The public appreciates science, despite the differences on issues such as evolution and global warming

100 תגובות

1. pearls of illogicality.

   On the one hand, A dismisses evolution because "no one has seen how molecular engines are created in real time".

   On the other hand, A has already admitted that he does not know who the planner is, what he plans, and that he has never even seen the intelligent planner create even one complex object.

   That is, according to the exact same argument, the idea of ​​intelligent planning is also rejected outright.

   It reminds me of the children's games, before they understand that there are rules and regulations for every competition. At a certain point, one of the children simply ignores all the rules and grabs the prize for himself, because "that's how I feel like it". This is what A does in his last messages: decides that he believes in intelligent design because "that's how I feel like it", and tries to twist all the laws of logic to suit his desire.

   [All this without even mentioning the evidence for the creation of highly complex structures and algorithms in virtual simulations, by using the simplest laws of evolution. It turns out that you don't need to design to design an engine or a complex structure. You only need to start with the right building materials that compete with each other, and they will already undergo the necessary evolution.]

   But, that's how A feels like it.

   ------

   my new blog - Another science
   

2. Noam:
   are you wondering
   The answer to your question is that he is religious.
   He has the answer ready in advance in some stale book from thousands of years ago and he is simply fighting for sanctification.
   All means are valid for this purpose, including hiding the fact that this is his intention under the guise of supporting "intelligent planning".
   Throughout the discussion he simply ignored anything he was uncomfortable addressing and just rambled on and on just to have the last word.

3. Absolutely lovely last comment-

   "You don't have any information - simply zero knowledge - about that creator, and therefore there is no progress here, but the rolling of the mystery to another place." - You don't need to know anything about him other than the fact that he exists. Intelligent planning only tries to show that there must be a planner. Who plans him What does he want? She does not need and does not pretend to solve, only to show that he exists.

   "We know who created the engine (or the clock if you like), and there is no mystery here." - Not true. No one has seen how molecular engines (for example, an ATP turbine) are created in real time. The claim is that given millions of years such engines will be created. Claim without solid evidence.

   Well, I think we ran out of heat...

4. א

   I wonder if you are dumb, or really don't understand the arguments...

   Whether your intelligent creator has always existed, or someone created him, the mystery about the creator's identity and attributes is simply enormous. You have no information - simply zero knowledge - about that creator, and therefore there is no progress here, but the rolling of the mystery somewhere else.

   The example of the engine and its maker is an unsuccessful attempt to deceive - without good faith at all, and especially without intellectual honesty.
   We know who made the engine (or the clock if you will), and there is no mystery here.

   The intelligent creator - if he even exists - is the heaviest possible mystery

5. Last but not least attempt-

   "You didn't solve any mystery, you didn't enrich human knowledge, in total you transferred the mystery of the formation of life "one generation" earlier - to the mystery of the intelligent creator!" - No. If there was no evidence for the beginning of life then we wouldn't have to claim that man obliges a creator because that it is not known if he had a beginning. The same goes for the creator himself - it is not known if he had a beginning. Therefore, you cannot claim that someone created him. The only thing you can say is that he has always existed or someone created him as well, but that will not detract From our first inference.

   Can you, with intellectual honesty, claim that the mystery of the intelligent creator is less than the mystery of the formation of life? Just the opposite!"-No. The claim that a motor does not require a creator is much heavier than the claim that a motor requires a creator.

   And regarding the trilobite - see here -

   http://www.epochtimes.co.il/news/content/view/8922/88/

   There are other such evidences. But it is clear that this is not what will disprove evolution. It is always possible to claim some vague explanation.

6. The USA is the most religious country in the world, so it is not surprising to hear opinions that pay respect to the Taliban or the Natori Kharta, these are all proofs of how religion knocks people to their hearts.

7. A,

   You wrote: "And just so you know - several fossils have already been found that were not supposed to be in their place (sandal and trilobite traces for example)"

   I would appreciate it if you could direct me to the above sources of information

8. A,
   More Experience:

   In response 49 you said:
   "Maybe the creator had no beginning or someone created him too"

   This is not an answer to my question, but a proof of my claim!

   To remind you, I simply argued that all the doubts and questions you raise regarding the validity of evolution are even more valid regarding the intelligent creator!

   You didn't solve any mystery, you didn't enrich human knowledge, in total you transferred the mystery of the formation of life "one generation" earlier - to the mystery of the intelligent creator!

   Can you, with intellectual honesty, claim that the mystery of the intelligent creator is less than the mystery of the formation of life? Just the opposite!

9. Noam - another try -

   They must present a *natural* scenario and show that natural processes are enough to create it. In my opinion, it can be done. Even a refutation experiment for evolution will always somehow not disprove it. You claim that a 4 billion year old fossil will disprove it. But it will always be possible to argue that it is a fossil with an incorrect dating or that infiltrated into lower layers in some process or it just just looks like a fossil or that a receptive evolution from another cell took place (there were scientists who already thought about it). So even such a fossil will not disprove evolution. And just so you know - several fossils have already been found that were not supposed to be in their place (sandal and trilobite traces for example ).And the fact is that evolution is still alive and well. You should propose a laboratory experiment, as I suggested. You also did not answer me why you prefer to think that engines are created by a natural and not an intelligent process.

10. A,
    Why don't you answer Roy's and mine's question - you just claimed that if the intelligent scientists created a living cell, it means that intelligent planning can create life now and hence it could have created life for the first time as well. So where exactly is the experiment that can disprove it? Any experiment you do will be "unnatural". The only thing that can meet your conditions as a refutation of intelligent design is to take you back in time to the primordial soup and show you life is created - because if we recreate the conditions there artificially, it will not be natural but planned. In short, you want to claim that intelligent design is disprovable, but you don't claim how.
    Enough, enough. I promised myself not to defend evolution against creationists who don't listen and don't try to really bind themselves to the rules of logic - I stood by it. I preferred to attack the nonsense called intelligent planning and was ignored most of the time with the excuse that nothing is known about the planner but his existence, and then in an experiment that is supposed to disprove intelligent planning but actually will never disprove it. How can you continue to seemingly use logic to attack evolution if you are not willing to have your "alternative" logically attacked?
    You are not really a logician. You avoid difficult questions. You offer a rebuttal experiment and then contradict yourself. You direct me to the site and then question its credibility ("pay attention to the words "believers" - decide, do you trust this site or not?"). You believe in absolute nonsense only because you found a flaw in evolution.
    Why? No one will be convinced by your arguments. Any sane person who accidentally falls into this talkback, if his mind has not been captive to creationism for a long time (let's call the child by his name, neither intelligent planning nor plaster), will side with the evolutionists. None of the evolutionists behaves like you: we answered your claims, always. We have offered you a rebuttal experiment (and if not, here it is: find a 4 billion year old human fossil).

    I'm sure you will ignore this response, or at least part of it. Lift the glove and answer all my claims, if you want to discuss here respectfully. If not, I won't respond to you anymore. There is no point in writing to someone who doesn't answer.

11. Response 49 Noam...

12. A,

    Which response number did you mean?

13. And so we learned from A that a fold in Nir cannot be straight without divine intervention and the moon cannot turn the same side to us without this intervention.
    Of course, we also learned from him that there is nothing to refer to the fact that mechanisms such as evolution are mathematically proven and also that you don't need to understand anything about probability in order to wave it before the eyes of the whole world.
    We learned from him that it is possible to assert something and its opposite at the same time without noticing the contradiction (or expecting that others will not notice it) and that the standards by which evolution must be tested must contain logical contradictions so that the test will fail for sure and in the same way the way in which it will be possible to convince him that intelligent design is not true must contain contradictions Logic too.
    We learned from him that "I don't know how this can happen" is a reasoning or even a proof that "this" cannot happen just because this "I" is "A".
    We learned from him that without a video that lasts for billions of years and shows the formation of hemoglobin and shows every point on the planet, there is no chance that he would be convinced that hemoglobin could have been formed through natural selection, but that, on the other hand, a creature much more complex than hemoglobin does not need such an explanation.
    In short, we learned a lot from him….. nonsense.

14. Noam, you answered this above. See the beginning of the thread.

15. Roy, with your permission, just a final note-

    "Catalytic sites can be formed from a combination of amino acids in the same area, but the chains that bring the amino acids there do not have to remain constant." - True. Forgotten - it is possible to make about 93^10 changes in the amino acids (much higher than the number of atoms in the universe) of the cytochrome protein and it will still function and fold properly. That's why I showed that in longer proteins elasticity no longer plays a role.

    "Basically, this is done in controlled experiments of protein evolution, and it has already been shown that through random evolution and careful selection, it is possible to create more efficient enzymes. Again, through random evolution only" - yes, but only if a polypeptide chain already exists. It is possible to think about improving an existing property, but not about creating an enzyme with a new activity. And here too - it is an intelligent intervention. Well, it was quite an interesting discussion and I learned a few things (you will be surprised ), I won't try to convince more than that, have a nice day...

16. A,

    After all the in-depth discussion of the details of the molecules, one simple fact should be mentioned again:
    The theory of the intelligent creator suffers from one huge flaw - it drains all the open questions into the bosom of an intelligent creator, and in the process creates a much bigger mystery: who created the intelligent creator?

    Overall we moved all the questions and mysteries "a generation" earlier, but didn't add any interesting insight.

    If so, how did our situation - or our understanding - improve?

17. By the way, I liked A's convoluted logic in the last message. He claims that

    1. If scientists fail to show that a cell can be formed by a natural process, then intelligent design is correct.
    2. If scientists do manage to show that a cell can be created through a natural process in the laboratory, then intelligent design is correct, because they are intelligent designers.

    Each of the above claims fails as a logical fallacy at the psychometric level. If A does not understand what the problem is, the problem here is much deeper than a simple belief in intelligent design.

    Enjoy, Or. I finished the discussion. Hitting scarecrows is nice, but online they never fall.

    ------

    my new blog - Another science
    

18. A –

    You are wrong and misleading. Catalytic sites can be formed by combining amino acids in the same region, but the chains that bring the amino acids there do not have to remain constant. Every protein has a large number of amino acids that can be replaced by another acid, and the protein will still retain its activity. Alternatively, a number of amino acids can be changed and cause the catalytic site to function differently. Basically, this is done in controlled experiments of protein evolution, and it has already been shown that through random evolution and careful selection, it is possible to create more efficient enzymes. Again, using random evolution only.

    ------

    my new blog - Another science
    

19. A:
    So much use of reasonable words and probability without any understanding of them?!
    It turns out that we have here a classic case of the evolution of elephant skin in man.

20. light-

    Pay attention to the words "believers". And to your question - it is not enough that they succeed in creating an artificial cell. They *must* show that a natural process is capable of this. The above experiment actually confirms the intelligent design, because the intelligence of the researchers and their efforts create this cell. I have already heard enough about scenarios Abiogenetics and until now no one has shown a sufficiently high probability as a natural formation. Also the recent study regarding RNA.

21. A:
    Shall I conclude?
    You avoid all the arguments that are made against intelligent design and the plethora of evidence for evolution and continue to ramble on.
    You did not answer any of my claims and did not address most of them at all.

22. Or - your questions were philosophical regarding the identity of the creator and his attributes. I have already said that there is nothing to do with the claim of design, which states only one thing - a complex biological system requires a creator. And why should we prefer (at least a little) design? Since experience teaches us that systems with clockwork complexity There is always a creator. This is the initial point of assumption, and if you do not agree with it, that is your right. Therefore, the burden of proof is precisely on the side arguing against this claim, meaning that complexity as a watch does not require a creator, do you agree?

23. DA, don't you think the experiment you proposed is problematic? According to what you say, if the scientists fail, the theory is valid; if the scientists succeed, the theory is invalidated. That is, the validity of the theory depends on the scientists - if they fail, you can celebrate your victory, regardless to the truth of the theory.
    Besides, you didn't answer my other claims.

24. A,

    From the site you referred me to:
    "It will study everything from planet formation and detection to the origin and early evolution of life."
    The word it refers to the Origin of Life project:
    http://origins.harvard.edu/Overview.html
    The Faculty of Evolutionary Biology also participates in this important project, as you can see in the following link:
    http://origins.harvard.edu/HarvardLinks.html

    From one of the project's publications:
    "By doing "something useful" for the cell, these genes would launch the new form of life down the Darwinian evolutionary path similar to the one that our oldest living ancestors must have traveled. Though where selective pressure will lead the new form of life is impossible to know."
    "These membranes, with the right mix of chemicals, can allow nucleic acids in under some conditions and keep them trapped inside in others.

    That opens the possibility that one day, in the distant past, an RNA-like molecule wandered into a fatty acid and started replicating. That random event, through billions of evolutionary iterations, researchers believe, created life as we know it."

    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/biologists-on-t/

    These people do not believe in intelligent design, and they do not experiment to confirm or disprove it; They are trying to create an organism of their own intelligent design and make it evolve. But come on - are you declaring here that as soon as the scientists succeed in creating an artificial organism that will undergo evolution and develop, you will renounce intelligent design?

25. Shall I conclude?

    Roi-

    "To remind you, you only need a catalytic site, and everything else is a setting. A setting whose importance increases as the complexity of the organism increases, but a setting. Originally, only a catalytic site was needed to carry out the enzyme's action, even if with low efficiency." - Not as far as I know. The catalytic site itself was built by a significant part of the protein skeleton. You are welcome to look at this drawing and see for yourself that it is built by folding distant areas in the protein (in this case, the kinase protein) -

    http://www.ohri.ca/profiles/kothary.asp

    You are also invited to look at the "Active Site Atlas" website and prove that the acids that make up the active site are indeed located far from each other, due to geometrical restrictions of the molecule as far as I know.

    And if this is not enough, in allosteric proteins, in addition to the active site, there is also an allosteric control site and it must be present, otherwise the protein is out of control and this could be critical (for example, without allosteric control in hemoglobin, the protein will not release the oxygen in the required area, which would be fatal) Regarding globin - you still haven't shown that a functional globin can be simple enough. I'll ask again - how many amino acids does the simplest globin consist of?

    Point - you are invited to look at the various evolution books and see that no professional evolutionist believes that a functional protein can be obtained in one fell swoop, therefore they argue for gradualism. And my analogy to the world of technology illustrates why this is not possible. Are you able to create a clock (hands) gradually in small steps, when Is each step functional in itself?

    Or - bringing up an excellent idea. Harvard University took it upon itself to prove whether life could have been created through a natural process or not. The design theory predicts that they will not be able to show how the first cell was created through a natural process. As soon as they prove that a natural and gradual process is enough to create biological complexity - the design theory will be disproved. She becomes scientific.

    See the university's website-

    http://origins.harvard.edu/

26. A,
    Aren't the holes I showed you in the theory of intelligent design enough for you to abandon it? Don't you prefer to believe in evolution, or at least to state that you don't know what to believe, than to believe in the "theory" (actually it's a religious belief without any evidence, until you prove otherwise for example by a proper answer to at least one of my questions) of "intelligent design"? You have questions about evolution, and that is legitimate. Different commenters here on the site referred you to different sites and sources. You claim to have studied biology. It is better, in my opinion, that you prefer the theory with fewer questions, in your opinion, than intelligent design. It is not enough to claim that there is not enough evidence for evolution (when Will there be enough evidence in your opinion? When a scientist synthesizes a functional protein in the lab through the process of natural selection?) to believe in the nonsense called "intelligent design". I'm sorry to call your belief that, but as long as you don't seriously answer the questions I raised, after your statement you have no problem If I ask you, I can't help but conclude that there is nothing behind the intelligent planning but religion and nothing else. Do you think otherwise? My questions await you and for all of them I will lift the glove.
    Until then, I suggest you either look for answers to the questions you have about evolution (again, people here helped you do that), or at least offer a worthy alternative to it. Intelligent planning is not an alternative worthy of its name.
    You know what - if intelligent design is a worthy alternative, why not propose an experiment to test it. Describe how you plan (in an intelligent way) an experiment, the results of which will confirm or initiate the idea that there is a planner for life, and it doesn't matter what it is, who it is, and why. You repeat and claim that this is your only claim - come and confirm it.
    Ideas that can help - check whether organisms are always perfectly coordinated for their function. to check whether organisms can undergo mutations that would damage their design (for example chromosome duplication). to check whether organisms obey the rule of evolutionary parsimony or maximum efficiency for function, as expected from perfect design (or whether the design was intelligent but imperfect - you can retreat to this position if you want).
    What research question do you pose to test your thesis?

27. Eddie:
    Your claim is incorrect.
    Evolution is a well-established scientific theory and there is no doubt that it must exist because it is mathematically proven.
    The intelligent planner is a delusion whose motives are all religious and there is no experiment that can be done to deal with it.
    Therefore, since time immemorial - it was science and not the theory of intelligent design that during its investigation also solved practical matters.
    It is not difficult to point out the many fruits that the theory of evolution has produced, the most important of which is the discovery of the structure of DNA and the development of ways to use it for medical purposes.
    Can you point to any fruit of the belief in intelligent design?
    Can you point to any research that was inspired by it?
    Nothing!

28. point:
    Your words in response 69 is what I tell him from the beginning. He simply ignores and responds to individual words out of context.
    For example, now he only responded to the suggestion I made as a parody of his reasons, even though I came back and made the same comment to him about the model.

29. Eddie, it's like claiming that there is no such thing as one or many seas, in any case do what you are told to do

30. I jumped into the pool last night and found it boiling...
    The discussion so far is generally enjoyable and waiting, but (as in all discussions of this type - for example in the link presented in response 4 above) proves why there is room for both views, and not because each has clear evidence, but because neither is able to bring unequivocal evidence to themselves , and respond appropriately to the difficulties of her neighbor.
    We should admit that both views are rational to one degree or another, but we don't have enough knowledge to gauge their truth value, even though each of us tends to give one of them more weight than the other. These are rational 'beliefs', which only much more advanced knowledge will be able to decide, if at all, between them.
    Therefore, it is necessary to continue debating, but the most correct thing in the context of such a discussion is to say goodbye to fanaticism, and this is true for the believers of both views. In the end, whether you are an evolutionist or an intelligent designer, as a scientist you will perform the same scientific performance. The kind of issue of the principled debate is in non-scientific fields, and a scientific website, popular or professional - is not the appropriate hostel for ideological storms. So maybe you should start thinking about lowering the flame height...

31. point –
    But you will agree with me that my far-fetched calculation relies much more on the reality we know, than his far-fetched calculation :>

    Besides, it's fun to play with numbers with lots of zeros.

    ------

    my new blog - Another science
    

32. To all the innocent.
    In order to calculate the probability of a certain event, one must know all the possible ways leading to that event. And as for us, we don't know all the ways to create protein, so all the calculations are a deception for the innocent

33. A –

    To remind you, you only need a catalytic site, and everything else is decoration. A setting whose importance increases as the complexity of the organism increases, but a setting. Originally, only a catalytic site was required to carry out the enzyme's action, albeit with low efficiency. This is also the answer to your second point. As for your taste, it is unfounded, because even hemoglobin can be seen the process of gradation, which results in its different and complex functionality with each step in evolution. Your taste in this case simply does not correspond to reality.

    I must comment that you are starting to use cheap and entertaining demagoguery, and trying to distort what Michael and Noam say. Isn't it a little awkward to take half a sentence and pretend it supports what you said?

    ------

    my new blog - Another science
    

34. Michael-

    If you want to claim that hemoglobin has always existed then please, I will not argue with you about it (even though this claim disputes evolution). And I have explained to you very well why the mathematical model shows a low probability for a natural process. And it is not only me but all evolutionary scientists claim that it is There is no chance for an average functional protein to form at once. Look at Roy's calculation and you will see that no more than 60^10 sequences have been scanned since the creation of the universe.

    Noam-

    I have no problem with you saying that this is enough to disprove evolution. And what other alternatives do you offer? I'm open to suggestions.

    Roi-

    It is clear that the more we increase the size of the protein, the greater the number of unhelpful combinations. You cannot claim that the chance of forming cytochrome (101 acids) is equivalent to the chance of forming a protein of 300 acids.

    In connection with "all or nothing" I was not talking about abiogenesis (although there are problems there as well) but about the sites scattered along the enzyme and necessary to carry out its action. In my opinion, it is not possible to graduate from a simpler enzyme, just as it is not possible to graduate in building a clock or a computer, while maintaining Functionality.

    light-

    I explained to you why your questions concern the intentions of the designer. And I explained to you why intelligent design has nothing to do with his intentions but only to show that he exists. These questions can also be addressed to the random believers. For example - how was the primary matter created? How was matter created from nothing? Can this be reproduced in an experiment How was the first cell created? What causes mutations to occur? These questions have no answer, yet the theory of evolution exists.

35. As I have already mentioned before, only monkeys think that 7 had evolution

36. A,

    I want a dinosaur, and if there is a planner I would like to receive a copy of the plans. I will pay any amount for dinosaur plans. Do the plans still exist, and if so why isn't the planner willing to rent them out or alternatively create new dinosaurs?
    I'm not ready to accept the answer "that way", and that's exactly what you did. Either you stand behind your theory, or you don't. If you can't stand behind it, refer me to someone who will answer my questions. You don't see anyone answering you "like this", when you make things difficult for the evolutionists.

37. A –

    You contradict yourself, on your own. You said that in a study conducted on cytochrome C, it had 10 out of 130 different options for folding, and out of that only 10 out of 27 ineffective options. This means that it is certainly possible to assume that even in the larger proteins - 300 and 400 amino acids in length - there is a statistically reasonable possibility of obtaining efficient and useful folds.

    Your last claim contains an even bigger contradiction. What does "all or nothing" mean? After all, DNA can replicate itself, on its own. So is RNA, as discovered in research from recent years. This means that a basic DNA or RNA strand is enough for us to start the chain of evolution and self-improvement. No one demands that a human being suddenly be created in the middle of the primordial ocean. But already today we have good evidence that DNA and RNA can survive inside fatty bubbles that form by themselves, and even replicate themselves. And here you have the most basic cell. Now he just needs to go through… evolution!

    And everything fell into place peacefully.

    have a good week,

    Roy.

    ------

    my new blog - Another science
    

38. A,

    Claiming that disproving one theory proves a completely different theory is a basic logical fallacy.
    The refutation of the theory of evolution (if carried out) will only prove the invalidity of the theory of evolution.
    The theory of intelligent design explains everything and therefore nothing, it is simply another way of saying: "I have no idea how life was created, and I have no desire to investigate it"

39. A:
    So that you get an idea of ​​what I mean when I talk about a model in which probability is activated, try to answer yourself the following two questions:
    1. On a sheet of paper, you can draw infinite lines in infinite shapes. What is the probability that when you fold it, the fold will take exactly the shape of a straight line? The kind of considerations you make would give zero probability to a thing that happens with probability 1!
    2. Given two stars that rotate around a common center of gravity and also rotate around their axis - their rotation speeds around their axis can have infinite values. What is the probability that one of them will turn at such a rate that it constantly turns its fixed side towards the other? Here too - you would give zero probability to something happening in front of your eyes all the time when the moon faces us in a fixed direction and not in front of your eyes it happens for many moons.

    You simply ignore everything that is happening - from natural selection, the size of the earth that allows for endless "experiments" to be conducted at the same time and practically anything relevant to the question and then blame us for getting the wrong answer.

40. A:
    Please tell me honestly. Isn't your belief in an intelligent designer simply a consequence of the fact that you are religious?
    Don't you mean the God described in the Torah (according to which the cow and the Tigris come out from the same point and the rabbit and the rabbit raise their cud)?

41. A:
    What an impressive dodge!
    Knows what? Let's make such concessions to evolution as well - if the planner doesn't need to be explained - surely something as small as hemoglobin doesn't need to be explained. We'll just say it exists and that's it!
    It is difficult for me to understand what is necessary for a person to prefer to throw away a theory like evolution which there is no need to explain and whose existence can be proved mathematically and because you understand exactly its mathematical mechanism you can use it in other environments such as software development (as indeed they do) and say that because "A" is not Understands how probabilistic calculations are made and what is the process of building the model without which such calculations have no meaning. Something that cannot be explained and which in itself does not constitute an explanation should be preferred over such a self-evident principle.

42. pleasantness-

    The evidence for its existence stems from the improbability of a natural process. If we probabilistically rule out the natural process, we are left with a deliberate process.

    Fan-

    If the creator is complex and has a beginning, then yes, it must also have a creator. But since we do not know if it had a beginning (unlike man), we cannot claim that it also requires a creator.

    I didn't get to read all of Dawkins's book, but only a part (I'm more interested in professional books). But I'd love to hear from you how he can differentiate between planned objects and those that only seem planned. In my opinion, it can't be done.

    Roi-

    You are absolutely right about the cytochrome, at least theoretically it is possible from a probabilistic point of view. What is not possible in my opinion is a more complex protein such as 300 and 400 amino acids (average length of a protein). Finding a functional protein with 300 acids is one in 120^10. And that is already hopeless even according to the beautiful (and quite accurate) calculation you gave. Therefore, we must make sure that there is a step up from a simpler protein. And as I explained, it doesn't seem possible because it's all or nothing. You One can think of the degree in a protein as the degree in the formation of a stop watch. You cannot build a clock gradually when each part is useful in turn, this also applies to proteins in my opinion, as I explained.

    Michael Vaor-Niven It is possible from a natural process. But the discussion here is whether a natural process has the power to create long functional proteins. All the questions about the designer are irrelevant because the design theory does not try to explain his identity but only to show that he exists, that's all the difference. Have a nice week everyone …

43. A,

    I would reply to your claims but you don't bother to reply to mine. Let's focus on one: I want a dinosaur. What are the chances of getting the plans from the designer, and can I use his factory? And if the answer is negative to both questions, I want to know why he destroyed his works.

44. Nice video, thanks Michael

45. I came back from a family event and I see that "A" is getting aa answers.
    Let me ask you, A, as one who admits the existence of harmful evolution ("natural degeneration").
    1. How does this degeneration apply? Is it by random changes in the genes?
    2. What prevents gene modification from being beneficial? If nothing prevents it from being useful - then there is evolution - right?
    3. If something prevents change from being beneficial even though complete randomness can make change beneficial - doesn't that mean that the "intelligent" planner is dumber than randomness?

    Come on and stop pretending. The intelligent planner you are talking about is the one that when you are not trying to lie to secularists you call God right? He was always alive, he creates animals and then destroys them, you don't need a scientific finding to believe in him and you even have to fight science to confuse others who will believe in him and... yes.... He sends people into the streets to protect mothers who abuse their children.

    I recently came across a cute clip about him:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7izNfVx7Guo

46. And another addition - the number of bacteria that have existed since time immemorial, 10 to the 55th power, (10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000), is 10 times greater to the 21st power (1000000000000000000000) than the number of the star Sea that exists in the universe, or 10 times to the 37th power (10000000000000000000000000000000000000) of the number of grains of sand on Earth.

    It's always good to put proportion into calculations.

    ------

    my new blog - Another science
    

47. A small correction: if we count the total number of bacteria that have existed since the beginning of life, we need to multiply the initial population - 10 to the power of 29 bacteria - by 2 to the power (10 to the power of 13), or by 10 to the power of 26. In summary, the number of bacteria that existed It has always exceeded 10 to the 55th power, and each one carried new mutations and new gene changes.

    Of course, all of this is a hand-waving calculation, but it is enough to illustrate the orders of magnitude involved.

48. A –

    The probability claim is very problematic. 10 to the 27th power is a number that sounds big, but let's look at some other data from nature:

    1. There are approximately 100,000 bacteria (10 to the 5th power) in each ml of ocean.
    2. There is approximately 1,300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ml of water in all the oceans on Earth.
    3. It turns out that there are approximately 10 to the power of 29 bacteria on Earth.
    (Look at the section - we have already reached a number of bacteria a hundred times greater than the number of alternatives to cytochrome that you suggested)

    But let's continue…

    4. There is no fixed number of genes for bacteria, but let's assume that a typical bacterium has at least 1,000 genes (a claim that seems reasonable, since yeast has ~6,000 genes).

    5. It turns out that in the ancient soup - the primordial ocean that contained living cells - there were at least 10 times 31 gene sequences, each of which had at least one mutation, and each generation added more and more mutations. And from the moment you get a positive mutation, bacteria pass it on to their friends very easily and very quickly.

    So let's see - if according to your claim there are 10 to the power of 27 non-useful configurations for cytochrome C mutations, then there were at least 10,000 bacteria that contained the efficient configurations of cytochrome C, and passed them on to their friends, and from there evolution continued as a series.

    But that's not all!

    6. A good bacterium can divide every hour (and this is another slow bacterium). With each division, additional mutations enter the bacteria's genes, and new genes can be created. If we take the initial population that we talked about, of 10 to the power of 27 bacteria, and check how many times this population has undergone division in all the time since the creation of life (let's throw in three billion years, and the excess on me), we will get that since the beginning of life is about 10 to the power of 13 hours, which is 10 In possession of 13 generations of bacteria (10,000,000,000,000). And that means the number of possible mutant genetic sequences resulting from division alone is 10 to the 40th power. And that, my friend, is a billion times higher than the number of inefficient configurations of cytochrome C.

    Oh, and that's just about bacteria. We also do not include here the number of unicellular algae, protists or archaea which are also found in the thousands in every ml of water. We also do not include the number of mutations that occur in each cell as a result of radiation, recombinations, translocations, duplications, inversions and other changes in the genome that occur every minute in living cells.

    So what is the conclusion? In short, statistical calculations are not really worth much, because we do not understand enough the way in which new genes are created. But if you really want to use statistical calculations that you don't understand (and no one else can tell if they're correct) to explain why new genes can't be formed from mutations, then my statistical explanation beats yours.

    Shabbat Shalom,

    Roy.

    ------

    my new blog - Another science
    

49. A',

    If the creator has a creator, then it must be even more complex than him, and therefore the question remains.
    It is also not clear how the declaration that the creator had no beginning removes from the table the question of his own complexity, or how it helps to explain the complexity of the physical world.

    Regarding your question, you mentioned Dawkins and you mentioned clocks, is it possible to conclude that you read his book The Blind Watchmaker and his detailed explanation of the difference between designed objects and "designoid" objects (ie objects that appear to be designed, because they are clearly designed to perform some function, but they are not)?
    If so, I would appreciate it if you could explain which parts of his argument you found unsatisfactory, and we can continue the discussion from there.

50. A,

    You reject the evolutionary explanation on the grounds that it is probabilistically improbable, but you adopt an explanation of an unknown intelligent creator, whose existence is unproven, who has no end and no beginning, who is not known how he was created, whose properties are unknown, what motivates him and according to which laws are unknown (if at all) it works, and in fact it is all an invention designed to fill an empty space in our current ability to explain certain things.

    If you feel more comfortable adopting this explanation - you will be fine.
    Fortunately, most scientists do not think so, otherwise human knowledge would have remained behind for hundreds or even thousands of years.

51. Hello Roy-

    "I showed you that it is possible to create many different types of hemoglobin that are functional at different levels, with many different mutations. The conclusion is that regardless of the length of the protein, there are many ways to reach an active protein. It is not about one way out of a billion, but millions of different ways out of a billion. "-Very true. And this claim has even been confirmed in serious studies by both evolutionists and creationists. But the critical question is how many of the total possible combinations for a given system can be used for another useful function. Studies I have seen have shown that in the cytochrome c protein out of 130^10 possible configurations, as an astronomical number of 93^10 can be used as an alternative to cytochrome. And there are still about 37^10 configurations that are not cytochrome. Even if we get large and claim that there may be about a billion other useful properties that are not cytochrome, we are still left with 27^10, which is a billion times the number of grains of sand in the world. But who He was actually talking about cytochrome? What about much more complex proteins consisting of 300 and 400 amino acids? It is hopeless according to this study.

    "Absolutely in principle, the simple 'hem' group is enough to capture oxygen, and all the protein around it is just decoration, "-not as far as I know. The he molecule is wrapped in a hydrophobic pocket that protects it from the liquid environment in which it is active (the blood fluid). And this hydrophobic pocket must also be present for it to bind oxygen.

    even check out the wiki-

    http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%92%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9F

52. Or - You asked an excellent question. What is a complex thing? Or it would be more correct to say designed. A pile of sand is also a complex thing but can be created in nature. From all the definitions I found (and I think this is also Dawkins' definition), a designed thing is something whose chances of being created naturally seem low Let's take for example a famous example - a clock. Why, when we see a clock, do we conclude that it cannot be created in nature? Because of several reasons, first of all -

    The material from which the watch is made does not reproduce and does not bequeath changes, therefore it cannot be created by a natural process

    Now let's see if this law also applies to living things - living things do not reproduce and do not leave changes unless there are complex proteins that reproduce it. And these proteins are more complex than a clock. It turns out - the same reason why it is claimed that a clock cannot be created also exists in living things, which are much more complex a clock

    To the fan - you are actually asking who created the creator. You are just forgetting that the creator may not have had a beginning or that someone created him too. What is not valid for man - man knows that there was a beginning and the evidence for this exists from many fields of science such as physics, biology, biochemistry, geology and more. And as I explained above - the argument put forward by intelligent design is better because it claims that the best explanation for the complexity of a clock before our eyes is the intelligent explanation, and not the natural one. Do you agree? Do you think the best explanation for the existence of engines (such as the Shotun) is the natural explanation and not the intelligent one? Do you think an engine Can be created by a natural process?

53. A –

    You said that in order for functional hemoglobin to be formed, hundreds of mutations are needed. I showed you that it is possible to create many different types of hemoglobin that are functional at different levels, with many different mutations. The conclusion is that regardless of the length of the protein, there are many ways to reach an active protein. It is not about one way out of a billion, but millions of different ways out of a billion.

    Last but not least, the 'hem' group is the most important part of hemoglobin. It allows the oxygen to be captured and is the one that releases it. In principle, the simple 'hem' group is enough to capture oxygen, and all the protein around it is only a decoration, which adapts the 'hem' abilities to the organism. This protein, as we have seen, is easily mutated, and each mutation can adapt it to another organism, in the way of evolution. So the real question you should be asking is what is the chance of the 'them' forming on its own, not what is the chance of a giant protein forming on its own. And since the 'they' group is much simpler than a protein, it looks like your problem is now largely solved. Mazel Tov.

    Oh, and I'm also looking forward to more detailed answers from you on the subject of intelligent design.

    ------

    my new blog - Another science
    

54. A',

    Which explanation seems more likely to excuse the existence of tremendous complexity:
    1. Slow growth from smaller complexity.
    2. The existence of an even greater complexity.

    Can option 2 even be considered an excuse? Or maybe it is a double-edged sword in the hands of anyone who tries to explain away the complexity of life by building from the top down? As evolutionists who understand that complex biological systems were created from simpler systems, there is no reason to feel embarrassed in front of complex systems, even if not every detail of their construction process is understood yet.

    post Scriptum. Note that even from the erroneous analogy of the people of intelligent planning to objects actually designed by man, it is possible to learn that complex planning always grows out of a simpler model, after all, even Rome was not built in a day. The difference between technological development and biological evolution is only in the mechanism that creates the drive for improvement.

55. A,

    I'm not a physicist and I don't know the answers to your questions. But the questions are not relevant to the discussion. Don't get off topic. The debate is evolution versus intelligent design. You stated that you don't have a problem with me raising questions about your alternative to evolution, but you haven't answered a single question. You repeat your claim - that life is too complex to be formed by a natural evolutionary process. Admit that this is not a substantive discussion. I can equally tell you that life is not complex enough to rule out formation by a natural evolutionary process. Who determines when the limit of complexity passes the ability of evolution?
    I suggest you answer the questions I asked, or refer me to a source that answers the questions. If you question one theory, that doesn't mean you should wholeheartedly embrace another. You're likening a dalopy wearing sabbaths who rejects a fancy garment because he found a stain on it, so he prefers to keep his sabbaths. You will not be able to find a scientific theory that you cannot - if you insist - find "flaws" or "lack of evidence" or "missing links" in it. If you don't accept evolution (and the other commenters here explain to you why you should) at least don't adopt creationism, or you'd rather answer my questions.

56. heart'-

    The role of "them" is to hold an iron atom at its base.

    Roi-

    I carefully read the interesting article. But I still didn't get an answer there regarding how simple the most basic globin molecule is (the length of the molecule is the main problem). If you have this data, it would be interesting.

    Michael-

    Degeneration can also occur due to natural genetic drift. This has nothing to do with the design argument. To illustrate - even a broken computer (or one with bugs) is a clear product of design.

    light-

    First, your questions do not pertain to intelligent design. Intelligent design claims only one thing - the chance of a biological system forming is too low for a natural evolutionary process. But because you asked, I will answer you - my answer will be "I don't know" to all questions. But remember that this has nothing to do with the design claim. The same questions can also be applied to the creation of the universe, for example-

    1) What process created the initial material?
    2) How does no matter become matter?
    3) What materials were involved in the process?
    4) Can this be reproduced in the laboratory?
    5) Is it possible to prove that mutations cannot be intentional? How?
    6) Why do mutations occur? What is the exact material process that causes them to occur?
    7) What is dark matter?
    I could go on but that's enough.

57. Michael,
    If you managed to convince someone - congratulations.

    A,
    You agreed that I would ask you some questions about the alternative you proposed - the intelligent planning. So here it begins:
    1. Who is the intelligent planner - is he a living being? Is he a supernatural force?
    2. How many intelligent planners are there? Why this number?
    3. Is the intelligence of the planner infinite? Is it possible that the design is flawed?
    4. Ecologists warn that some organism, designed by the intelligent designer, is about to become extinct. Will the intelligent designer be able to bring it back to life? If so, how can I convince him to do so?
    5. Why did the intelligent planner plan life? Is he pursuing a certain goal, or did he do it for the sake of glorifying his hard work (if he has hands)? Does he work for a salary, and if so, how can I hire his services?
    6. Did the intelligent planner try to match the forms of life he planned with their living environment? If so, what kind of life forms does he plan for a glacier-free pole, instead of polar bears?
    7. In what way did the designer create his works after the raw design? Did he make them in factories, and if so can I use them myself?
    8. Does the planner believe in transparency, and if so how can I access the plans?
    9. How does the designer's intelligence manifest itself physically - is it computer artificial intelligence software? Are neurons involved in it? Or another model of intelligence?
    10. Why did the designer destroy some of his works? Did he not like them? Can I purchase surplus production, or alternatively look at the old plans? I have a fondness for dinosaurs, can I at least understand what they did?
    11. What are the planner's plans for the future? Does he continue to design organisms or has he stopped? If he stops, can I convince him to return to the craft? If he still plans, where and when can I first meet his newest creations?

    I don't want to bore you too much, for now I will settle for decent answers to my questions, or at least the link that answers them.

58. I find myself forced to say here again the obvious, which is that - beyond everything that has already been said - intelligent planning does not explain anything because if in order to create life a planner is needed (which is, obviously, alive) the question still arises as to how life was created (that is - for those who meanwhile Forget the beginning of the sentence, as can be expected from those who believe in intelligent design, the exact same question is asked as the answer to which it was invented).
    In the same context, I would point out (although this kind of debate has not yet emerged in this discussion) that none of the supporters of evolution claim that intelligent planning is not something that can be done (after all, there are quite a few projects in which contemporary scientists are trying to do exactly that) but that this is not what happened.
    One of the reasons why intelligent planning should be rejected is of course the lack of intelligence in some of the "planning" (which is manifested, among other things, in the wings of the ostrich, the degenerate eyes of bats, types of moles and deep-sea fish, and many other nonsense).

59. A brief history of hemoglobins: plant, animal, protist, and bacteria.
    RC Hardison

    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=39118&blobtype=pdf

    It is interesting to note that hemoglobin exists in different but similar versions also in unicellular algae, where it is used to capture oxygen. It is also present in bacteria, protists, plants and animals. Each time, a small number of mutations were enough to give hemoglobin a different role within the cell or within the body.

60. A –

    What is the role of the 'they' in globin?

61. Michael-chlorophyll is only similar in the active site to the "hem" molecule and that's it (resemblance of only a few atoms) The globin molecule consists of 154 acids which is much higher and has a completely different function. From what I understand it is not even coded directly from the DNA (see last comment on Roy's link) So chlorophyll could not be a simpler version of globin.

62. The planned creation is not an alternative, it is just another theory, one that buys its world by way of the negation of the other theories.
    In fact, there are no log tools that provide proof that this is so.
    I don't know the position of the supporters of intelligent planning regarding the question of time, but in the first year of university, they construct the entire differential calculus (or at least most of it) from 13 axioms of the orderly field. These are exactly the tools a geologist uses in dating a rock that is several years old beyond the age of creation.
    If I believed in the planned vision that you had 6000 years ago, I probably wouldn't sleep at night for fear that all my savings are sitting in a bank whose actions are exactly according to these 13 axioms...Imagine that I have a million shekels in the bank that I have saved with labor all my life, but in one moment 1000000 is really less than 6000.
    Instead of sitting down and reading the news, I would log in every five minutes to my bank account website to make sure this doesn't happen.
    Now if we increase our time frame let's say to 4.9 billion years and add Aliyah to the planned creation it is a little more difficult....
    But let's try anyway, let's start with deduction and go down from 4.9 to today.
    Wait, which tools exactly do I use and which logic? Help me, I really don't know!
    Sorry, I have no tools at all to understand what you are trying to tell me! I was born after man discovered that the earth revolves around the sun.... Maybe try this theory a few years before maybe they have the appropriate tools

63. A:
    You just don't understand what they are telling you!

    1. Man is part of nature and therefore what happens to him happens in nature.
    2. It does not just happen but under the influence of the environment and this includes the activity of different substances in different ways. You try to paint it as random but it is not random.
    3. The link that Roy brought presents more logical processes than the ones you presented, which I already compared to throwing molecules into space. This is exactly the model thing I was talking about.

64. http://www.cyclingforums.com/archive/index.php/t-85961.html

    ------

    my new blog - Another science

65. Michael - Molecules are built in nature? What catalysts are you talking about? I think you are talking about abiogenesis and not about evolution, these are two different fields. According to evolution, the formation of proteins occurs as a result of mutations occurring in the genome. The problem - in order for a functional globin to be formed, hundreds of mutations of All or nothing. Am I so far wrong? If so, tell me why.

66. A:
    You are just completely confused:
    You are the one who diverted the discussion in a completely different direction by not answering my previous claims.
    In addition to that, nothing you said is true.
    I repeat - molecules are built in nature gradually and by means of various catalysts that increase the probability of their meeting. You just throw molecules into space (what space?) and expect some random structure to form.
    Although it has been said a million times here that randomness is not the way of natural selection, but it really doesn't bother you.
    I repeat - you do not know what you are talking about and when you are required to risk money on the matter you are suddenly afraid to speak your mind because you know that the person behind your opinion is someone who cannot be trusted.

67. Michael - Do you see how you are diverting the discussion to another topic? For your information - everything I have written is absolutely correct, scientifically and empirically. If you think I am wrong about something, you are welcome to correct me. We will not progress like this if we simply claim that the other side is wrong and that is it. The globin protein? Describe the steps.

68. By the way, a:
    I noticed that you again avoided answering the previous claims I made.
    So know that I'm still waiting for an answer on those too, but your answer to the last question is of particular interest to me and I emphasize: I mean it seriously! If you agree we will find a way to arrange it!

    someone:
    It's a shame that how follows these discussions and realizes that only one side is right in them.

69. A:
    Do not worry.
    "Too technical" has never put me off.
    In fact, for me - the combination of the words "technical" and "too" hardly go together.
    The point is that the things you wrote are getting to a level that is too technical for you.
    You don't have enough control over any of the relevant topics.
    To apply probabilistic calculations you need to base yourself on a model where they are valid.
    You don't have a model of chemistry (including the effect of various enzymes) and you are trying to describe the construction of a molecule in such a stupid way that it hardly matches the creation process of any molecule in nature.

    Let's check for a moment if you understand something about probability - a field on which a large part of your considerations are based.
    I will give you a riddle from this field and we will see if you dare to trust your conclusions when they involve investing money and not bragging and deceiving others:
    Consider the following game (which involves a participation fee):
    There are 100 people who each received one of the numbers between 1 and 100.
    There is a room inside which is a thick wooden surface with 100 holes arranged in a row and covered with lids.
    Inside the holes are written the numbers from 1 to 100 in random order.
    The job of each person is to identify the hole where their number is written.
    For this purpose he is allowed to open the lids of 50 holes of his choice, look into them and close them back.
    Then he must go to the game managers and say in which hole he thinks his number is.
    After telling the managers this he goes home and cannot have any contact with the others.
    After everyone has gone through the room checkers who manage all the people's guesses.
    If everyone guessed correctly, they distribute a prize of NIS 1000 to each.
    Otherwise they don't share anything.
    Before the people enter the room they are allowed to discuss among themselves and make any decision they want.
    How much is it worth to them - if they are smart, to pay for participating in the game?

    To check if you trust yourself answer the following practical question:
    It was said that I and 99 of my friends are willing to pay 10 shekels each to participate in such a game that you will finance the prizes distributed in it.
    This means that for each cycle of the game you are paid 1000 new shekels.
    Do you want to commit to playing with us, let's say, twenty such games?

70. Response to A. All the evidence for intelligent design originates simply from the ignorance of a certain biological subject by those who claim it. Since no one can know all the science, they take advantage of this fact and confuse the public.
    Someone: Yes, intelligent planning or no intelligent planning, that's exactly the illogical demand. Why is it always when it comes to science and religion, there is a requirement to put truth and falsehood on the same level?

71. Michael - I take the serious evidence from information theory. I hope you know biochemistry. For this purpose, I will take a globin molecule (as part of the quaternary structure of the hemoglobin molecule). including all other possible useful sequences). Do you understand what order of magnitude is involved? Do you understand that even 154 billion years is nothing to achieve this molecule? And what do the professional evolutionists claim? That this molecule evolved from a simpler molecule. The protein exists, a dream is given that an active globin will be formed, this is the chemical weights of the formation of hydrogen sulfur bonds and the creation of a hydrophobic pocket for the active site of the molecule (they are a molecule). I hope the explanation was not too technical.

72. You can spend a lifetime arguing.
    With words you can say anything and contradict it,
    But in the field things look and sound differently.

    There is a wide place for all opinions and if you look more closely,
    You see that science lives well with other approaches that sometimes
    Works quite well and doesn't fall at all because of a different approach.

    Just idle arguments.
    Yes intelligent planning, not intelligent planning.
    It is of no use to anyone, and where one is persuasive,
    The other is hurt and where one is hurt the other attacks.

    You seem to be just enjoying the argument.
    from the refinement of the various positions and the arguments of the majority
    We don't hold water and I think they belong to both sides.

    Anyway enjoy.

73. light:
    Contempt is definitely one of the considerations.
    This, by the way, means that the argument almost always starts in a blatant way.
    I do try to find a shred of information in the nonsense and respond to it, but many times there is simply no real content that allows for a serious discussion.
    The one who survives the blunt part is the one who has something to say other than slander and blasphemy and then a substantive discussion can develop.
    When someone doesn't have anything serious to say, he just keeps tasting the arm rest until he realizes that his ramblings are doing his goals more harm than good.
    One of the things I sometimes do - especially when the religious origin of the ostracism is clear beyond any doubt - is to show what the stones he throws can do to the glass house where he lives.
    With Barel, at the point where he started to show signs of conviction, I pointed out in one of the previous comments that it was an interesting process.
    The debate between us started in another discussion in which he made a nice argument against evolution. Beautiful - but not true.
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-basics-0004092/#comment-207406
    I really enjoyed the argument because it encouraged me to think about a topic I hadn't thought about before and to find an explanation for it that was even more beautiful than the question.
    I complimented him on the question and gave him the explanation, and then he frustrated me for a long time with his unwillingness to accept such a successful answer.
    The discussion drifted from streaks to blunt streaks, but apparently, beneath the surface, the arguments did their job.
    At some point the discussion went silent without Barel admitting that my answer was acceptable to him, but I tend to believe that his logic accepted it and his beliefs prevented him from admitting it.
    He returned to his war on evolution in the discussion I pointed to in a previous answer, and even here the tones were loud and harsh, but in the end his logic prevailed over the other motivations (something that is still far from happening with A) and he admitted that he was convinced of the correctness of the claims made in that discussion.
    He tried once again in a later discussion to point out a problem with evolution or at least in an article that brought findings supporting it, but in this discussion he was already much more balanced and the discussion was mostly business-like and ended when his arguments were closed.

    A: Since you believe in absolute nonsense, it is not clear to me why the belief that I will be convinced of something is difficult for you. I guess you just had nothing to say so you decided to say the nonsense you said.
    True: I will not be convinced by nonsense and it is also true that I assume that what you say is nonsense but you are welcome to prove the opposite.
    Before that, you are of course welcome to answer what I told you in my previous response.

74. Michael-

    If you dismiss the other side's arguments beforehand without checking, then I find it hard to believe that you will be convinced of anything.

    Or - in my opinion, intelligent design is a worthy alternative to evolution. Ask as many questions as you want. But if you don't keep an open mind, I don't think it will be particularly interesting.

75. Michael,

    My question was not rhetorical. In talkbacks you can't hear tones, and I understand why you might think the question is rhetorical. I was really wondering if you were able to convince anyone, and if you say yes then congratulations. But I still think that you did not insult the person you convinced - or am I wrong (this is not rhetorical)?
    I didn't preach morality to you, I told you my opinion, which is different from yours.
    How can you identify (in advance) a person who cannot be convinced and distinguish him from a person who is ready to be convinced, given the appropriate logical arguments? On the Internet, it is impossible to see if the person in front of you is religious and therefore it will probably be almost impossible to convince him for the reasons I mentioned, but you knew in advance that there was a point in talking to A and there was no point in talking to Dotan, and hence you decided to take two different approaches towards them. how did you know? According to the contempt?
    To clarify: the last paragraph was not cynical/rhetorical/intended to insult/belittle, etc.

    A',

    If you don't believe in evolution, what do you believe in? By intelligent planning? Because then I (and probably Michael too) have some pointed questions for you.

76. light:
    Your approach is puzzling to me.
    The beginning of the conversation between us with your simple moral preaching to me.
    You say that me insulting creationists alienates them instead of fighting.
    Throughout almost the entire discussion below you basically say that it is impossible to bring them together.
    If this is your opinion - then what harm do you think I cause if I keep them away? There is none further from where they are.
    Then you ask me (and here is the arrogance) a question that you think is rhetorical: "Did my approach achieve the desired results.
    My answer on this matter (and I demonstrated it) is that she achieved - not only more than your approach achieved - but more than you believe is even possible to achieve.
    Now let's stop arguing among ourselves and try - each in his own way - to help the kidnapped babies to free themselves from the brainwashing.

    A:
    The original news item you're referring to is not the research - it's a press release and it's no wonder you didn't find all the details there.
    If you want to claim that they happened you must base your claim on the research.
    Be aware, however, that scientists don't usually base their advertising on a lie so you're pretty sure you're in for a disappointment.
    I don't know what peer review you are talking about.
    Do you also read peer reviews for the quibbles of sages?
    It is unwise for two creationists to pretend they are peer-reviewing each other.
    In general - this whole CSC is a trending institute as it even declares itself. How one can expect to find words of truth in it is simply beyond my understanding.
    The fact that you continue to ignore is that all real science institutions reject creationism and accept evolution. Are you saying that everyone is stupid?
    It reminds me of the man who is driving on the freeway and hears a warning on the radio about a crazy driver going the opposite direction.
    "They say there is one like that?!" , he says to himself, "All the drivers I saw today drive against the direction!".
    This is a joke on you.
    So you found someone who claimed some nonsense about the nylon and you will certainly find nonsense against any antibiotic that the bacteria have adapted to and you will certainly also find nonsense against all the examples given here
    http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-speciation.pdf
    And the reason for this is of course that you meet the definition of light - you have no intention of being convinced.

77. Michael,

    I didn't mean to condescend to you. I have no intention of offending you or any other reader on the site - so first of all I'm sorry you felt that way. What made you feel condescending on my part? I presented a different opinion than yours, and argued that your position is wrong. I even reasoned. I don't see where the condescension is here, but since you do see it then surely you can point it out.
    To your question, I have not been able, to the best of my recollection, to convert a person from a creationist view to an evolutionist view. But I'm pretty sure a few people removed the doubts from their hearts after talking to me about it. As you know, creationism is rooted in religion and not in logic, so logical discussion has no power to root it once it has taken root. The desire to believe something is just too strong. Creationists, those who do claim to be rationalists, can be taken back one step at a time: from biblical creation to general and non-binding intelligent design, to God-directed evolution to divine laws of physics that directed evolution with the first intention of its results and a thousand other inventions. But the important recognition that life is not planned from above It is a step that many religious people simply refuse to take. Evolution, as science defines it today, does not require divine intervention to create the complexity of life. For a religious person, it is robbing God of the crown of creation. Therefore, they retreat to all kinds of ideas that will silence the argument between their rationale and their desire to continue to believe in God. In order to convince creationists of evolution, much more needs to be done than I can do in a talkback. A human being should come with an open mind, and not with a definite goal to slander anyone who contradicts his untested belief. Unfortunately, there are many creationists who behave like this.

78. True !
    I'm as dangerous as a milk cat.

    you are an amazing person.

79. Michael-

    You will be surprised to hear that I actually read and accessed the original news in English, and there, too, there is no detail to the molecular level so that I can relate. I am also familiar with the example of nylon digestion and I happened to read an article in which a pair of scientists claimed (as far as I remember) that what happened there was not a frame shift mutation, but a plasmid that was transferred or the activation of a gene that existed. Regarding the peer-reviewed articles. This is one of the issues raised against the creationists. In response, the Discovery Institute published a list of peer-reviewed articles. See here, what do you think about this fact?

    http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

80. A:
    Note an interesting phenomenon.
    Thousands of peer-reviewed articles are written about everything related to evolution, and all (but all!) of the academic establishment is convinced of its existence.
    See here to prove it:
    http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf
    There is no research involved in intelligent planning. There are only books that preach to the general and ignorant audience in order to convince them.

81. A:
    If you read the discussion as well, you will see that the issue of complexity is also answered and the war waged by various parties who dig up arguments that have long been disproved is simply embarrassing.
    As for what you cannot relate to - that is the state of most science. You have to read the study to refer to it but what you did in your previous comment was to refer to it without reading it and claim that the conclusions reached in this study were never made.
    In the discussion after the article, many other things are also discussed, including a bacterium that developed the ability to digest nylon (yes! a special enzyme for this purpose).

82. Laur and Michael-

    Indeed, I do not wish to develop a creationist debate here.

    As a matter of interest, the changes that occurred in connection with the light receptors are not detailed, so I cannot refer to what was said (how many nucleotides exactly?)

    I also did not understand what you meant by saying -

    "We show very clearly that mutations caused specific changes in a certain duplicated gene (opsin), thus allowing the new genes to work with other proteins in new ways. Today, these different ways of working form the genetic basis of the evidence."

    What methods exactly?

    Or. What you (you?) call the God of the Gaps is not really accurate. See the example of the discussion that took place in the link that Michael brought. There are some serious claims there, such as biological complexity. Many scientists today understand how complex biological systems are (atp, flagellum, etc.) and there is a difficulty serious about how they were created in an evolutionary process. Many books have been written (and are being written) on the subject, and only last week a new book by Stephen Meyer was published that examines the riddle of the origin of life, its findings and its problems.

83. Dotan:
    Precisely in the place where you come from, it is said "He who spares his tribe hates us."
    Besides, I have no intention of causing you pleasure of any kind.
    If it weren't for the danger of attitudes like yours, I wouldn't relate to you at all.
    The reference to you only stems from my desire to protect myself and my children and thwart the plan of your cult members to return us all to the Middle Ages.

84. There is no need to help our Michael,
    He does a great job himself.

    What's fun about him is the love of others,
    Even when he criticizes others who think differently than him,
    He does it gently and gently so that no one gets hurt.

    Cute as he is.

85. light:
    The arrogance in your response is quite outrageous.
    In a large part of the discussions that took place here on the site and to which you refer me - I was the one who defended evolution.
    Creationists who have any desire to understand are convinced.
    See, for example, the discussion summarized in Barel's response:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-sciam-0004093/#comment-210344
    I repeat that I know what works and what doesn't, but I don't oblige you to follow my path.
    Do as you understand and we'll see if you convince anyone.
    By the way - have you convinced yet?

86. Michael,

    You have been in the campaign for many years. Did your approach, in your opinion, achieve the desired results? If you say there is no way to convince the followers of intelligent design, why do you answer them? To convince other people to read their comments? What they will call is an evolutionist who insults those who oppose him. It's not convincing. If your target audience (rightly so, in my opinion) is the comment readers, you can make some claims and link to one of the many debates on the subject.

    A (I am writing to you in the masculine language only for convenience),

    I have no intention of reopening the debate. If you want to delve deeper, there have been long discussions on the subject, you are welcome to search the site.
    In short, I tell you that the strongest argument of the creationists, according to you, is "the God of the gaps"; That is, if science does not know how it was done, God did it. The problem with the argument is that as science progresses (and it will progress) the God of the gaps narrows. This happens with every discovery of a new fossil that completes some "missing link" in evolution and many more examples, which I don't have the strength or desire to repeat so many times - again, you are welcome to search the site.
    Also, I can equally claim that I have never seen an infinitely wise higher power create a new active site. Do you think this contradicts creationism? Would any creationist be convinced by this argument? No. The reason is that the "contradictions" that creationists find in evolution are one-way: you can't use the same argument against them, because you can't use any argument against them. Logical discussion simply overwhelms them, so they retreat from logic to the realms of faith. Logic is used by creationists as a tool to recruit new supporters or prevent them from joining the evolutionist "camp", but it is as interesting to them as the skin of garlic when used against it. If you don't believe, I tell you that on this very site (assuming the archive still stores it) you can find a debate between creationists and evolutionists in which, for a change, the evolutionists went on the attack and pushed the creationists back to irrational religious arguments - where they are outraged. Creationism is not science and is not subject to the laws of logic - it is a religious belief. Don't take my words for granted - read it yourself:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/what-is-evolution-1002094/

87. A:
    Some of the "unforeseen" things are mentioned in this article
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/ucsb-researchers-discover-the-dawn-of-animal-vision-2310072/
    And in the discussion that follows:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/longest-talkback-0111079/

88. Light-is there a way to show how a new active site is formed in evolution? I have knowledge of biology and as far as I know, the formation of a new active site has not been predicted yet. This is also the strong argument of the creationists - to say, we have not yet seen the development of a new enzyme.

89. light:
    I have been in this battleground for many years and I think I know how to answer who.
    As soon as someone expresses himself in a way that disparages science and scientists there is no point in trying to convince him. First of all, you have to prove to him that even with insults he is bad.
    Besides - there are almost no followers of intelligent planning. Most of them are simply religious in disguise and their agenda goes far beyond debating the scientific facts and far into the violent imposition of insane modes of behavior on us all.

90. Michael,
    I don't think the supporters of intelligent design should be insulted. It will not make them believe in evolution. It will only drive them away.

    Dotan,
    Evolution is not random. It is (also) driven by a force called natural selection, and it is influenced by environmental conditions. The environmental conditions can be other organisms (predators, competitors, food, parasites, etc.) or non-living conditions such as oxygen concentration, temp., acidity and so on. If you change the conditions, you will affect natural selection and hence evolution.
    For example: if the temperature in the North Pole rises to such an extent that the ice will be too thin to allow the polar bears to hunt on it, then natural selection will operate in favor of those who manage to survive with the new conditions (for example, go down south and hunt in Siberia/Canada, and deal with the new conditions there).

    I suggest you delve into a scientific theory before you determine whether it is ridiculous or not.

91. Dotan:
    By the way, the number of lines varies according to the browser you use.
    This doesn't happen of course in your stupid poem because you bothered to skip a line five times without saying a single smart thing.

92. Dotan:
    Really hard question.
    The answer consists of several parts:
    1. Both of us.
    2. What is important?
    3. The fact that you attach importance to it shows that you can't concentrate enough to even understand five lines so you should stop trying to deal with what is several numbers bigger than you.

93. Which of us bothered to write five lines in his message?

94. Dotan:
    It is true that reason does not develop by chance and there are many factors (like religion) that even prevent its development.
    Evolution (as anyone who has ever read a text of five lines or more about it knows) does not cause things to develop "by chance".

95. mozar.
    It actually sounds ridiculous to me that serious scientists,
    able to still think about evolution when all the revelations
    Just deepening more and more the intelligence in this whole universe.
    Sorry, but that kind of intelligence doesn't develop by accident.

96. Rah:
    It's not that this nonsense is taking hold, it's that it's not letting go of the hold it had.
    To remind you - in the past everyone thought so.
    Today, at least, all scientists dealing with biology and most scientists in general have already given up on nonsense (this also appears in the survey).
    That is why science teaching is so important.

97. The survey worries me, only 32% "say that man and other living creatures have evolved over time and that evolution is a phenomenon of a natural process such as natural selection"?
    Which means that the nonsense of intelligent planning takes hold and people don't think rationally. But actually what's new here..

98. Omer:
    Engineering and science are intertwined in a way that is almost inseparable.
    Without the science behind engineering, engineering would not be possible. Engineering is also a way in which an important part of the scientific work is carried out and is the part of the confrontation between theory and reality: engineering planning is actually a collection of mathematical calculations that take scientific laws, base an operative forecast on them (for example "if you do this and that you will succeed in landing on the moon") and the realization of the plan is In fact, an experiment that confirms or disproves parts of the theory (or the correctness of the calculations).

99. The landing on the moon - an engineering and not a scientific achievement.

100. There is no limit to curiosity

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.