
Basically what you are saying is, whoever says there is a God does not have to prove his claim. So why do those who believe in evolution need to prove it? Why do people unreservedly accept religious claims and challenge only the claims of science.
no problem. I can give a "religious" explanation for anything you want. For example, there is no such thing as electricity, my computer is on now because that's how the computer god wanted it. And if it turns off/crashes, it's because I didn't make enough sacrifices to the computer god. I made a religious claim, so I am exempt from proving it.
For some reason I'm sure you don't believe in her, even though she's transcendental.
Regarding the question of the chicken and the egg - the main difference between science and religion is that religion claims to know everything, or to completely exempt it from mysteries (as much as you demonstrated just now). The physical claim about the Big Bang also states that time was created at the time of the Big Bang, so the question of what was before it has no meaning. Since I am not a physicist, I did not investigate this matter in depth. But if you are really intrigued, I'm sure you can find answers to your questions on the Internet (in English), or better yet - in the Faculty of Natural Sciences at the university.
I'm glad you don't support intelligent design. I understood this because you argued against evolution without presenting an alternative, so I assumed that the alternative you presented was creationism. Do you present another alternative?
And now regarding your claims: to claim that defining evolution in different ways from the original definition is not "playing with words" and certainly not a reduction of the theory. This is an extension of the definition based on the newly discovered knowledge. They discovered that bacteria that were previously vulnerable to antibiotics have acquired resistance to them over the generations. What would you call this phenomenon? An organism acquired a trait it lacked through natural selection. You can indeed claim that a "new species" was not created, but I will ask you - what is a "species", and who determines the boundary between two organisms of the same type but not of the same species and two very different organisms of the same species (such as a poodle and a rottweiler). The test of fertile reproduction (reproduction that produces fertile offspring) is problematic: suppose three individuals A, B and C. Individual A can reproduce fertilely with Individual B. Individual C can reproduce fertilely with individual B, but cannot reproduce fertilely with individual A. Do all three belong to the same species, or are there two different species here? And to which of the species would you associate detail B?
I don't have a definitive answer to this question. What I'm trying to argue is that definitions in biology are a problematic thing, so you have nothing to attack them with, especially if you don't have a better proposal to define them. To claim that some concept does not exist because it cannot be defined in a univalent way, is like saying that the concept of "child" does not exist because not all people in the world agree at what age a child is already considered a teenager.
light,
A. And I thought to Tommy that the chicken and the egg is a fundamental problem of the evolutionary-Hawking-Dawkinsian type theories that currently dominate the scientific spheres. A constant problem even, because every time someone comes up with some mighty scientific bang, some kid finally arrives who asks the naked king: what about the chicken that laid that exploding egg (as happened with the big bang theory, for example).
The attempt to turn this claim against the believers in the existence of God does not hold water. God, already according to our concept of him and without going into questions in the Torah of Yesh, is the one who created us and our rational system. Therefore it is clear that God, by definition, does not obey our system of arguments at all, and is not bound by the webs of the human theater of the absurd, does not respect the rules of formal or transcendental logic and our paradoxes cannot move him. Therefore, the answer to the question of whether God can create from nothing a stone so large that he is unable to lift it is this: if God succeeded in creating such a great sage as the one who asked this question - it means that nothing can be prevented from him.
B. I re-read what I wrote, and I did not find in my words any evidence of any support for the "theory of "intelligent planning". By the way, the scientific theory that can be squeezed from the first chapters of the Bible, has nothing to do with intelligent planning (a kind of "end of action with first thought"). The story is of creation in motion and even through trial and error (as in the case of choosing a partner for a person, or in the case of Noah).
higgs,
Hope to get better.
Higgs:
Your claim about the difference between quantum theory and evolution stems only from the entities you choose to observe.
Even in quantum theory you cannot predict anything at the level of the individual particle and your results only have meaning at the level of averages.
In evolution, there is no sense in conducting an experiment to obtain a specific animal - it is equivalent - in principle - to an experiment to obtain a specific collapse of the wave function.
As mentioned - when you look at the right resolution - experiments can be conducted in evolution and such experiments have indeed been conducted successfully.
Michael
You wrote at the same time when I wrote I just read your last comment.
Should I conclude from your words that the theory of evolution by definition cannot be artificially imitated?
Michael
I just wanted to emphasize the point that the theory of evolution is not sufficiently strong and detailed from a practical point of view to derive from it practical algorithms that allow for an applied imitation
From inanimate matter to bacteria to pigs and rabbits.
And as long as there is nothing definitive of this kind it will be subject to constant debate as a purely interpretive theory.
Although the theory is pretty comprehensive and plausible in terms of consistency and closure, it is not conclusive enough, for example, like quantum physics.
The latter, as we know, is challenging precisely because it is not intuitive in many points, and in any case, its validity is not disputed due to the ability to provide precise algorithms for its technological implementation.
So when the theory of evolution reaches this individual level, arguments will become unnecessary.
Higgs:
An important point that seems to me that not only the creationists miss but also you is that evolution is not supposed to explain how a cat or a man or a cockroach was created but how complex creatures develop.
Under certain very specific conditions, the complex creatures will be a person or a cat or a cockroach, and under slightly different conditions they may actually be a spy, a shrew, and a paraplegic.
A recipe for building a cat is necessarily a recipe that is not suitable for evolution because there is nothing random about it.
Therefore, no reasonable person will see the creation of mycoplasma laboratorium as proof of evolution, and if he is a little more reasonable, he will understand that this is proof of the possibility of intelligent design (as I have already said - those who accept evolution as an explanation for the existence of life must believe that intelligent design is possible. However - if he has a mind - He must understand that intelligent design - by its very definition - does not at all answer the question of the origin of life)
Higgs:
I have no interest in dealing with the stupidity of creationists in a conversation with you.
If people want to argue with the claim that a small change, and another small change, and another, and another, and another, and one, and one, and one, and one, can in the end give a big change - their argument is not with ethics, but with arithmetic.
Michael
These experiments do not prove evolution on a large scale. The theory of evolution on a large scale means far-reaching conclusions. For example a specific algorithm to build a bacterium from inanimate matter not to mention building a cat for example.
The theory of evolution excludes purposeful practical information of this kind and is therefore interpretive.
All the experiments you talk about are inherent properties of biology as it is.
If you ask the creationists and the others these experiments do not contradict anything for them but the opposite.
Higgs:
I've already pointed to actual experiments that have come true and I don't know what you expect more from.
In fact, all animal breeding is not just experiments - the animals are given exactly the traits that you want to give them (in fact - bacteria are also given resistance to antibiotics even though they don't want it, but know it will happen)
Higgs:
They are not wrong in math.
They have cheats in the model itself.
They allow themselves to write the names of the individuals as they see fit, and the same goes for dates.
There is no uniformity in the method of writing the name and the method of writing the date.
It shows that behind every "successful experiment" there are thousands that have failed and been hidden.
Michael
Their joint article is not the book you are talking about. I did not read their paper at the time but I spoke to a mathematician who was familiar with the subject. What I do know is that they demonstrated actual statistical bias on the tests they did against random texts.
After all, the theory of evolution is a statistical theory with a large enough interpretation space.
The predictions are predictions of interpretation because they depend on finding suitable finds just like in archaeological theories.
You cannot use the natural mutation property of genes to prove "all space"
The argument of the theory of evolution is because it is a natural feature that the owners of the other interpretations also include in their interpretation.
Essentially what is missing for significant proof is realizable predictions like in physics.
That is, a whole theory should outline a way to create life even of bacteria from inanimate matter.
or other applied predictions just as it is in quantum physics.
Higgs:
Regarding the skipping of letters - the issue has been tested and refuted in thousands of ways and by almost every serious person who has tested it.
I don't find it necessary to attack the idea too much because you yourself said that it is far-fetched and one can draw from "War and Peace" exactly the same conclusions that are drawn from the Torah, as soon as one takes the approach they took.
That's exactly the point - the approach they took is a lie from beginning to end.
One of the sentences I like to say most in response to the claim "it's just a theory" is that there is nothing more practical than a good theory.
The skipping of letters - although it is very easy to show the mathematical errors that underlie Reeves' analysis - obviously fail this test as well, but anyone who reads their words can know this in advance because their whole story is what is called in the vernacular "first you shoot the arrow and then you draw the target around him".
The situation with evolution is completely different.
Evolution predicts in advance that bacteria will develop resistance and it is happening before our eyes.
Evolution predicts in advance that it is possible to improve animal and plant varieties and give them desirable properties and this is happening before our eyes.
Evolution predicts in advance that animals that survive a transition from one living environment to a completely different living environment will do so on the basis of adapting their features and acquiring features they did not have before and this is happening before our eyes.
Evolution predicts that we will find suitable fossils as "missing vertebrae" between known species and that these animals will be found in a suitable soil layer and with suitable isotope levels for the time when they are supposed to appear and this is happening before our eyes.
In short - there is nothing to compare and therefore - as I said - to put it figuratively this time - no one believes in Reeves and everyone believes in Darwin.
Shlomo:
Just so you know I noticed you wrote a lot but I won't respond because you didn't write anything right.
Or - you are wrong about one thing - we have no idea if it had a beginning, therefore it is not possible to know that someone created it. We know that there was a beginning.
Complete,
Let's assume that the theory of intelligent design is correct. I mean, life is so complex, obviously someone wise planned it. Now, the intelligent planner is so complex, that clearly someone intelligent designed it. Now, the intelligent planner's planner is so complex, that clearly someone designed it…
Want to continue the circle to infinity? The argument of intelligent design is circular. If the designer of life is not complex, then how could he be wise? And if it is not intelligent, is the planning even "intelligent"?
Instead of denying all the evidence there is for evolution, and there are many good ones scattered even on this website, I suggest you check the "theories" (they really don't deserve that name) that you offer as an alternative.
I actually happened to hear about this and according to what I understood, the enzyme for digesting citrate was already present in my islet. What happened was a change in the regulation that caused citrate to be digested at the wrong time. And it happened to be beneficial to the organism. Unless you are claiming that a new digestive enzyme effective for citrate was created there?
If you have a reliable source about how many nucleotides were renewed there, that would be very interesting. If not, then it must be a simple mutation.
Haim is right. The evolutionists (and other purveyors of scientific theories who try to convince us that nothing came from nothing, and vice versa) play with words, trying to minimize the problem with their theory or to push it to the edges of the universe. This is when they are not busy issuing some "deus ex machina" in the form of the big bang, or the meteor that destroyed the dinosaurs.
The tongue games and the spectacular pyrotechnic stunts come to mask the fact that the Darwinian theory is completely unfounded. Far-fetched not in the far-fetched popery sense, but truly far-fetched. After all, this theory has no evidence, not even a shred of evidence. It seems as if some malevolent intelligent force appeared that ran around the globe and destroyed all the evidence for the possibility of the theory. Like for example the faded skeletons of the biological parents of the dinosaurs, or the parents of the reeds, eucalyptus or zebras. Muffy Nada Nothing.
Therefore, because of the weakness of the theory, the evolutionists are now retreating to explanations in the field of genes, that is to say, eliminating the problem by minimizing it. In law enforcement agencies this is called obfuscation of evidence. And another method: since it is already clear to them that four and a half billion years of evolutionary evolutionism is not enough to explain the enormous diversity of life on the aging globe, according to their method, the new "scientific theories" now reveal to us that life in general was brought here from distant places in space. In the examination of the Bedai who distanced his testimony.
And what do we have left of the theory of evolution on Darwin's 200th birthday? What was once a world-wide theory claiming to provide an ideological alternative to religious concepts (and as an illustration a great line of silhouettes, but completely false, demonstrating the gradual transformation of the chimpanzee into Homo erectus), has nowadays become "simply a change in gene frequency over time". As Dr. Pigalucci's article states. which is actually a small patent that God revealed to Jacob our father in a dream last night already three and a half thousand years before Darwin's father played with the frequency of the genes of the pigeons in his back, and his son thought that what father could fix in a few years, "nature" could fix in a few billions, given the right principle . Sounds very logical, on the face of it, but there are a lot of other things that can sound very logical before you check them. This is how the evolutionists retreated from most of the macroscientific pretensions of the theory, and we were basically left with remnants that had to be collected with geologists' tweezers (at best) and that could not be seen without an electron gun. So unless you are a doctor of genetics, evolution is beyond your understanding, like God is for atheists.
Michael
Apparently this is a book aimed at pans and the like.
He published an article about 9 years ago together with a friend of his whose name I forgot who is one of the most famous statisticians in the world I think from the Hebrew University. They came out with this article in a number of important forums and on the face of it it seems that it is not easy to slap their conclusions.
I don't remember the details, unfortunately, not really in my field either.
In these types of models you can believe and interpret things according to this or not.
As you yourself say, the mathematical models of the weather are subject to interpretation. That is why there are many different forecasts of the weather because the freedom of the models is quite wide.
Everyone can take a direction according to the inclination of their heart.
It is the same with the mathematical models of evolution, the freedom space allows you to choose how to interpret the data. There is nothing unequivocal in these models that favors one particular direction over the others.
From this point of view it can be said that the interpretation of the origin of species and creation is invariant.
Just like the laws of physics. Therefore, the choice is large. So you have the aliens, the creationists, the new age and the Darwinists. And as you know there are many more that do not pass the blocking percentage. So all that's left for you is to try to form a broad coalition as possible.
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/10/0450228
Higgs:
I don't know what kind of mathematician Rips is, but I read his book and I have to conclude one of two things:
Either we don't know math or he is a liar.
The analysis he did is deliberately biased and it is a type of bias that cannot be done in the evolution test.
Apparently - according to your words - since all the scientists are actually convinced by the fact that the findings support evolution and therefore accept it as a mechanism that does work in nature - they should also have been convinced about the omissions in the Torah.
Of course they are not convinced because it is not at all (but really at all!) the same thing.
There is no point in delving into Rips' clear and prominent lies because that is not the topic of the discussion.
A more correct comparison could be the comparison with the physical theory behind weather forecasts.
Knows what? Even the theory of the behavior of gases under pressure and temperature.
Everyone knows that PV=NRT even though the position of each gas molecule cannot be accurately predicted.
The chaos in the weather is even greater and yet we rely on the forecast.
I quote the words of 'someone from somewhere':
"Noam - I don't think so. Once you see a complex system, there is no reason why another complex system cannot be created this way."
A complex system is defined as a system consisting of two or more parts, each of which by itself would not be useful.
And here, when they took an E.coli bacterium, and let it grow in petri dishes in an experiment that lasted for 44,000 generations, it evolved until it became a bacterium of a new species. This new bacterium is able to absorb citrate into it, and also produce energy from it. For this, at least two new proteins are needed: a new channel protein that brings citrate into the cell, and a protein that breaks down the citrate. Each of them, on its own, would be useless. Only the combination of both, achieved as a result of two or more mutations, can enable the operation of the complex system.
After all, we have a complex system created by evolution. And as 'someone from somewhere' said himself, if one such system can be created, then more complex systems can also be created, and the whole story of intelligent planning is over.
Good night,
Roy.
Psalms Against Missiles: Do you really think there is such a thing as electrons? what's wrong with you man After all, it is written in the Bible that God created the world from nothing, and certainly it is not written that the difference between one substance and another is the amount of particles (protons) in it.
Go read some wisdom books - Bible, Gemara and Mishnah instead of using this nonsense called electricity.
Do you really think we came from monkeys?
What's up with you guys? After all, we were created in the image of God and we were certainly not monkeys.
Go read some books of wisdom - Bible, Talmud and Mishnah instead of dealing with this nonsense
called science.
Michael
You don't trust the lightning shield
The point is that a mathematical calculation that predicts that you will find one or another fossil or a pattern with certain properties is not enough because the calculation itself is not unique, meaning that many things can be deduced from any mathematical model. I compared this feature to the mathematical models developed by Rips and his partners about skipping in the Bible. I know him and his friends personally and they are mathematicians with a superior grace.
Well, now this will convince you of the truth of the matter itself.
A derivation is equivalent to asserting the mathematical properties of the theory of evolution.
Higgs:
Your words just amaze me.
There is no similarity between the combinations of letters in the Bible and the predictions of evolution and certainly there is no such similarity in light of your comparison with an encyclopedia and the writings of Nostradamus.
I will continue later because there is lightning in here and I want to disconnect the computer
from somewhere:
As a mathematician, I inform you that your claim that mathematics in general and information theory in particular negates evolution is nothing but a gross lie and it is not clear to me where you get the courage to lie like that.
I also explained to you - in the same place where you made the stupid claim about the cars - that cars really do evolve.
Michael
Predictions of this kind do not confirm anything for a simple reason. It's like saying you'll find letter combinations in the Bible that fit current events. But you could just as easily do that on the encyclopedia and the writings of Nostradamus.
And as for the mathematical argument, it is not admissible as proof for two reasons. The first is results similar to the above premise. And the second is precisely due to the unique properties of mathematics. That is, the invariance of mathematical claims and models, that is, the Nonuninqnes.
If it's mathematics, then information theory rules out evolution. It's not for nothing that many mathematicians combine this with the field of biophysics and rule out the idea of random mutations. For example, if we take an active site that is folded by hydrogen sulfide hydrophilic bonds and in order to create it, about 30 acids are required, so the chance of its formation is at least one in 30^ 10 which is a lot. Of course the active site in itself is not enough, which complicates matters...
And prophecies like Michael's are also compatible with false theories like the evolution of the cars I already explained about.
Higgs:
The theory of evolution nevertheless provides some predictions.
Not really accurate but still predictive.
She predicts, for example, that there once lived a creature that was a transitional stage between a terrestrial creature and a whale and that there is a chance that a skeleton of such a creature will be found.
This prediction came true.
She predicts that they will find remains of all kinds of intermediate stages between man and ape.
This prediction came true.
Although this is not the type of experiment that science likes in the sense that if the prediction did not come true, it would still not be possible to disprove the theory because it is always possible to say something like "True, to this day we have not found it but in the future we might find it" - that is - it is an experiment that does not allow refutation but When he succeeds he certainly provides validation.
Other predictions of evolution are coming true all the time - whether among the bacteria that develop resistance to antibiotics or among the animals and plants that we domesticate and adapt to our needs.
Beyond that - there were also many experiments that predicted and accepted evolution.
See, for example, here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-speciation.pdf
Also - if you refer to evolution as a mathematical claim - as I have already explained many times that it should be considered - then beyond the fact that it can be proved mathematically - it provides predictions in many fields of which the field of living beings is only one of them.
Asaf,
What is the difference between the claims of the religion and the claims of people in the name of the religion? Even the holy books, in which the claims that appear in them can be regarded as the claims of religion, were written by people. So it can be said that everything you recognize as the claims of the religion are actually the claims of people in the name of the religion. It's semantics.
It is clear to me that not all religious people regard human beings as the crown of creation. That's not what I meant. The main message of my message is that the claim that something happens because God planned it cannot be disproved in any way, and therefore is foolish and wrong.
For example: I am writing a comment to this article. Why? The answer: God wanted it to happen that way. You can come up with other explanations, for example I am a person who likes science and it is important for him to influence scientific beliefs in the public, or any other explanation you want. But you will never be able to refute my answer: God wanted me to write this response, and therefore I wrote it.
Another example: I drop a ball, and it falls to the ground. Why? The answer: God wanted it to fall. You could argue that the reason is gravity. I will answer you, that God wanted this particular ball to fall, and not just like that, but precisely in the particular way in which it fell, make the particular noise it made, and then roll back exactly to the place to which it rolled. Almighty God planned in advance.
Now, I cannot disprove your "gravity" theory. I can make some arguments that may seem, to some people, convincing: Why don't the birds fall? Your answer may be the theory of aerodynamics, which a great many people do not fully understand. My answer, however, will be much simpler: that's how God wanted it. He wanted the birds to be able to fly, and he wanted the balls to fall. You do not agree? The hardship! Give me proof that God did not will it, or is unable to carry out his will, or that he does not exist at all.
If you say that God did not want the balls to fall and the birds to fly, I will answer you - who are you to speak in the name of God.
If you say that God cannot decide who will fall and who will fly - I will answer you that God is omnipotent.
If you say that God does not exist - I will answer you that God is invisible, without a body, cannot be perceived by any sense and by any measuring device that will ever be invented. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
As mentioned, you have no way to refute my claim. My argument is much more understandable to the general public than all the physics, chemistry, biology and all the natural sciences you can muster in your favor. But - that doesn't mean it's true. There is no connection between the inability to refute a claim and its validity.
Note: It is clear to me that you do not believe that God decided that the balls would fall and the birds would fly. My point is that since the claim "God said" can always be used (but really always - I want to see you prove me otherwise!), this is evidence that it is complete nonsense. Equally, it cannot be argued that the 2009 model cars are a (biological) evolution of the ancient style carriages. The evolution argument is not always valid either, but it is valid in biology.
Avi Blizovsky
Your persuasion comes precisely from the way you draw conclusions. You decide to which conclusions you lead from which point of departure. Someone else can tap differently. There is nothing decisive here.
But the main point I made that evolution is not a science with useful predictive capabilities.
And since there are no editing marks here, I could not emphasize the previous line. Therefore I will repeat it.
Evolution as a science does not have realizable predictive ability as quantum physics has, for example. And so from this point of view the theory is an explanation and nothing else.
It doesn't really matter what the creationists or the hyserists or the new age say. As long as the theory of evolution does not have predictive capabilities, the debates surrounding the explanation will be loopy.
Predictability is the feature that turns an explanation from a bedtime story into a technology into something real.
So that if any of the disputants on this path comes and comes out with a prediction and shows how to realize it, the debate will end at that moment.
Until then, keep bringing up the issue and you won't move anyone from his mind.
Higgs - you wrote: "I was talking about a science that has a realizable predictive ability. This feature does not exist in the theory of evolution."
To remind you - there are four types of scientific research and scientific research methods and not one. The above argument is not valid even in cases of attempts to predict earthquakes, accidents, murders, etc. I will not go into detailing the four types of scientific research right now, but not every scientific research must provide a prediction! For example, forensic science does not provide predictions, but deciphers events that have already occurred and are of random origin (therefore, they can only rarely be measured at the time of their occurrence).
In addition - since I am involved in the field of UFOs, I completely reject the argument "There is a tendency to say that if something is similar to something else in a certain field, then everything is similar. These are the vain claims you hear from the people of the new age and from those who believe in aliens." - This statement only proves that you do not know the subject, neither the data nor the studies and findings. The initial proof of this is taken from your statement that dealing with UFOs is "belief" - and nothing is further from reality than this statement. I would be happy to develop this topic with you, but in the appropriate forums.
In conclusion - may I, and I don't usually make an advertisement, but I definitely recommend the book by Chava Yablonka (whom I had the honor to be a student of) and
Marion Jalamb: "Evolution in four dimensions". The book was published by Am Oved Hashana (even though it was written 3 years ago) and it explains the innovations and changes in the theory of evolution that have taken place in recent years and which are not known to most of the public.
Hanan Sabat
http://WWW.EURA.ORG.IL
All the contortions of those who try to claim that evolution is "just a theory" are really funny.
This is not only because everything in science is "just theories" but also because most of them agree that small changes definitely happen and ignore the fact that anyone who has studied composition knows that many small changes can add up to a huge change.
Evolution - to begin with - is a necessary phenomenon and it would be possible to predict it even without seeing it in nature - only on the basis of the genes being something that reproduces with a certain percentage of errors and the fact that the genes are in competition for resources.
From the moment you accept these two assumptions - evolution is simply a mathematically bound conclusion.
There is no contradiction between evolution and intelligent design and the fact is that we - the products of evolution - are engaged in the intelligent design of the Mycoplasma Laboratorium. If we plant this creature on Mars and provide it with adequate living conditions - it is likely that over the years more complex life will develop there and perhaps even intelligent creatures.
In the meantime, maybe the sun will turn into a red giant and the earth will burn in a way that will not allow them to know that we created them.
They will try to understand how they were created and will most likely bring up the theory of evolution.
Would your hypothesis about them being a product of evolution be wrong? Of course not - there is a long way from the mycoplasma to an intelligent creature and this way will indeed be the result of evolution.
Will they also be the result of intelligent planning? Of course.
Will the fact that they are the result of intelligent planning provide any explanation for the origin of life? of course not! After all, in order for them to be created by intelligent planning, our existence was committed and the question will always be asked how we were created.
Therefore, the theory of intelligent design has no value.
It simply does not explain anything but only postpones the "end" which is actually the beginning.
Asaf,
For the sake of the red deer I hope there are also some deer in Africa.
Otherwise it would be a good explanation for why they tend to go extinct from there.
But for our discussion. There are, still and in principle moose in Africa.
By the way, it is almost clear that genotypic difference means phenotypic difference. From tautology
Genetic similarity and phenotypic similarity - everything is similarity.
Higgs, you keep playing with words and claim that your words have the same meaning as Popper's or any other scientist's. No. I repeat, the one origin of life has been proven beyond any doubt not because of external similarity (and there are many such similarities - for example 4 limbs in vertebrates), but also because of the genetic similarity, the common use of 4 DNA letters for living creatures (and a combination in which one of the letters is replaced in plants), and molecular similarity, and all these independent things show the same result.
Therefore, an attempt to describe the same phenomenon in other words and to claim that it does not exist is New Age nonsense and not the argument of similarity which has been proven.
Avi Blizovsky
I mentioned the matter of prediction and its implications for realization as a feature that distinguishes between science that explains and science that enables practical technological progress.
The ability of the genes to change does not prove the evolution from the zero point ie atomic elements and simple molecules to the state of different species of life. And not even creating a bacterium from scratch.
The mental leap from a small scale in experiments to a large scale is not correct from a scientific point of view. Because that's exactly what creationists do. There is a tendency to say that if something is similar to something else in a certain field then everything is similar. These are the vain claims you hear from the people of the new age and from those who believe in aliens.
Evolution as an explanatory theory fits much better than other theories but it is still only an explanation as long as there are no realizable predictions as it is in other sciences.
"Let's watch the derby - "Hapoel Beryatim against Maccabi Darwin...
LOL
Your argument is ridiculous! Like little children looking for wars of good versus evil...smart versus stupid etc...
Duality is meant to shatter...there is no cell without poles.
Enough of the scientific coercion!
The so-called "theory of evolution" is still an opinion that many people simply hold and therefore they call it truth.
to someone somewhere
I don't know the two, but they are apparently the exceptions to the rule that prove the rule.
There is no fear of the disappearance of the creationists and followers of intelligent design in their forms, no matter what experiment and what its results are.
Higgs, the Iraqi Minister of Propaganda took a picture against the background of American tanks near Baghdad and claimed that the Iraqi army stopped them near Kuwait. If you don't want to see proof then even if you are shown it in front of your face, your creationists continue to ignore it.
And the fact that genes know how to change proves evolution, M.S.L
As for the atomic elements, it is not clear what you mean, since even organic molecules are a sequence of well-known atoms - carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen.... Bacteria also consist of this sequence.
Avi Blizovsky
I was talking about a science that has realizable predictive power. This feature does not exist in the theory of evolution.
The experiments only prove the fact that genes know how to change and nothing else.
They do not prove the basic assumption on a large scale like in nature. That is, the origin of the species from atomic elements. No such experiment exists. Not even a bacterium
Laighs For me, billions of experiments, even if each of them, according to you, is on a small scale, is enough to reach a large scale.
To Noam - I know at least 2 of them - William Dembsky (check out his website) and Stefan Meyer (one of the founders of Discovery Institute). He even explicitly admits this in his YouTube video in a confrontation held not long ago.
Avi Blizovsky
The difference between a science that allows predictions based on the theory and one that is only a theory without prediction is expressed, for example, in our ability to read and respond to your words. The technology that makes it possible to improve our lives was created solely as a result of applying the predictions of physical theories such as quantum.
Evolution is a science that only explains all the experiments that have been done are an attempt to confirm the theory. These are experiments on a very small scale by which it can be seen that genes undergo changes and adaptations. But this is exactly their characteristic also according to creationists.
No large-scale experiment has yet been proposed in which it is possible to see how different types of life develop from chemical elements. If it were possible, surely they would use it to create new species of animals or to restore extinct species.
Here's a challenge:
Find one creationist, or one intelligent design supporter, who explicitly declares that the results of some experiment would cause him to abandon his belief.
The aforementioned people are busy finding flaws in the theory of evolution, but in no way will they agree that the results of this or that experiment contradict their belief
To Noam - I don't think so. Once you see a complex system, there is no reason why another complex system could not be created this way.
This is not a contradiction of the theory, but at most of the specific example.
The people of intelligent design will immediately find a more complex system than the bacterial shuton, which no experiment has yet proven can be obtained through a natural process, and will continue to claim the absolute correctness of intelligent design.
By the way, this is a familiar and well-known process: by closing the knowledge gaps, science slowly but consistently pushes out all the pseudo-scientific explanations, but this never causes these explanations to disappear, but only to look for knowledge gaps that still exist to justify their belief.
Surely this would be a contradiction to intelligent design. Intelligent design claims that a complex biological system requires a creator. As soon as such a system is created through a natural process, you have disproved the theory. Again, this is not my idea but that of the founders of intelligent design (as far as I remember). It seems to me that they raised This is in order for their theory to be considered scientifically and meet Popper's principle of refutation.
Again - misunderstanding
Even if an experiment is found that shows that a complex system like the bacterial cell can be created through a natural process, it will be an additional reinforcement for evolution, but not a contradiction to intelligent design.
The requirement of a scientific theory is an experiment whose results can disprove the theory, not a strengthening of this or that theory.
The rational preparation cannot be refuted even in principle, therefore it is not science.
There is no problem to study in religious classes.
Again the misunderstanding between macro and micro evolution. First - in my opinion the 2 theories - design and evolution are equal in scientific value - both seemingly offer a refuting experiment. At least according to the scientists who represent the theories - an experiment that will show that a complex system like the bacterial shoot can be created through a natural process will disprove intelligent design. This is what Dembski claims as I imagine. And with regard to macroevolution - that is, the change of one species to another - the difference is very large since several changes are required - the formation of non-homologous genes, changes in the number of chromosomes, genetic isolation. No scientist has shown experimental proof in the laboratory (perhaps apart from isolation) of any of these and therefore There are evolutionist-creationist debates. In my opinion, both sides should be taught. And evolution per se is not a change in allele frequency, because then the difference between father and son is also evidence of Shotton's evolution.
Haim:
Every science is in constant development. It is inherent in its essence.
Only religion is frozen and represents the level of ignorance of thousands of years ago.
But - even two thousand years ago they knew to say that prophecy was given to children and fools.
Since you are no longer a child but you are prophesying to us about the development of science - we can only conclude that you are... (fill in the blanks)
Cookie:
Forgive me but I have no intention of condoning shameful statements like yours.
Have I ever opened a Bible?!
All correspondence between us shows that I did it much more than you!
You didn't even think about all the questions I raised so you found one question you just didn't understand and decided to go down on it instead of thinking some more.
Knows what? If you are not able to understand her just concentrate on others.
to higgs,
The theory of evolution offers an experimental / observational way to contradict it (a basic requirement of any scientific theory):
If, for example, human fossils are found together with dinosaur fossils - both of the same age - this will be a fundamental contradiction of the theory of evolution.
Creationists - and any other religious view - do not offer a way to contradict their view.
This is a huge difference, this is the whole difference between faith and science
Assaf, doe or rams in Africa, Asia, or America, forgive me for not remembering the name and place, they evolve to a black color. Until you learn to judge and write long lines, don't come to me with complaints.
for life. Before genes were known, it was somewhat difficult to define evolution in this way. And the truth is that Darwin missed very little - he simply did not hear about Mendel's research that was done at that time in Prague, and the report on it was given in German, but there is no fear that this will already change, it will certainly not return to the fold of religion as you tried to imply.
The evolution of the theory of evolution
The theory of evolution is a theory that develops and is redefined every time
When in this incarnation the definition is from a technical point of view only
as a change in the frequency of the genes found in the natural population.
When in the next incarnation of the theory of evolution we will already see a completely different definition
As: as a change in gene frequency only
When in the next roll after it we will already see really big cracks
Like: the creation of genes, and the wisdom of creation
Laighs
There is no difference between experiment and observation. Evolution has come in a million forms. See news like this is not the same salmon, the news about the fruit fly of the week, and more. Eventually these species will become if they have not already become separate species. The observation proved it.
Observation is also a type of experiment.
And besides, there is a difference in quality between the naked eye observations made by the creationists and the microscopes, the study of fossils, the genetic tests, etc. made by the scientists.
I wouldn't have entered the burning hell here if not for two comments that woke me up,
So much nonsense:
S.P.I.S.,
In Africa there is no doe!
L O R -
The concept of "the tiara of creation" defines part of the problem that religious belief raises
The extreme, since religion does not rule out evolution, simply because of evolution
is a process / fact, while religion is a belief,
What or who are trying to deny evolution are people, extreme religious people
To avoid difficult questions, one receives a "higher power" / "ruler of all",
Back to the "turban of creation", the religion that developed as a need for a certain order
did not give man the supremacy to rule over everything,
This right has been robbed by Hamsanim who take advantage of the religion and its believers to promote
Personal needs/issues that have nothing to do with religion,
"The crown of creation" allows the Khamenei the moral justification to plunder nature,
for continuous environmental destruction and damage to human populations as well.
"The tiara of creation" is the concept behind the assumption
Q "We are the rulers and therefore everything is allowed to us".
An assumption that there is nothing to do with a religion founded on the search for moral order.
We parted from the best example a long time ago - the outgoing president... Bush!
Therefore again those who deny evolution are religious extremists
Not the religion.
higgs,
First of all creationism is not based on observations, so from this point of view there is no similarity between evolution and creationism, even if evolution was based only on history. Secondly, evolution has been scientifically and experimentally proven, on a bacterial scale, by observing bacteria that undergo rapid evolution due to a change in the content of the food provided to them. Bats have been found to undergo rapid evolution and there was an article about it here on the site, and even doe's are undergoing a certain evolution today as more and more doe's Blackness is discovered in the African steppes.
Spice
How much nonsense can you write?
"Evolution" is gradual development. point.
Today there is no power that life developed in evolution, gradually faded away.
The whole debate is whether the development of Zeno was "on its own" without rational intention or with rational intention.
point.
Whoever denies Darwin's Torah, which claims that there was no rational intention,
Claims in fact that there is no God. point.
Is the description in Genesis, that life was created in only six days,
Is he the proof that there is no God?
That's all the argument!
I don't usually make advertisements, but may I take this opportunity to recommend to you the book by Chava Yavlonka (with whom I personally took a course in evolution at the university) and Marion Gelamb: "Evolution in four dimensions" (published by "Eam Oved" and sold by "Tzomat Seferim" ).
From the introduction to the book:
A revolutionary change has been taking place in recent years in ideas about evolution and heredity. New findings in molecular biology undermine Darwin's theory in its accepted version today, the gene-centered version of the selfish gene. Heredity is not just about genes, claim geneticists Chava Yablonka and Marion Lamb in this book and present four dimensions of evolution - four systems of inheritance: genetic, epigenetic (transmission of traits in the cell and not in the DNA), behavioral and symbolic. All these systems, they argue, create variations that natural selection can act on. Furthermore, according to them, evolution does not always operate randomly and blindly; More than once, the mutations and other variations are influenced by environmental conditions and appear at a time or place where they can improve the organism's chances of survival. In this revolutionary idea, the authors present a neo-Lamarckian theory based on the teachings of Lamarck, whose principles have been scornfully rejected since Darwin Sir Hanna.
"Evolution in four dimensions" presents a rich and complex theory of evolution. Yablonka and Lamb take the reader on an intellectual journey from within the single biological cell and with the culture in which we live. In doing so, they open a window into a new and vibrant field of research, epigenetics - the science that studies the biological traits passed from generation to generation without the involvement of genetic variations - and present its revolutionary implications for Darwin's theory of evolution.
Despite its heavy subjects, the book is intended for the general public. To make reading and understanding easier, the notebooks often use thought experiments and entertaining and enlightening illustrations. For the professional readers, who wish to go deeper, a dialogue with the fictitious character "Ifka Mestaraba" is presented at the end of each chapter, whose questions and difficulties create a fruitful and in-depth discussion with the notebooks.
Chava Yablonka is a professor at the Cohen Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science at Tel Aviv University. Marion J. Lamb was also a retired senior lecturer at Birbeck College, University of London. In the last twenty years, they have been researching together the evolutionary aspects of epigenetics.
============================
Hanan Sabat
http://WWW.EURA.ORG.IL
Avi Blizovsky
It is also worth emphasizing that evolution is not an experimental science, meaning that you cannot initiate an experiment that applies the conclusions of the theory on a significant scale.
The theory is based on observations and not on testable predictions.
And in this respect alone there is no difference between creationism and evolution.
Excuse me, Michael, have you ever opened a Bible, what is the question supposed to express, why do the rest of the animals have them without the aforementioned process, because that's how they were created, and regarding the first claim, religion does not contradict the essence of evolution, because even the genes of humans are different, and according to the Torah, they are all from the same one, so that there is no contradiction between the essence of evolution and religion
Regarding the rest of your questions, I have already tried to make it clear to you. And I see you insist not to understand
I've never been involved in this direction and I'm not a lecturer on religious matters. If you're really interested in religion, what does religion answer to these questions? Go to the lecturers of repentance movements and ask them.
Not that I believe you would ever do that
Cookie:
I did not focus on evolution because the question that was asked and answered was not about a contradiction between religion and evolution but about a contradiction between religion and science.
There are areas where it is easier to show the contradiction and it was easier for me to deal with them.
The questions I asked are indeed nonsense and what's funny is that religion gives even more nonsense answers to them.
That's why - before you say that there is no contradiction between religion and science - you should deal with these questions because they reveal a great contradiction.
As for the contradiction between religion and evolution - as Or said - the evolution of species from each other over billions of years is in a contradiction that cannot be reconciled with the Torah's claim that the world and all the species living in it were created by God in six days.
Of course, the claim about the creation of an animal from a human rib is not exactly compatible with evolution and also raises the question of how it is possible for the other animals to have male and female without such an analysis being required.
There is no religion that claims that there is no evolution (because when they invented them they did not know that there was evolution), but there are many religions that offer alternative explanations for the wealth of species in the world. Evolution is an explanation that contradicts the claims of religion, not the other way around, because religion preceded evolution. Therefore, a religious person can believe in evolution and say to himself - there is an explanation here that contradicts what is claimed in the holy book, but there is no apostasy here in the fundamentals of faith (there is a God). Since what is really important to me are the tenets of faith, I can say that there is evolution because that is how God designed the world. He determined the laws of physics and chemistry so that evolution would occur that would lead to the crown of creation - man. He planned everything in advance.
This is an attitude that cannot be refuted. Whatever you do, whatever happens, I can always claim that God knew this is what you would say, or that God knew this was what was going to happen, or even that this is what he wanted to happen. Any mistake you find in the Holy Scriptures, a religious person can claim that God wanted you to think that way.
This is a claim that cannot be refuted, but it is stupid and ridiculous mainly because of that.
I do not know what is happening in other countries and to which religious circles you are talking (if I am not mistaken the Pope said that evolution does not contradict religion) if you are talking about the ultra-orthodox then they are generally opposed to education and I will not deny that it is likely that many are opposed to it because of the ignorance that this article comes from to prioritize
And regarding the level of education, forgive me, but Rambam "somewhat" contradicts your words
P.S. Regarding the above questions, I have never dealt with these questions so I do not have an answer for them
(But some of the questions are simply nonsensical, such as the question about the cows, after all they had cows and they slaughtered them and saw them, so they must have existed unless you want to claim that the entire Gemara is one big invention and about the Euphrates and the Tigris, who said that these are the same rivers that are called the Euphrates and the Tigris today ?)
post Scriptum. Believe me, Michael, without you, the Po site would be much less interesting
And Kuki - of course you did not refer to the content of the comment you responded to - after all, all you wanted was - as usual - to attack me personally.
Otherwise you would have probably explained to us why the opposition to science always comes from religious circles and why the more a person's scientific education deepens, the less his belief in the existence of God decreases.
Michael, address the more important claim - the definition of evolution as a change in the mix of genes, something that cannot be denied, may bring an end to the strange definitions of evolution invented by the creationists who then smash the scarecrow they have built (such as, for example, that the genes are completely mixed in each generation, thus reaching the numbers astronomers and zero probability).
Cookie:
There is a contradiction between science and religion.
The religious did not have to beat me for me to see this - after all, I risk their beatings precisely when I say this.
Which religion do you think is compatible with science?
The Judaism that claims that the rabbit ruminates and that the Euphrates and the Tigris come from the same source?
Judaism that claims that lice are created from human sweat and mice from mold?
Judaism that claims that the trachea of the cow is divided into three parts, one of which goes to the liver?
Judaism that claims that the Torah was handed down unchanged from father to son from the days of Moses to the present day and at the same time also claims that in the days of Josiah no one knew the Torah?
LeCookie, indeed even the most die-hard creationists agree that there was microevolution. However, as explained in the article, there is no difference at all between microevolution and macroevolution, it's all a question of time and other variables such as the splitting of populations that after the disconnection also become different species.
Give the process hundreds of millions of years and you'll get diversity (which by the way almost went extinct several times and re-emerged, with the peak being about 450 million years ago).
Avi:
I know that but I'm afraid it's really unproductive.
What good will it do if they understand the scientific truth, think there is no contradiction, and then continue to hold to the grotesque notion of moral superiority?
Tell me, Michael, have religious people ever given you beatings, insulted you??????
What do you have that you must attack every time there is no contradiction between evolution and most of the known data it is not written in any religion that there is no small variation of the species
post Scriptum. A successful article that simply explains all the claims, keep it up
To Michael, I assume that this argument, which comes up from time to time on the side of evolution in the US, is intended to at least divide the religious and use this loophole to bring the scientific truth to people with a religious view who do not agree with it, which unfortunately are the majority.
Science and religion do not conflict?
come on!
There is no religion whose claims about the world agree with the conclusions of science.
It is also not a coincidence that all opposition to science comes from religious circles.
It's not a coincidence either that as scientific education increases, faith in God decreases.
The fact that there are some religious people who could live with a lie goes so far as to claim that there is no contradiction only shows man's capacity for self-deception.